University of Brighton

Brighton Business School

Module Report Template

Module Title / Corporate Finance and risk management
Module Code / FN368
Courses/ Years Taught / Baaf3, BABS with F3, Maths with F3
Module Leader / Joanna Johnson
Other members of the teaching team / Catherine Matthews
Semester (or weeks taught if block mode) / Year through
Academic Year / 2013/14

Introduction

Students seemed again to catch on early this year to the importance of seminars in this topic, and attendance was good. Both halves of this module continued to be supported by text books in the main, as we responded to student feedback.

.

Statistical data including passes and referrals

Examination Review (70% of total Mark)

Average Mark: 50% (56% ) *******

Range: 14% to 88% (12% to 86%) 92 (87) Students

Average mark per question (number of attempts)

Q1 / 44 / (69) / Section A, Q1-4 were in part numerical questions, requiring
the application of principles to a particular case.
Section B, Q5-7 were essay style questions.
Students were required to attempt two questions from Section A, one from Section B and one other.
Q2 / 40 / (32)
Q3 / 52 / (86)
Q4 / 60 / (62)
Q5 / 52 / (77)
Q6 / 60 / (34)
Q7 / 36 / ( 6)

The averages have fallen drastically this year on the Section A questions.

Q1 Range of 12% to 88%. This question concerned adjusted WACC and the impact of changing gearing levels. What was surprising was the number of students who were unable to recognise how to approach the straightforward elements of the question and who employed convoluted techniques to attempt to achieve an answer. Students struggled with the calculations although most could do some elements. Discussion of CAPM and beta was reasonable.

Q2 This question on overtrading was very disappointing. Students did not interpret the ratios from an overtrading perspective but liked the low stock level, and then suggested reducing it further to raise money. Part a was straight forward causes and cures, ratios poorly interpreted, and then the cures were very disappointing.

Mark range 0% to 72%, with an average mark of 40% - the lowest.

Q3 This question was on swaps and was widely expected to be on the paper. Here there was evidence of rote learning, as students experienced problems deciding who wanted the fixed and floating and had obviously revised assuming they would be told this which they had been in some questions from Hull, but not in the ones we did in seminars. The mark range was 0% to 100% with students in general either able to do the question very well, or very poorly.

Q4 This question concerned hedging forex risk and attempts were reasonably good overall. Most students who attempted this question were able to work though the techniques competently. There were some common errors regarding use of the spot rate and selection of the option. The discursive elements of the question were also attempted reasonably well. The mark range was 16% to 100%.

Q5 This question on EMH and behavioural finance theory needed some outside reading. There were some very good answers but also those that made basic errors about the EMH, and also answered the question in a Level 5 way, with little on behavioural finance theory. The mark range was 12% to 92%.

Q6 This question concerned dividend policy and was a reasonably popular choice. The quality of the discussions varied but most students were able to discuss share repurchases and contrast and compare them against paying a dividend or retention. Weaker students generally did not discuss agency and related issues associated with retention. The mark range was 16% to 80%.

Q7. Very few students attempted this essay which required discussion of the use of derivatives in hedging interest rate risk. Discussions were generally not of a high standard and this is reflected in the mark range of 12% to 56%.

.

Coursework Review (30% of total mark)

Average Mark: 56% (61%) 87 (88) attempts

Range: 28% to 78% (40% to 78%)

The coursework for this module was a group assignment which required the students to carry out a share valuation of Ladbrokes Plc. It produced a reasonable mark range.

Method of returning feedback:

Please indicate which means of returning feedback were used:

Gradecentre comments
Gradecentre attached feedback sheet / X
Turn It In: cover sheet comments
Turn It In: rubric
Turn It In: voice feedback
Turn It In: in line comments
Turn It In: quick marks
Other (please specify)

Attendance:

Attendance continued to be much improved this year, with students appearing to understand early on in the module the importance of seminars for this subject. Preparation was patchy still, and is probably reflected in the range of marks.

Module/component organisation

The module had one lecture and one seminar for each student group each week for two terms. Seminars took a while to settle down as clashes meant that students and staff took a while to work out what was possible and how many students were studying the module.

We remarked last year how busy our summer term office hours were. In contrast this year we saw maybe four students between us even though we had office hours for 16 days in the summer term.

The only thing that has changed this year is the loading onto Student Central of outline solutions. Weaker students may be rote learning these in the expectation that questions will be the same, rather than coming to us to check their understanding which they have to do if the solutions are not there, and this might account for the increasingly large weak tail of students, and the 7 percentage point drop in the average.

External Examiner Comment – to follow

Action Plan

No major changes are proposed.

Joanna Johnson

Catherine Matthews

June 2014

Routing of report:

An electronic copy of this module report should be submitted to the administrative office responsible for the courses where the module is delivered at the same time that marks are submitted to the office, so (where necessary) the report can be circulated to the relevant external examiner(s), with sample work, prior to the meeting of the examination board. The office will also upload copies of module reports into the Quality Folder on BBS storage, so that they can then be accessed on Studentcentral.

Where an external examiner makes comments about a module at an examination board or in their external examiner report, these comments may be incorporated into, and responded to, in a revised module report, which is then forwarded in electronic form to the School Quality Director (SQD) and the relevant subject group leader. The module leader’s response should be conveyed to the external examiner by the person designated to formally respond to the particular external examiner (who will normally be a subject group leader or course leader). The SQD will arrange for the relevant office to upload a revised copy of the module report into the Quality Folder in BBS storage.

The SQD will monitor reports, and will liaise with subject group leaders about any outstanding issues.