联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981

MGT204 Corporate Finance & Portfolio Valuation
Individual assignment
Weighting – 100% of the marks for this module
This is an individual assignment of 2,500 words for guidance purposes.
The hand in date is: Wednesday 20th May 2026 by 5.00pm UK time
Requirements:
Students are required to select ONE of the two possible questions contained within
the assessment. Each question carries a maximum mark of 100 marks.
The assignment has been designed to cover the following learning outcomes
associated with successful completion of the module:
LO1: Compare and contrast a range of theoretical models that
underpin corporate finance and portfolio valuation decision-making.
LO2: Apply, analyse, and interpret how financial data influences
financial decision-making.
LO3: Critically reflect upon how financial decision-making tools
and techniques impact upon the value of a portfolio.
Part A
You have recently obtained employment within the investment analysis team at Addison
PLC, a financial advisory firm that makes regular investments in several FTSE350
companies’ ordinary shares that are listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). Initially,
you have been provided with ￡1 million worth of company funds to invest over a 12-week
timeframe. As part of the initial investment portfolio, you are required to select five
FTSE350 London Stock Exchange listed companies and invest the funds equally within their
ordinary shares. Furthermore, on a minimum of three separate occasions within the 12-week
timeframe you have been asked to sell one of the investments and to reinvest the funds in a
differing company that you have chosen.
Required:
Provide a report to the Board of Directors of Addison PLC that offers critical reflection and
analysis of the decision-making process regarding the investments undertaken across the 12-
week timeframe.
In this section students should critically analyse and reflect upon the various decisions taken
regarding the investments made across the twelve-week timeframe. The decision-making
process must be underpinned by relevant themes and concepts that are prevalent within the
field of corporate finance and are covered within the modular content. The introductory
section of the report should provide a clear, robust rationale that clearly justifies and
evaluates why the selected companies were chosen as part of the initial portfolio. Upon
removing and adding to the portfolio the student should offer clear justification for the
choices undertaken and support this with relevant financial information, analysis and
evaluation that draws upon a range of corporate finance topics. Upon adding a share to the
portfolio, it must be retained within the portfolio for a minimum one-week duration. It
would be expected that the report would incorporate a range of charts, tables, and
screenshots of portfolio performance to visually enhance the quality of the work submitted.
Within the recommendation / conclusion section students should clearly identify and reflect
upon the decisions undertaken and elaborate upon what they have learnt across the duration
of the portfolio-based exercise. Students will not gain further marks based upon the
portfolio performance, rather they should reflect upon the decisions undertaken during the
simulated exercise.
Total for Part A – 100 marks

Part B
You have recently joined the investment team as a financial analyst at Jefferson PLC, a
financial advisory firm based within the City of London. As part of the initial duties you
have been asked by the Board of Directors to investigate the five-year performance of ONE
of the following FTSE100 listed companies provided below with the view to potentially
investing future company funds into the chosen company:
i. BP PLC.
ii. Persimmon PLC.
iii. Easyjet PLC.
iv. Astrazeneca PLC.
v. Rio Tinto PLC.
vi. Sainsburys PLC.
vii. BAE Systems PLC.
viii. Next PLC.
ix. BT Group PLC.
x. Unilever PLC.
xi. Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC.
xii. Vodafone Group PLC.
Required:
Select any ONE of the above companies and prepare a report for the Board of Directors of
Jefferson PLC analysing and evaluating the five-year performance of the chosen company.
In this section students should demonstrate both knowledge and understanding of a range of
topics, theories, and concepts covered within the MGT204 Corporate Finance & Portfolio
Valuation module. A report format should be utilized that offers clear, concise analysis,
resulting in the production of robust recommendations. You should choose to analyse
approximately 3 topics from the syllabus including the key performance indicator of share
price analysis / fluctuations / key events. Further topics and concepts that can be considered
for inclusion within the report include financing strategies, investment strategies, capital
structure alterations, dividend policies, financial ratio analysis and merger and acquisition
activities. This is not an exhaustive list and students should be prepared to investigate other
key aspects from the module if they feel necessary. It is imperative you choose one of the
above companies as listed within the above.
