Category: Investing and financial markets

Please read the requirements carefully. It needs a Written Analysis and the Appendix (Excel to calculate).

It is important to know how to calculate the various ratios for analysis and to perform both horizontal and vertical analyses on the income statement and balance sheet. However, it is also vital to be able reflect on these analyses and to interpret what the various calculations tell us about a particular company and its financial health. This paper will give you an opportunity to analyze the ratios and the horizontal/vertical analyses in terms of the companys overall financial health.

Evaluate the companies from the “Benchmark – Topic 2 Assignment” in terms of the ratio, horizontal and vertical analyses. In 500-700 words address the following:

• What do the ratios calculated for Marshall Inc. tell us about the companys (a) liquidity (b) profitability and (c) solvency? Evaluate the companys financial health based on each category of ratios. Refer to Problem 14.04A in CNOW.
• Based on the changes reflected in the horizontal analysis of McDade Companys income statement discuss any changes that would be significant and what these changes might indicate for the company. Refer to Problem 14.01A in CNOW.
• Based on the changes reflected in the vertical analysis of Tri-Comic Companys income statement discuss any changes that would be significant and what these changes might indicate for the company. Refer to Problem 14.02A in CNOW.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success.

The Impact of Accounting Restatements on Firm Valuation: International Evidence

This topic focuses on how financial restatements affect firm value, measured using the Market-to-Book ratio or Tobins Q.

The instruction and assignment questions are located in the file instruction and questions.

This assignment is from topic 1 & 2. A copy of the topic notes is uploaded titled topic 1 and topic 2.

Please also use independent research as required for this assessment and add into the references.

PLEASE READ THE ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS

Please use the answer template. Word document to answer these questions

This assignment is 1400 words.

Please use the Harvard referencing style and follow the word count. Marks will only be awarded for answers up to the word limit (plus 10%) for each question. Headings, quotes and references within the body of the answer are included in the word count. Numerical tables, calculations, and reference lists are not included.

Use as many references as required to complete the task

Reference and cite all your sources (within the text of your answer) when quoting or using material from external sources. Include a reference list at the end of your task.

Answers are to be in your own words.

Please use the marking guide to ensure the top marks excellent criteria is met.

Please use the ‘answer template’ to answer the questions. This needs to be done at a Master’s qualification level

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask

Do Accounting Scandals Increase the Cost of Debt? An International Empirical Analysis

This study examines whether firms involved in accounting scandals or financial restatements face higher borrowing costs.

