Advanced Corporate finance and theory

Literature Review (15%)
Advanced Corporate finance and theory (FNCE 5000)
Semester 1,

This is an individual assessment.

Throughout the semester, we will cover various theories of corporate finance. You will need to choose one theory and conduct research to collate empirical evidence reported in the literature. Your selection of theory must have some ethical representation / consequence in it. Try to cite evidence from top tier (ABDC ranked A or A*) journals. Hard copy submission not required. Students will submit using turnitin by the due date and time. More information will be provided during week 6 seminar (6th September).

Below rubrics will be followed in marking your assignment.

Marking Criteria 0.00 to 49.00 % 50.00 to 59.00 % 60.00 to 69.00 % 70.00 to 79.00 % 80.00 to 100.00 %
Identification and discussion of Theories (20%) • Inadequately identifies and analyses issues and problems. • Where applicable, does not identify relevant models. • Identifies and analyses the most significant issues and problems. • Where applicable, identifies relevant models.

·   Inadequately identifies Context of the study in the literature

 

• Identifies and analyses issues and problems with adequate reference to the interrelationships among the issues. • Where applicable, identifies relevant models.

·   Adequately identifies Context of the study in the literature

 

• Identifies and analyses complex interrelationships among the issues and/or problems. • Where applicable, discusses application of relevant models. • Identifies and analyses deep and complex interrelationships among the issues and/or problems. • Where applicable, identifies expanded application of relevant models.

 

Evidence collation and discussion (30%) • The analysis is superficial and based on irrelevant information, concepts and methods. • The information analysed is gathered from very limited source(s) or only those provided.

·        No explanation of methods/methodology

·   No demonstration of the recent contribution in the literature.

 

• A coherent analysis is based on partial use of relevant information, concepts and methods.

• The information analysed is gathered from some relevant source(s) beyond those provided.

•Inadequately presented a contrasting perspective of the literature such as for and against.

·   Model identified should focus variables included into the model. Such as main variable of interest, control variable etc.

·        Inadequately presented explanation of methods/methodology

·   Inadequately demonstrated the recent contribution in the literature

 

 

• A coherent analysis is based on relevant information, concepts and methods. • The information analysed is gathered from several source(s) beyond those provided. All cited evidences are from ABDC A or below ranked journals.

•Adequately presented a contrasting perspective of the literature such as for and against.

•Sufficient details of hypothesis captured for investigation into the model. Is it accepted or rejected.

•Insufficient details about Time frame, data captured in the literature.

•Insufficient details about whether Empirical or theoretical work? What are the contributions to the literature?

 

 

• A coherent analysis is based on thorough use of the most relevant information, concepts and methods • The information analysed is gathered from many diverse, relevant source(s) beyond those provided. All cited evidences are from ABDC A / A* ranked journals.

•Sufficient details about Time frame, data captured in the literature.

•Sufficient details about whether Empirical or theoretical work? What are the contributions to the literature?

·        Sufficient explanation of methods/methodology

·   sufficiently demonstrated the recent contribution in the literature

 

 

• A comprehensive analysis is based on a deep understanding of relevant information, concepts and methods. • Information analysed is from many diverse, high quality source(s) beyond those provided. All cited evidences are from ABDC A* ranked journals.

 

 

Recognition of ethical issues (10%) • Recognises only the basic and obvious ethical issues in scenarios.

·        No clear articulation of variables of the models as part of their ethical reasoning

 

• Analyses scenarios, and recognises the ethical issues.

• No clear articulation of ethical issues covered in the literature.

·        Limited articulation of variables of the models as part of their ethical reasoning

 

 

• Recognizes a few ethical issues when issues are presented in complex scenarios.

• Insufficient clear articulation of ethical issues covered in the literature.

• Independently recognizes complex ethical issues in complex scenarios.

·        Independently recognizes articulation of variables of the models as part of their ethical reasoning

 

• Anticipates and recognizes a variety of ethical issues when presented in complex, multilayered scenarios and can recognise cross-relationships among the issues.
Understanding of different ethical perspectives/concepts. (10%) •Demonstrates a vague and shallow understanding of the ethical issues, and where appropriate can only name the major theory and/or model used, showing an inadequate understanding of the issues. •Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the ethical issues, and where applicable can identify and apply the major theories and/or models as part of their reasoning. •Demonstrates a solid understanding of the ethical issues, and where applicable can explain the theories and/or models used, showing an adequate understanding of the issues.

•Variety of ethical issues captured in the literature.

 

•Demonstrates a deep understanding of the ethical issues, and where applicable can independently identify and apply the major theories and/or models as part of their ethical reasoning, showing a deep understanding of the ethical issues. •Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the ethical issues, and where applicable names the theories and/or models used as part of their ethical reasoning, and can present the substance of said theories and/or models, explaining the details and showing a deep understanding of the issues.
Conclusions and recommendations (30%) • The conclusions and/or recommendations are vague. • Conclusions are not logically supported by the evidence and/or process of analysis. • Assumptions are inadequately described. • The conclusions and/or recommendations are clear and relevant. • Few conclusions are generally supported by the evidence and/or the process of analysis. • Important assumptions are stated. • The conclusions and/or recommendations are sound, clear and relevant. • Some conclusions are generally supported by the evidence and/or the process of analysis. • Assumptions are stated and described adequately.

 

• The conclusions and/or recommendations are relevant, significant and organised. • Most conclusions are logically supported by the evidence and/or the process of analysis. • Assumptions are stated and comprehensively described.

•conclusion section connected to the evidence (supporting/references)

•Own recommendation based on the limitation of the literature.

 

• The conclusions and/or recommendations are robust, comprehensive, relevant, significant and organised. • All conclusions are logically supported by the evidence and/or the process of analysis. • Assumptions are stated, comprehensively described and justification for their use is provided.
Total (100%)