Total for Part B – 100 marks
Generic Assessment Criteria – Undergraduate Bachelor’s degree
Categories
Grade Relevance Knowledge Analysis Argument and Structure Critical Evaluation Presentation Reference to Literature
86 – The work examined is exemplary and provides clear evidence of a complete grasp of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also unequivocal evidence
showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be exemplary in all the categories cited above. It will demonstrate
a particularly compelling evaluation, originality, and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
100%
76-85% The work examined is excellent and demonstrates comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also excellent evidence showing that all the learning
outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be excellent in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly
compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse and there may be some evidence of originality
The work examined is of a high standard and there is evidence of comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also clearly articulated t evidence
demonstrating that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are satisfied At this level it is expected that the standard of the work will be high in the majority of the categories cited
above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
70 –
75%
60 –
69%
Directly relevant to the
requirements of the
assessment
A substantial knowledge
of relevant material,
showing a clear grasp of
themes, questions and
issues therein
Good analysis, clear
and orderly
Generally coherent and logically
structured, using an appropriate
mode of argument and/or
theoretical mode(s)
May contain some distinctive
or independent thinking; may
begin to formulate an
independent position in
relation to theory and/or
practice.
Well written, with standard
spelling and grammar, in
a readable style with
acceptable format
Critical appraisal of up-to-date
and/or appropriate literature.
Recognition of different
perspectives.Very good use of
source material. Uses a range of
sources Some attempt to Adequate knowledge of a
fair range of relevant
material, with intermittent
evidence of an
appreciation of its
significance
Some analytical Some attempt to construct Sound work which Competently Uses a variety of literature which
includes some recent texts and/or
appropriate literature, though not
necessarily including a substantive
amount beyond library texts.
Competent use of source
material.
50 –
59%
address the treatment, but a coherent argument, but expresses a coherent written, with only
requirements of may be prone to may suffer loss of focus position only in broad minor lapses from
the assessment: may
drift away
description, or to
narrative, which
and consistency, with issues at
stake stated only
terms and in uncritical
conformity to one or
standard grammar, with
acceptable
from this in less lacks clear vaguely, or theoretical more standard views format
focused passages analytical
purpose
mode(s) couched in simplistic
terms
of the topic
40 –
49%
Some correlation with
the requirements of the
assessment but there
are instances of
irrelevance
Basic understanding of
the subject but
addressing a limited
range of material
Largely descriptive or
narrative, with little
evidence of analysis
A basic argument is evident, but
mainly supported by assertion and
there may be a lack of clarity and
coherence
Some evidence of a view
starting to be formed but
mainly derivative.
A simple basic style but
with significant
deficiencies in expression
or format that may pose
obstacles for the reader
Some up-to-date and/or
appropriate literature used. Goes
beyond the material tutor has
provided. Limited use of sources
to support a point.
35 –
39%
Relevance to the A limited Heavy Little evidence of coherent Almost wholly Numerous Barely adequate use of literature.
Over reliance on material provided
by the tutor.
requirements of understanding of a dependence on argument: lacks derivative: the writer’s deficiencies in
the assessment
may be very
narrow range of material description,
and/or on
development and may be
repetitive or thin
contribution rarely
goes beyond
expression and
presentation; the
intermittent, and may
be reduced to its
vaguest and least
challenging terms
paraphrase, is common simplifying
paraphrase
writer may achieve
clarity (if at all) only by
using a simplistic or
repetitious style
The evidence provided shows that the majority of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied – for compensation consideration.
30 –
34%
The work examined provides insufficient evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence provided shows that some of the learning outcomes and
responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in some of the indicators.
15-29% The work examined is unacceptable and provides little evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence shows that few of the learning outcomes
and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in several of the indicators.
0-14% The work examined is unacceptable and provides almost no evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence fails to show that any of the
learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in the majority or all of the indicators.
Pass Fail