HS 333: Comprehensive Case Analysis Written Comprehensive Financial Plan Grading Rubric The grading rubric will be applied to written financial plan presentations. It is divided into nine categories. Each category can earn between four and zero points. (The recommendations category is worth double the points.) The following table presents general guidelines for excellent, good, fair, poor, and unacceptable quality standards. Points Description 4 Excellent: The student includes all required elements and displays mastery of the topic level on par with client expectations of a financial planning professional. 3 Good: The student includes 75% of the required elements and provides understanding of the subject matter and adequately addresses the topic. The student meets the needs of the client and demonstrates accuracy within all legal and ethical frameworks. 2 Fair: The student includes 50% of the required elements and minimally grasps the subject matter. The student demonstrates a minimum level of accuracy within compliance, legal, and ethical frameworks. The students work shows room for improvement. 1 Poor: The student includes 25% of the required elements and does not adequately satisfy the requirements of the category but has made an attempt. The student does not demonstrate an ethical, compliant, or legal framework. 0 Unacceptable: The student has either not completed the assignment or has committed malpractice. Students should use this rubric as a guide to ensure they receive a passing grade. Students may resubmit their written plans until they receive a passing grade (up to 4 weeks after the end of instruction). In order to pass, a student must meet both of the following criteria: 1. Score at least 28 of a possible 40 points from the rubric. 2. Do not score a 0 on any of the 9 categories in the rubric. Note that most resubmissions are because a student has not met the second criterion and, more specifically, because a student has received a 0 in the recommendations category. The following pages provide specific to-do lists and scoring rubric for each category.Introduction and Executive Summary Introduce your business to the client. Establish the scope of the engagement. Describe your method and amount of compensation. Include a statement about the ongoing monitoring of the financial plan. Outline the highlights of the financial plan. Include a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. Address all conflicts of interest and compensation challenges. By commission or omission, do not act in a way that would cause you to be subject to potential lawsuits or regulatory violations. Points Description 4 Excellent: The student includes all EIGHT required elements and displays mastery of the topic level on par with client expectations of a financial planning professional. 3 Good: The student includes at least SIX (75%) of the required elements and provides understanding of the subject matter and adequately addresses the topic. The student meets the needs of the client and demonstrates accuracy within all legal and ethical frameworks. 2 Fair: The student includes at least FOUR (50%) of the required elements and minimally grasps the subject matter. The student demonstrates a minimum level of accuracy within compliance, legal, and ethical frameworks. The students work shows room for improvement. 1 Poor: The student includes at least TWO (25%) of the required elements and does not adequately satisfy the requirements of the category but has made an attempt. The student does not demonstrate an ethical, compliant, or legal framework. 0 Unacceptable: The student includes less than TWO (25%) of the required elements or has either not completed the assignment or has committed malpractice. CommentsGoals and Objectives Briefly state the clients goals and objective. Goals must be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, reasonable, and time-bound). Goals must not violate relevant ethical or legal standards. Prioritize each goal and objective using your professional opinion. Briefly summarize the recommendation for each goal and objective. Goals and recommendations must integrate across the planning context, especially regarding cash flow, risk management, and the availability of assets. Points Description 4 Excellent: The student includes all SIX required elements and displays mastery of the topic level on par with client expectations of a financial planning professional. 3 Good: The student includes at least FOUR (75%) of the required elements and provides understanding of the subject matter and adequately addresses the topic. The student meets the needs of the client and demonstrates accuracy within all legal and ethical frameworks. 2 Fair: The student includes at least THREE (50%) of the required elements and minimally grasps the subject matter. The student demonstrates a minimum level of accuracy within compliance, legal, and ethical frameworks. The students work shows room for improvement. 1 Poor: The student includes at least TWO (25%) of the required elements and does not adequately satisfy the requirements of the category but has made an attempt. The student does not demonstrate an ethical, compliant, or legal framework. 0 Unacceptable: The student includes less than TWO (25%) of the required elements or has either not completed the assignment or has committed malpractice. CommentsAssumptions Clearly define every assumption made in the financial plan. Assumptions must be relevant, appropriate, and legally defensible. When applicable, assumptions should err on the conservative side. Rates of return must be appropriate for the clients risk tolerance and objectives. Rates of inflation should vary depending on the goal and spending category (such as housing versus medical versus education). Points Description 4 Excellent: The student includes all FIVE required elements and displays mastery of the topic level on par with client expectations of a financial planning professional. 3 Good: The student includes at least FOUR (75%) of the required elements and provides understanding of the subject matter and adequately addresses the topic. The student meets the needs of the client and demonstrates accuracy within all legal and ethical frameworks. 2 Fair: The student includes at least THREE (50%) of the required elements and minimally grasps the subject matter. The student demonstrates a minimum level of accuracy within compliance, legal, and ethical frameworks. The students work shows room for improvement. 1 Poor: The student includes at least TWO (25%) of the required elements and does not adequately satisfy the requirements of the category but has made an attempt. The student does not demonstrate an ethical, compliant, or legal framework. 0 Unacceptable: The student includes less than TWO (25%) of the required elements or has either not completed the assignment or has committed malpractice. CommentsRecommendations (This section is worth double the points.) Recommendations are identified for each client need and goal. The most impactful recommendations are presented alongside alternatives. Recommendations are presented alongside their explicit and implicit costs. Recommendations should be technically accurate. Recommendations must not cause harm to the client. Recommendations must be realistic regarding the clients limited cash flow and assets. Recommendations account for tax consequences. Points Description 4 Excellent: The student includes all SEVEN required elements and displays mastery of the topic level on par with client expectations of a financial planning professional. 3 Good: The student includes at least FOUR (75%) of the required elements and provides understanding of the subject matter and adequately addresses the topic. The student meets the needs of the client and demonstrates accuracy within all legal and ethical frameworks. 