ACCT3563 Exam

ACCT 3563 Individual Essay
ACCT3563 – Issues in Financial Reporting & Analysis Semester 2, 2013

Individual Essay DUE: 5 p.m. Friday 20 September 2013
(This essay is worth 20% of the final marks for this course) ESSAY OBJECTIVE AND LEARNING OUTCOMES The objective of this assessment is to develop students’ research skills and written communication, and testing students’ knowledge in accounting issues including ethical and cultural influences on accounting. In completing this essay, students should demonstrate their ability to apply critical thinking in solving problems (refer to Student Learning Outcomes in the course outline section 2.5). ESSAY REQUIREMENTS Required Reading (available on blackboard under the “Essay” tab): Larcker, D. and Tayan,
B. (2013) “Risk management breakdown at AXA Rosenberg: The curious case of a quant manager trusted too much”, Rock Centre for Corporate Governance, Stanford Close Look Series, CGRP33. Essay Requirement: Critically analyse, in the case of AXA Rosenberg, i) how did the error occur? ii) what are the factors that contributed to the subsequent consequences resulting in millions of dollars of financial compensation and penalties? iii) what ethical issues arise in this case? and iii) propose a strategy to address ethical and cultural considerations that would prevent similar problems occurring at the organisation level. You are required to apply the ethics theories (week 4 topic) and the cultural framework (week 1 topic) in your analysis. You should critically evaluate the extent to which the HofstedeGray framework (week 1 reading) explains the problems that occurred in this business case and what other considerations must be taken into account to prevent similar problems in the business world. The essay will be graded on 3 dimensions – ethical analysis (7 marks), cultural analysis (7 marks) and written communication (6 marks). More details are in “MARKING CRITERIA” on pages 3-5.

1

Word length Maximum word limit: 1,000 (Typed, double-spaced, minimum 12 point Times New Roman font, all margins 2.5cm minimum).
The word limit includes tables, appendices and footnotes (if any), but excludes references. Do not use endnote. State the word count at the beginning of the essay. All material over 1,000 words will be disregarded. References must follow the Harvard style referencing. Submission Instructions Students must lodge the essay by 5pm Friday 20 September 2013 electronically to Turn-It-in software through Blackboard and submit a copy in Blackboard through the “Essay” tab. Turn-It-In will be made available closer to the due date. Your electronic copy should be in Microsoft Word format and named using your SID (e.g., z1234567.doc). The “Individual Assignment Cover Sheet” on the course Blackboard site must be attached to both submissions. Please ensure that you know how to submit this assessment correctly by reviewing these instructions. Penalties apply for non-compliance. Penalties  Presentation and organisation of the essay: students should write up their answers in an essay format which must consist of an introduction, body of discussion and conclusion. Headings must be used when answering the questions. The introduction and conclusion should be directly related to the findings students identified in the body. 3 marks penalty applies to essays that fail to follow this structure.  Plagiarism: Refer to the University policy for possible penalties; http://www.lc.unsw.edu.au/plagiarism/index.html  Late submissions will be penalised at the rate of 5% (1 mark) per day or part thereof. The penalty applies to Saturday and Sunday as well as weekdays. No essay will be accepted for submission after 10 October 2013.  Submissions that do not follow the “Submission Instructions” will attract a penalty of 3 marks.  Small or incorrect font: Penalty of 2 marks will be deducted for a font below 12 or the use of a font other than Times New Roman. 
Inappropriate margins: Penalty of 2 marks will be deduced if any margin is less than 2.5cm.  An essay presented in handwriting: Hand-written essays will not be marked; late penalties apply to re-submission in WORD. Feedback and marking of the essay will be done by the online marking and feedback system called ReView. Self-assessment of performance for your own essay can also be conducted using ReView. Further details about access ReView (including a link to access ReView) are available on Blackboard.

2

MARKING CRITERIA Ethical Analysis Criteria (7 marks):
Criteria 1. Identify key ethical issues or implications of business decisions / practice (2 MARKS) Analyse and assess ethical impacts / implications (2 MARKS) <50% (Fail)  Does not identify key ethical dimensions / issues.  50%-74% (Pass-Credit) Identifies key ethical  dimensions / issues, but may not clearly explain why they are issues. ≥75% (Distinction-HD) Identifies key ethical dilemma / issues, provides a clear explanation / strong justification for why they are issues. Uses appropriate ethical frameworks to classify and analyse issues, justifying decisions where necessary: o Identifies the key stakeholders. o Examines and assesses the intended or unintended impacts on stakeholders from a number of different perspectives Provides a welljustified strategy / recommendation that convincingly addresses identified issues / impacts. Considers impact and implications of recommended strategy, and assesses alternative responses if appropriate.

2.



