FA1-rev
Mannie
evaluation_summary_task_1__1.rtfEvaluation Summary for Financial Analysis: JET Task 1
Final Score:
Does not Meet
Overall comments:
Please confer with a course mentor before working further on this assessment. The submission provides a reasonable evaluation of the company based on the historical and forecasted sales trend. In addition, risks are identified that result from weaknesses in the purchasing controls. The other remaining task prompts, however, require some additional analysis, clarification, or support as described in the detailed evaluator comments.
Detailed Results (Rubric used: JET Task 1)
Articulation of Response (clarity, organization, mechanics)
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate provides unsatisfactory articulation of response.
The candidate provides weak articulation of response.
The candidate provides adequate articulation of response.
Criterion Score: 2.00
A1a. Horizontal Analysis
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate does not provide a logical evaluation of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the horizontal analysis results.
The candidate provides a logical evaluation, with insufficient support, of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the horizontal analysis results.
The candidate provides a logical evaluation, with sufficient support, of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the horizontal analysis results.
Criterion Score: 2.00
A1b. Vertical Analysis
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate does not provide a logical evaluation of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the vertical analysis results.
The candidate provides a logical evaluation, with insufficient support, of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the vertical analysis results.
The candidate provides a logical evaluation, with sufficient support, of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the vertical analysis results.
Criterion Score: 2.00
A1c. Trend Analysis
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate does not provide a logical evaluation of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the trend analysis results.
The candidate provides a logical evaluation, with insufficient support, of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the trend analysis results.
The candidate provides a logical evaluation, with sufficient support, of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the trend analysis results.
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: The paper identifies a strength in the overall growth in sales between years 6 and 8. The forecasted sales trend is noted as producing lower expected growth than the historical sales trend. The evaluation of the company based on the sales trend analysis is reasonable.
A1d. Ratio Analysis
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate does not provide a logical evaluation of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the ratio analysis results.
The candidate provides a logical evaluation, with insufficient support, of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the ratio analysis results.
The candidate provides a logical evaluation, with sufficient support, of the company’s strengths and weaknesses based on the ratio analysis results.
Criterion Score: 2.00
A2. Working Capital
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of the working capital of Competition Bikes Inc.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with insufficient support, of the working capital of Competition Bikes Inc.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with sufficient support, of the working capital of Competition Bikes Inc.
Criterion Score: 2.00
A3. Internal Controls
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate does not provide a logical evaluation of the internal controls for the Competition Bikes Inc. purchasing system.
The candidate provides a logical evaluation, with insufficient detail, of the internal controls for the Competition Bikes Inc. purchasing system.
The candidate provides a logical evaluation, with sufficient detail, of the internal controls for the Competition Bikes Inc. purchasing system.
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: The suggestion that the purchasing department has authority over too many duties is appropriate. In addition, the observation regarding weakness in the receipt of goods is on the right track. Please note that the discussion regarding receipt of goods is not sufficiently supported to adequately describe the weakness. In addition, other significant aspects of the purchasing controls are missing from the evaluation. Please continue to develop the response.
A3a. Weakness Corrective Actions
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate does not provide an appropriate recommendation of corrective actions for any weaknesses.
The candidate provides an appropriate recommendation, with insufficient detail, of corrective actions for any weaknesses.
The candidate provides an appropriate recommendation, with sufficient detail, of corrective actions for any weaknesses.
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: The recommendation to "implement policies for accurate confirmation of the invoice and the goods" is reasonable but not adequately supported. Also, after the evaluation of the purchasing controls is further developed, please revise to include additional appropriate recommendations of corrective action for other weaknesses identified.
A3b. Risks
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate does not identify the risks to the company.
Not applicable.
The candidate identifies the risks to the company.
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: Fraud and unauthorized purchases are both reasonable risks that could arise from weaknesses in the purchasing controls.
A3bi. Risk Mitigation
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how to mitigate the risks arising from internal control weaknesses.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with insufficient support, of how to mitigate the risks arising from internal control weaknesses.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with sufficient support, of how to mitigate the risks arising from internal control weaknesses.
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: The paper briefly identifies some risk mitigation suggestions. Please note that the suggestions provided are very brief and lack significant discussion to describe them. Please revise this aspect following a more thorough evaluation of the purchasing controls to provide additional suggestions for ways to mitigate the risks that arise from weaknesses in the controls.
A4. Compliance
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of compliance with Sarbanes–Oxley requirements.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with insufficient support, of compliance with Sarbanes–Oxley requirements.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with sufficient support, of compliance with Sarbanes–Oxley requirements.
Criterion Score: 0.00
Comments on this criterion: The paper appropriately notes that the company is not compliant with Sarbanes-Oxley requirements. However, the suggestion that the noncompliance occurs because "the purchasing department makes purchases from the budget" is not clear. Please revise to provide a plausible analysis for the reasons for CBI's noncompliance with Sarbanes-Oxley requirements.
A4a. Noncompliance Corrective Actions
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
The candidate does not provide an appropriate recommendation of corrective actions for noncompliant areas.
The candidate provides an appropriate recommendation, with insufficient detail, of corrective actions for noncompliant areas.
The candidate provides an appropriate recommendation, with sufficient detail, of corrective actions for noncompliant areas.
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: The suggestion to address material weaknesses in the purchasing controls is a reasonable recommendation to address noncompliance. Following a revised analysis of the company's compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley requirements for prompt A4, please reconsider this aspect and provide additional recommendations of corrective actions for noncompliant areas identified.
B. Sources
(0) Unsatisfactory
(1) Needs Revision
(2) Satisfactory
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate does not provide in-text citations and references for each source used.
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with major deviations from APA style.
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references accurately or with only minor deviations from APA style, OR the candidate does not use sources.
Criterion Score: 2.00