2 Fair: The student includes at least THREE (50%) of the required elements and minimally grasps the subject matter. The student demonstrates a minimum level of accuracy within compliance, legal, and ethical frameworks. The students work shows room for improvement. 1 Poor: The student includes at least TWO (25%) of the required elements and does not adequately satisfy the requirements of the category but has made an attempt. The student does not demonstrate an ethical, compliant, or legal framework. 0 Unacceptable: The student includes less than TWO (25%) of the required elements or has either not completed the assignment or has committed malpractice. CommentsImplementation Schedule Address all recommendations from every topic area. Include specific costs and tax consequences. List specific products used. Identify who is responsible for implementing each recommendation. Indicate the time horizon in which the recommendation should be implemented. Points Description 4 Excellent: The student includes all FIVE required elements and displays mastery of the topic level on par with client expectations of a financial planning professional. 3 Good: The student includes at least FOUR (75%) of the required elements and provides understanding of the subject matter and adequately addresses the topic. The student meets the needs of the client and demonstrates accuracy within all legal and ethical frameworks. 2 Fair: The student includes at least THREE (50%) of the required elements and minimally grasps the subject matter. The student demonstrates a minimum level of accuracy within compliance, legal, and ethical frameworks. The students work shows room for improvement. 1 Poor: The student includes at least TWO (25%) of the required elements and does not adequately satisfy the requirements of the category but has made an attempt. The student does not demonstrate an ethical, compliant, or legal framework. 0 Unacceptable: The student includes less than TWO (25%) of the required elements or has either not completed the assignment or has committed malpractice. CommentsAnalysis by Topic Area Include all analyses used to derive financial planning recommendations. Methodologies must be appropriate to address client goals and needs. All appropriate financial planning topic areas are addressed. All analyses have been performed correctly. Include a Monte Carlo or series of sensitivity analyses. Complex analyses are clearly and concisely explained in every-day language. Analyses are clearly referenced (such as with page numbers) in the written portion of the plan. Points Description 4 Excellent: The student includes all SEVEN required elements and displays mastery of the topic level on par with client expectations of a financial planning professional. 3 Good: The student includes at least FOUR (75%) of the required elements and provides understanding of the subject matter and adequately addresses the topic. The student meets the needs of the client and demonstrates accuracy within all legal and ethical frameworks. 2 Fair: The student includes at least THREE (50%) of the required elements and minimally grasps the subject matter. The student demonstrates a minimum level of accuracy within compliance, legal, and ethical frameworks. The students work shows room for improvement. 1 Poor: The student includes at least TWO (25%) of the required elements and does not adequately satisfy the requirements of the category but has made an attempt. The student does not demonstrate an ethical, compliant, or legal framework. 0 Unacceptable: The student includes less than TWO (25%) of the required elements or has either not completed the assignment or has committed malpractice. CommentsSupporting and Appendix Information The source of each assumption is referenced in the plans appendix. The full analysis is included in the plans appendix. All insurance illustrations are included in the plans appendix. Any other supporting documentation is included in the plans appendix. Points Description 4 Excellent: The student includes all FOUR required elements and displays mastery of the topic level on par with client expectations of a financial planning professional. 3 Good: The student includes at least THREE (75%) of the required elements and provides understanding of the subject matter and adequately addresses the topic. The student meets the needs of the client and demonstrates accuracy within all legal and ethical frameworks. 2 Fair: The student includes at least TWO (50%) of the required elements and minimally grasps the subject matter. The student demonstrates a minimum level of accuracy within compliance, legal, and ethical frameworks. The students work shows room for improvement. 1 Poor: The student includes at least ONE (25%) of the required elements and does not adequately satisfy the requirements of the category but has made an attempt. The student does not demonstrate an ethical, compliant, or legal framework. 0 Unacceptable: The student includes less than ONE (25%) of the required elements or has either not completed the assignment or has committed malpractice. CommentsPresentation The financial plan is presented in the same manner it would be presented to the client and has professional design, styling, and formatting. The plan is free of typos and grammatical errors. Recommendations are presented in a manner consistent with the clients personality, learning style, and level of financial literacy. The plan uses text, charts, tables, and graphs to effectively present recommendations. The plan is easy to read and understand. Points Description 4 Excellent: The student includes all FIVE required elements and displays mastery of the topic level on par with client expectations of a financial planning professional. 3 Good: The student includes at least FOUR (75%) of the required elements and provides understanding of the subject matter and adequately addresses the topic. The student meets the needs of the client and demonstrates accuracy within all legal and ethical frameworks. 2 Fair: The student includes at least THREE (50%) of the required elements and minimally grasps the subject matter. The student demonstrates a minimum level of accuracy within compliance, legal, and ethical frameworks. The students work shows room for improvement. 1 Poor: The student includes at least TWO (25%) of the required elements and does not adequately satisfy the requirements of the category but has made an attempt. The student does not demonstrate an ethical, compliant, or legal framework. 0 Unacceptable: The student includes less than TWO (25%) of the required elements or has either not completed the assignment or has committed malpractice. CommentsRelevancy The impact of economic, political, and regulatory issues are evaluated for each section of the plan. Such issues included the fiduciary standard, health care reform, and tax laws. When relevant, in each section of the plan, include information about how the plan would change considering changes in the political or tax environment. Points Description 4 Excellent: The student includes BOTH required elements and displays mastery of the topic level on par with client expectations of a financial planning professional. 2 Fair: The student includes at least ONE (50%) of the required elements and minimally grasps the subject matter. The student demonstrates a minimum level of accuracy within compliance, legal, and ethical frameworks. The students work shows room for improvement. 0 Unacceptable: The student includes less than ONE (25%) of the required elements or has either not completed the assignment or has committed malpractice.