|
Articulation of Response (clarity, organization, mechanics)
|
|
(0) Unsatisfactory/Not Present
|
(1) Does Not Meet Standard
|
(2) Minimally Competent
|
(3) Competent
|
(4) Highly Competent
|
|
The candidate provides unsatisfactory articulation of response.
|
The candidate provides weak articulation of response.
|
The candidate provides limited articulation of response.
|
The candidate provides adequate articulation of response.
|
The candidate provides substantial articulation of response.
|
|
Criterion Score: 3.00
|
|
A1. Horizontal Analysis
|
|
(0) Unsatisfactory/Not Present
|
(1) Does Not Meet Standard
|
(2) Minimally Competent
|
(3) Competent
|
(4) Highly Competent
|
|
The candidate does not provide an appropriate horizontal analysis, using both dollar amounts and percentages, of the current and prior year income statements and balance sheets of the chosen company.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
The candidate provides an appropriate horizontal analysis, using both dollar amounts and percentages, of the current and prior year income statements and balance sheets of the chosen company.
|
|
Criterion Score: 0.00
Comments on this criterion: The submission presents the % change calculations for some major income statement items; however, horizontal analyses (using both dollar amounts and percentages) of the entire income statements and balance sheets of the company need to be provided in order to satisfy the requirement for this aspect.
Some figures also do not match the financial statements in the 10-K filing with the SEC. It appears that a different source was used in the calculations. Please note that the audited financial statements in the 10-K filing with the SEC need be used for this project. Refer to the provided "Instructions for Obtaining Financial Statements" document for specific details on how to locate the company's current financial statements.
|
|
A1a. Strengths and Weaknesses of Horizontal Analysis
|
|
(0) Unsatisfactory/Not Present
|
(1) Does Not Meet Standard
|
(2) Minimally Competent
|
(3) Competent
|
(4) Highly Competent
|
|
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of at least 3 strengths and /or weaknesses in the company's performance based on the horizontal analysis performed in part A1.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses in the company's performance based on the horizontal analysis performed in part A1.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses in the company's performance based on the horizontal analysis performed in part A1.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses in the company's performance based on the horizontal analysis performed in part A1.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses in the company's performance based on the horizontal analysis performed in part A1.
|
|
Criterion Score: 2.00
Comments on this criterion: While the discussions of the trends in major income statements include relevant details, please update the stated figures to reflect the revisions in the horizontal analysis calculations in part A1.
|
|
A2. Ratios for Stockholders
|
|
(0) Unsatisfactory/Not Present
|
(1) Does Not Meet Standard
|
(2) Minimally Competent
|
(3) Competent
|
(4) Highly Competent
|
|
The candidate does not accurately calculate at least 2 ratios that would be significant to the company’s stockholders.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
The candidate accurately calculates at least 2 ratios that would be significant to the company’s stockholders.
|
|
Criterion Score: 0.00
Comments on this criterion: The stated figures for the Earnings per Share appear to be the Diluted Earnings per Share which can be accepted. While the provided figures for Return on Equity and Return on Assets appear to be correct, these ratios should be expressed in %.
|
|
A2a. Strengths and Weaknesses of Ratio Calculations for Stockholders
|
|
(0) Unsatisfactory/Not Present
|
(1) Does Not Meet Standard
|
(2) Minimally Competent
|
(3) Competent
|
(4) Highly Competent
|
|
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses that would be significant to the company’s stockholders based on the ratio calculations performed in part A2.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses that would be significant to the company’s stockholders based on the ratio calculations performed in part A2.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses that would be significant to the company’s stockholders based on the ratio calculations performed in part A2.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses that would be significant to the company’s stockholders based on the ratio calculations performed in part A2.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses that would be significant to the company’s stockholders based on the ratio calculations performed in part A2.
|
|
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: The Earnings per Share, Return on Equity, and Return on Assets are identified as strengths; however, additional details are needed. Please provide an explanation of what each ratio calculation represents or measures. Please also update the stated figures for the Return on Equity and Return on Assets to reflect the revision in part A2.
In addition, please provide bases or specific details to support the following assertions:
Earnings per Share: "... much higher than many other technology companies (and all companies in general)" (
Cannot use words like “much higher than…”)
Return on Equity and Return on Assets: "... competitive, and the kind of numbers
(“ kind of numbers” is too general a statement )
that would make the average investor strongly consider purchasing Apple"
The general analysis of the trends in the ratios as "These disappointing ratios show that, so far, Apple has not lived up to the task." does not support the strength indication.