 Does not use ethical  Identifies appropriate ethical frameworks / frameworks/ principles and uses these principles to analyse to analyse ethical issues issues, e.g.,: / impacts: o Does not identify o Identifies some relevant ethical relevant frameworks stakeholders. o Does not identify o Provides some the main analysis of the stakeholders or intended or accurately explain unintended impact the impacts on on these them stakeholders

3.

Propose a  Does not propose a strategy to feasible strategy / address ethical recommendation to considerations (3 address the identified MARKS) issues.





Proposes a feasible  strategy / recommendation to address issues / impacts. Provides some justification for  recommendation, based on analysis and relevant ethical frameworks / principles.

3

Cultural Analysis Criteria (7 marks):
Criteria 1. Identify cultural dimensions / characteristics of a business situation (2 MARKS) <50% (Fail)  Does not identify key cultural dimensions, characteristics or issues in a business situation, or  Makes an ad hoc identification without reference to appropriate theory or frameworks.  Does not accurately identify key cultural impact / implications of business choices or practice. 50%-74% (Pass-Credit)  Identifies some key cultural dimensions, characteristics or issues in a business situation, but may not adequately explain these using appropriate theory or frameworks.  Identifies some cultural impacts or implications of business choices or practice, with some use of appropriate theory or frameworks.  Makes some feasible culturally appropriate recommendations which are aligned with relevant theory or frameworks, but  does not justify recommendations, or justification misses consideration of some impacts or implications. ≥75% (Distinction-HD)  Identifies and explains key cultural dimensions, characteristics or issues in a business situation, using appropriate theory or frameworks.

2. Identify cultural impacts or implications of business practice (2 MARKS)

3. Evaluate the extent to which the HofstedeGray framework explains the problems and propose a strategy to address cultural implications (3 MARKS)

 Does not make feasible culturally appropriate recommendations in light of relevant theory or frameworks.

 Identifies and analyses key cultural impacts (intended and unintended) or implications of business choices or practice, using appropriate theory or frameworks.  Makes feasible culturally appropriate recommendations which are aligned with appropriate frameworks and principles.  Convincingly justifies recommendations and considers their impact and implications (and evaluates alternative responses if appropriate).

4

Written communication criteria (6 marks):
Criteria 1. Communicates clearly and concisely (2 MARKS) <50% (Fail)  Does not express (or explain where necessary) aim, ideas and information clearly and precisely in language appropriate for the intended audience, purpose and context (using own words as much as possible).  Uses inaccurate expression / grammar which often makes meaning unclear. 50%-74% (Pass-Credit) ≥75% (Distinction-HD)

 Generally, but not  Consistently expresses consistently, expresses (and explains where (and explains where necessary) aim, ideas, necessary) aim, ideas and arguments and information clearly and information clearly, precisely in language precisely and concisely in appropriate for the language appropriate for intended audience, the intended audience, purpose and context context and purpose (using own words as (using own words). much as possible).  Uses fluent, accurate  Uses generally accurate expression / grammar (or expression / grammar, but with negligible errors meaning occasionally which do not interfere needs to be clearer. with clarity).

2.

Structures text logically and coherently (2 MARKS)

 Generally presents main  Presents all ideas /  Does not present main argument, ideas and arguments / information argument, ideas and information logically and logically and information logically or structures text coherently persuasively, and structure text coherently to achieve aim e.g.,: structures text coherently to achieve aim, e.g.,:  Text has a generally and effectively to achieve  Text has an unclear clear focus, with little aim: focus and possibly or no irrelevant  Text has a clear focus, irrelevant or repetitive material; ideas are with no irrelevant or material; ideas are not generally developed repetitive material, and sequentially or sequentially and a logical development logically developed logically, but this could and sequence of main  Text is not structured be more consistent ideas and supporting to effectively achieve  Text has an adequate material aim structure  Text has a clear, coherent structure  Presents document at a  Presents document very  Does not present professional standard, professionally, e.g.,: document at a e.g.,:  Evidence of thorough professional standard,  Some evidence of editing (e.g., no / e.g., editing (only minor negligible spelling /  Little evidence of spelling / punctuation punctuation errors) editing (frequent errors)  Accurately and spelling / punctuation  Uses appropriate effectively uses errors) format (e.g., essay) and appropriate format  Does not accurately use follows formatting (e.g., essay) and meets appropriate format requirements requirements (e.g., essay) or follow  Style and presentation  Style and presentation requirements are appropriate and are highly appropriate  Style and presentation sufficiently formal for for the specific business are not appropriate for the specific business / / academic context the specific business / academic context academic context  References sources  References sources in-text accurately (in Harvard  Does not reference and in reference list style) in-text and in sources appropriately / mainly accurately and in reference list. accurately in-text, or in correct style (e.g., reference list.  Integrates sources Harvard). effectively into text.

3.

Presents text professionally and references sources accurately (2 MARKS)

5