Capital Structures Financial Plan

FIN/571 v11

Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

FIN/571 Grading Rubrics Wk 2 Summative Assessment: Business Valuation Presentation.............................................................................................................................2 Wk 4 Summative Assessment: Financial Market Shareholder Analysis ...................................................................................................................3 Wk 6 Summative Assessment: Capital Structures Financial Plan ............................................................................................................................4

Grading Rubrics FIN/571 v11 Page 2 of 4

Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Wk 2 Summative Assessment: Business Valuation Presentation

Criteria Exemplary 90–100% A- to A 

Proficient 74-89% C to B+

Developing  60-73% D to C-

Needs Improvement 0-59%

F

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Weight: 20%

Identified 2 KPIs that insightfully assessed the company’s financial growth and sustainability

Identified 2 KPIs that sufficiently assessed the company’s financial growth and sustainability

Identified 2 KPIs that partially assessed the company’s financial growth and sustainability

Identified 2 KPIs that vaguely assessed the company’s financial growth and sustainability or did not identify 2 KPIs

Financial Growth Analysis

Weight: 20%

Fully explained the market capitalization and related stock prices to bring meaning to the investor

Adequately explained the market capitalization and related stock prices to bring meaning to the investor

Somewhat explained the market capitalization and related stock prices to bring meaning to the investor

Narrowly or ineffectively explained the market capitalization and related stock prices to bring meaning to the investor

Trends

Weight: 20%

Insightfully related market conditions to identified trends

Sufficiently related market conditions to identified trends

Partially related market conditions to identified trends

Vaguely related or did not relate market conditions to identified trends

Recommendations

Weight: 35%

Recommendations show meaningful analysis of the organization’s financials

Recommendations show adequate analysis of the organization’s financials

Recommendations show some analysis of the organization’s financials

Recommendations show limited or inaccurate analysis of the organization’s financials

Respectful Communication & Interaction

Weight: 5%

Strong ability to engage in transparent conversations and respond ethically in professional intercultural settings; inclusively acknowledges value of others within diverse communities

Sufficient ability to engage in transparent conversations and respond ethically in professional intercultural settings; adequately acknowledges value of others within diverse communities

Limited ability to engage in transparent conversations and respond ethically in professional intercultural settings; limited acknowledgement of value of others within diverse communities

Did not engage in transparent conversations and respond ethically in professional intercultural settings; no or inappropriate acknowledgement of value of others within diverse communities

Grading Rubrics FIN/571 v11 Page 3 of 4

Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Wk 4 Summative Assessment: Financial Market Shareholder Analysis

Criteria Exemplary 90–100% A- to A 

Proficient 74-89% C to B+

Developing  60-73% D to C-

Needs Improvement 0-59%

F

Economic Conditions

Weight: 30%

Thoroughly evaluated a variety of economic conditions that influenced the company’s performance

Sufficiently evaluated a variety of economic conditions that influenced the company’s performance

Partially evaluated a variety of economic conditions that influenced the company’s performance

Vaguely evaluated a variety of economic conditions that influenced the company’s performance or did not provide a variety of economic conditions

Market Conditions

Weight: 30%

Exceptional comparison of the market conditions in the previous year to the company’s performance of the same year to conclude the influences of market conditions on performance

Adequate comparison of the market conditions in the previous year to the company’s performance of the same year to conclude the influences of market conditions on performance

Partial comparison of the market conditions in the previous year to the company’s performance of the same year to conclude the influences of market conditions on performance

Cursory or ineffective comparison of the market conditions in the previous year to the company's performance of the same year to conclude the influences of market conditions on performance

Year-Over-Year Performance

Weight: 35%

Thoroughly analyzed year- over-year performance for the company prior to making conclusions in the analysis

Sufficiently analyzed year- over-year performance for the company prior to making conclusions in the analysis

Partially analyzed year- over-year performance for the company prior to making conclusions in the analysis

Narrowly analyzed year- over-year performance for the company prior to making conclusions in the analysis or may not have analyzed enough key metrics to make conclusions

Analyze Alternatives

Weight: 5%

Fully recognized a need for a solution and thoroughly explored possible solutions

Moderately recognized a need for a solution and adequately explored possible solutions

Vaguely recognized a need for a solution and narrowly explored possible solutions

Did not or inaccurately recognized a need for a solution and did not explore possible solutions/explored infeasible solutions

Grading Rubrics FIN/571 v11 Page 4 of 4

Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Wk 6 Summative Assessment: Capital Structures Financial Plan

Criteria Exemplary 90–100% A- to A 

Proficient 74-89% C to B+

Developing  60-73% D to C-

Needs Improvement 0-59%

F

Business Case

Weight: 40%

Included a thorough business case that analyzed funding the business through difference sources

Included a sufficient business case that analyzed funding the business through difference sources

Included an incomplete business case that analyzed funding the business through difference sources

Included a superficial business case that lacked analysis of funding the business through difference sources or did not include a business case

Profit-and-Loss Statement

Weight: 30%

Thoroughly analyzed the project revenue and estimated costs to develop a profit-and-loss statement

Adequately analyzed the project revenue and estimated costs to develop a profit-and-loss statement

Partially analyzed the project revenue and estimated costs to develop a profit-and-loss statement

Inaccurately analyzed the project revenue and estimated costs to develop a profit-and-loss statement or did not develop a profit- and-loss statement

Conclusion

Weight: 25%

Insightfully explained lessons learned based on working through a financial plan

Somewhat insightfully explained lessons learned based on working through a financial plan

Somewhat explained lessons learned based on working through a financial plan

Vaguely explained lessons learned based on working through a financial plan or did not provide a conclusion

Strategic Efforts Toward Inclusion and Equity

Weight: 5%

Thoughtfully engaged in overt and deliberate planning, ethical actions, and collaborations that support diversity and foster inclusion and equity

Moderately engaged in overt and deliberate planning, ethical actions, and collaborations that support diversity and foster inclusion and equity

Narrowly engaged in overt and deliberate planning, ethical actions, and collaborations that support diversity and foster inclusion and equity

Did not engage in overt and deliberate planning, ethical actions, or collaborations that support diversity and foster inclusion and equity