(This is way to general a sentence.. You need to be much more specific using exact numbers, percentages, and dollar amounts.)
|
|
A3. Ratios/Metrics for Creditors
|
|
(0) Unsatisfactory/Not Present
|
(1) Does Not Meet Standard
|
(2) Minimally Competent
|
(3) Competent
|
(4) Highly Competent
|
|
The candidate does not accurately calculate at least 2 ratios/metrics that would be significant to the company’s creditors.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
Not applicable.
|
The candidate accurately calculates at least 2 ratios/metrics that would be significant to the company’s creditors.
|
|
Criterion Score: 0.00
Comments on this criterion: The provided figures for the Working Capital, Current Ratio, Accounts Receivable Turnover, Inventory Turnover, Times Interest Earned Ratio, and Debt/Equity Ratio for both years are not correct. More detailed comments may be provided if the calculations are included in the submission.
(You need to fix the ratios to include the correct numbers).
|
|
A3a. Strengths and Weaknesses of Ratio/Metric Calculations for Creditors
|
|
(0) Unsatisfactory/Not Present
|
(1) Does Not Meet Standard
|
(2) Minimally Competent
|
(3) Competent
|
(4) Highly Competent
|
|
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses that would be significant to the company’s creditors based on the ratio/metric calculations performed in part A3.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses that would be significant to the company’s creditors based on the ratio/metric calculations performed in part A3.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses that would be significant to the company’s creditors based on the ratio/metric calculations performed in part A3.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses that would be significant to the company’s creditors based on the ratio/metric calculations performed in part A3.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of at least 3 strengths and/or weaknesses that would be significant to the company’s creditors based on the ratio/metric calculations performed in part A3.
|
|
Criterion Score: 0.00
Comments on this criterion: The discussions for the following ratios/metrics significant to the company's creditors are noted; however, revisions and/or additional details are necessary:
Current Ratio - This is identified as strength. Please update the discussion to reflect the recalculations. The references to "assets", "liabilities", "debts"; and "long term" are not accurate. Please review and provide a more accurate discussion of what this ratio calculation represents.
Working Capital - This is identified as both strength and weakness. Please provide one indication only. Please also update the discussion to reflect the recalculations and explain what this metric calculation represents. In addition, please provide an analysis of what may have caused the trend from the prior year or other details that would support the indication.
Accounts Receivable Turnover and Inventory Turnover - Upon recalculations, please review the analysis "both accounts receivable and inventory turnover also increased in the same period, which means that, from a creditor standpoint, Apple as a company has a great deal of strength" and make the necessary revision. Please also explain what each ratio calculation represents or measures. For each ratio discussion, provide an analysis of what may have caused the trend from the prior year or other details that would support the strength indication.
Debt to Equity Ratio - The weakness indication is noted. Please update the discussion to reflect the recalculations.
|
|
B. Corrective Actions or Business Opportunities
|
|
(0) Unsatisfactory/Not Present
|
(1) Does Not Meet Standard
|
(2) Minimally Competent
|
(3) Competent
|
(4) Highly Competent
|
|
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of 2 corrective actions or business opportunities that would be recommended to the CEO based on the analyses from part A.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of 2 corrective actions or business opportunities that would be recommended to the CEO based on the analyses from part A.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of 2 corrective actions or business opportunities that would be recommended to the CEO based on the analyses from part A.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of 2 corrective actions or business opportunities that would be recommended to the CEO based on the analyses from part A.
|
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of 2 corrective actions or business opportunities that would be recommended to the CEO based on the analyses from part A.
|
|
Criterion Score: 0.00
Comments on this criterion: The following recommendations are noted; however, the discussions need revision, clarification, or additional information:
Launch New Product to Reduce Cost of Goods Sold - Please provide specific details or examples of a new product that is being recommended. Please also further explain how launching a new product will reduce cost of goods sold.
Increase Research and Development - While a general discussion that this will help the company create new products, this appears to be a redundancy of the first recommendation as it also discusses creating new products. Please make sure to provide two entirely different recommendations and specific details on how the recommendation will be implemented. In addition, please include in the discussion what specific issue or issues are being addressed based on the analyses from part A.
|
|
C. Sources
|
|
(0) Unsatisfactory/Not Present
|
(1) Does Not Meet Standard
|
(2) Minimally Competent
|
(3) Competent
|
(4) Highly Competent
|
|
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate does not provide in-text citations and references.
|
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides only some in-text citations and references.
|
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 with minor deviations from APA style.
|
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with no readily detectable deviations from APA style, OR the candidate does not use sources.
|
|
Criterion Score: 1.00
Comments on this criterion: Two references are provided in the submission. Once the audited financial statements from the 10-K filing are used in the calculations and analyses, please provide appropriate in-text and reference citations.
|
MJPJSJZJ411
marlon_moss_-_trp1_evaluation_1.docx
0
