Get Cheapest Assignment in Australia, UK, US, UAE, Canada and NZ Order Now

Managing Financial Performance 7AC006 British American Tobacco PLC


7AC006 Managing Financial Performance

Module code and title  Managing Financial Performance 7AC006
Module leader  
DietFirst attempt   
Assessment type  Report
Submission date  2pm on Monday 08/02/2021.  Students are advised to submit well ahead of this deadline. Late submissions will not be accepted without approved extenuating circumstances from the student office, and will be treated as non-submissions, requiring re-sit.  
Submission method  Via Canvas.  
Assessment limits  Maximum 4,000 words (excluding reference list & appendixes). Word count must not exceed the limit by more than 10%. In cases where this +10% limit is exceeded, only the first 4,400 words will be marked.  
Assessment weighting  100%    
Assessment brief  (if appropriate, please refer to module assessment briefing document)  
You are required to produce an individual report based on your own independent work.  Your work must be fully referenced in the Harvard referencing style. There are four equal parts to this assessment, each carrying 25% of the total module marks. It is appropriate to weight your word count in an approximately similar split. Part 1 (25%) Using financial ratios, you are required to produce a critical analysis of the profitability of British American Tobacco PLC. You should use the financial statements for both the years 2018 and 2019. This analysis should assess the profitability of the company. Comparisons for both of these years to one peer group company of your choice should be made. This should be based on the following 2 ratios     Please note that no marks will be awarded for the actual calculations as these are taken as assumed knowledge.       Note: Parts 2-4 to the assessment do not refer to British American Tobacco PLC and are to be answered in a general context. Part 2 (25%) Critically discuss the benefits and drawbacks of using annual budgets and their relevance in periods of rapid global change such as that caused by the covid19 pandemic. Using supporting evidence from a range of academic and business sources, including text books, journal articles and corporate announcements.   Part 3 (25%) Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the Balanced Score Card form of performance measurement. Using supporting evidence from a range of academic sources, including both text books and journal articles. Part 4 (25%) Critically evaluate the Discounted Cash Flow methods of investment appraisal.  Include in your discussion consideration of real-world constraints placed upon the effectiveness of this technique. Include references to relevant academic text books in your answer.
Assessment Criteria (The actual assessment components for this assignment)
CriteriaWeighting (If applicable)
Part 125%
Part 225%
Part 325%
Part 425%
Pass mark             Postgraduate                                                                                                                           50%  
Performance descriptors in use;  No  No √(specify below)                                                                                                                               Yes  No √    
Return of assessments (Instructions for return / collection of assessments)Assessments to be submitted via Canvas before the submission deadline. Students are advised to submit at least 3 working days in advance of this deadline. Assessments submitted after the published submission deadline with be awarded a non-submission zero (ONS) score, in line with University Regulations. Students will then have to re-sit the assessment.            
 This assessment is testing Module Learning outcomesTick if tested here
LO1Critically analyse financial reports
LO2Advise on the appropriate budgeting techniques for planning and control
LO3Criticise performance measurement systems

Additional information for students

The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your studies, and develop your academic skills including a guide to academic referencing

Your module guide and course handbook contain additional and important information regarding;

Whilst many modules require referencing in accordance with the Harvard Referencing convention, some modules – for example those within the School of Law – require Oxford Referencing. Please familiarise yourself with the requirements of your module.

* Further information regarding these and other policies can be accessed through your student portal on

Always keep a copy of your work and a file of working papers

The requirement to keep a file of working papers is important.  There may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is the case, you may be asked to submit your file and possibly meet with your tutor to answer questions on your submission. 

When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration confirming that:

The following information is important when:

Module Learning Outcomes

                      Module Learning Outcomes are specific to this module, and are set when the module was validated.

Assessment Criteria

The module Learning Outcomes tested by this assignment, and precise criteria against which your work will be marked are outlined in your assessment brief.

Performance Descriptors

Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the assessment criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated. 

To help you further:

  • Re-sit opportunities are available for students who are unable to take the first sit opportunity, or who need to re take any component.
  • The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic skills

FoSS Generic Assessment Performance Descriptors

Based on – University Performance Descriptors (updated September 2015)

Note that these are generic descriptors that apply mainly, though not exclusively, to written academic work. The relevant performance descriptors for the appropriate level (as below) should appear in the module guide.

Any further module-specific assessment criteria, such as number of words, should be clearly stated in the assignment brief.

The pass rate at Masters Level = 50%

 L7 (Masters Level)
90-100%This work is outstanding and is of a standard which could be considered for future publication in a professional journal. The work demonstrates engagement in a focused academic debate which presents a range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied and a totally justified position. The work demonstrates a high level of originality with challenges to current theory and/or practice and specific, focused examples of contestability. There is evidence of a high level of synthesis of theoretical exemplars, underpinning principles and practical interpretation. No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
80-89%  The work is of an excellent standard and has the potential for future publication in a professional context. The work demonstrates engagement in an academic debate which presents clear evidence of a considered understanding of the professional issues studied, the approach adopted and the position taken. The work enhances current theory and/or practice and displays a range of examples of contestability. There is evidence of clear synthesis of theoretical issues and practice. A critical analysis of theoretical models and/or practical applications has resulted in a distinct level of originality. Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
70-79%There is evidence of analysis and critique of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and major debates together with some evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the complexity of the context in which it is situated and the impinging external factors; it takes cognisance of differing perspectives and interpretations and recognises dilemmas. Ideas are presented in a succinct manner and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows an ability to critique the underlying assumptions upon which current views are based and to challenge received opinion. Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
60-69%    The work demonstrates a capacity to express views based on sound argument and solid evidence in an articulate and concise way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgement of theories and issues. There is evidence of effective engagement in a critical dialogue relating to professional practice, a clearly presented overview of an area of concern, and a comparative review of key authors, rival theories and major debates. The work demonstrates a willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and practical application within a given professional context.
Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
50-59% 50% Pass markThe structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors and major debates are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses issues, but is not strong on presenting synthesis or evaluations. The work is mainly descriptive, but has achieved all the learning outcomes. Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
40-49% FailWhilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address each of the outcomes for the specified assessment task. There may be little evidence of an ability to apply the principles of the module to a wider context. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered. There is evidence of sufficient grasp of the module’s learning outcomes to suggest that the participant will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
30-39% Fail  The work has failed to address the outcomes of the module. There are fundamental misconceptions of the basis of the module. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of relevant theory. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the author will be able to retrieve the assignment without retaking the module.
20-29% FailThis work shows little or no understanding of relevant theory. There is little reference to appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought or criticality. Overall the work is unduly descriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the essential issues.
10-19% Fail  This work is not coherent and shows severe faults in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate. It includes unsubstantiated statements or assertions. It is unstructured and extremely badly presented. It is totally descriptive and lacks any attempt at analysis.
0-9% FailNo real attempt to address assignment brief or learning outcomes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *