The case is: Enron Case!
Please check the instructions in the uploaded file below and make sure to use Harvard style.
1
ACC3155 FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS AND VALUATION
ACADEMIC YEAR 2023-2024
Detailed requirements and marking criteria for Group Assignment
You are required to work in a group of 2-3 members to identify a real-world “red flag” case
and critically analyse the situation.
• You are required to sign up for a group online using the “sign-up sheet” on the My
Learning of myUniHub.
• You are strongly advised to discuss among yourselves before forming a group to ensure
that all members are prepared to work together as a team in completing the Group
Assignment.
• Identify a real-world “red flag” case, which could be any company in any country, still
in existence or already liquidated, that you are able to find sufficient publicly available
information to analyse the situation.
• You are required to critically analyse the “red flag indicators” of the identified case that
could have been resolved subsequently that enable the company to continue business,
or that put the company under administration, or that had caused the company to close
down, as publicly reported via reliable sources.
Group Assignment
(20% of the module weighting)
You are required to work in a group of 2-3 members to identify a real-world “red flag” case
and critically analyse the situation, and prepare a report (maximum 2,000 word).
Assignment structure,
format and details
A report that contains critical analysis of a real-world “red flag”
situation.
Submission date, time Learning week 22 (Your Tutor will advise of the exact day and time)
via My Learning of myUniHub
Feedback type & date Formative feedback: Available over the learning weeks during the
Lecture and Seminar sessions, Tutor’s office hours, and any other pre-
arranged sessions. You can also contact the Learning Enhancement
Team via [email protected] for academic writing support and other
related aspects.
Summative feedback: Written feedback within 3 to 4 learning weeks
upon submission.
Assessed learning
outcomes
• Critically evaluate the quality of financial reporting and identify
the ‘red flags’ of creative accounting.
Key reading and
learning resources
• Lecture and Seminar materials
• Online websites and relevant resources (such as Financial Times)
2
Detailed requirements and marking criteria for Group Assignment (cont’d)
The report with a maximum word limit of 2,000 words (excluding cover page, content page
and reference list) must be prepared using Microsoft Word and should include, at least, the
following elements and contents:
Assessment criteria
Marks
allocations
Cover page
• Module code and name.
• Student number.
• Academic year and title of work.
• The name of your identified real-world “red flag” case.
*
Content page
• Proper title and heading with complete page referencing.
*
Chapter 1: Introduction to the report
• The purpose of the report.
• Justification for the identified case.
• Method used in generating the report and its limitations.
• Signposting the report.
5
Chapter 2: Background and critical analysis of the identified case
In no particular order, you should include, at least, the following contents
relating to the identified case:
• Background information
• Causes and consequences
• Red flag indicators
10
25
40
Chapter 3: Summary and conclusion
• You should also include lesson learnt from your identified case.
10
References
• Use the Harvard referencing style.
• Complete list of references.
*
Presentation and language (including * above)
• Professional style of format and presentation.
• Professional style of language for report writing.
• Proper citation and referencing.
10
This 100 marks will be converted to 20% of the total assessment of the
module.
100
Note: Seek progressive feedback from your Tutor on your work – early feedback and
guidance are encouraged and welcomed while last-minutes appointment may not be
entertained.
3
Marking criteria with rubrics for Group Assignment
Assessment
criteria
Grade 1-4 Grade 5-8 Grade 9-12 Grade 13-16 Grade 17-20
Chapter 1 All required
elements
included with
excellent
presentation.
All required
elements
included with
good
presentation.
Most of the
required
elements
included.
Some of the
required
elements
included.
Missing most
of the required
elements.
Chapter 2 All required
elements
included with
excellent and
in-depth
analysis and
interpretation.
All required
elements
included with
good and in-
depth analysis
and
interpretation.
Most of the
required
elements
included with
adequate level
of analysis and
interpretation.
Some of the
required
elements
included with
limited level
of analysis and
interpretation.
Missing most
of the required
elements with
no or very
limited level
of analysis and
interpretation.
Chapter 3 Excellent
summary of
findings and
drawing
appropriate
conclusions.
Good
summary of
findings and
drawing
appropriate
conclusions.
Some
summary of
findings and
drawing some
appropriate
conclusions.
Limited
summary of
findings and
drawing
limited
appropriate
conclusions.
Inadequate
summary of
findings and
drawing
inadequate
conclusions.
Presentation
and language
Excellent
presentation
and language
with very
minor spelling
and
grammatical
errors.
Excellent and
consistent
standards of
referencing.
Good
presentation
and language
with few
spelling and
grammatical
errors.
Good
referencing
with minor
errors.
Satisfactory
presentation
and language
with some
spelling and
grammatical
errors.
Satisfactory
referencing
with some
errors.
Inconsistent
presentation
and language
with some
spelling and
grammatical
errors.
Some
referencing
with errors.
Poor
presentation
and language
with lots of
spelling and
grammatical
errors.
No or
inadequate
referencing.
