Forum Replies Created
- AuthorPosts
- March 11, 2019 at 10:48 pm #509096
Hello @rebecca1991
That is both excellent and interesting news. I estimated my RAP at 36 hours or so, and along with some other CPD I’d already done had 42 hours for 2018, therefore essentially fulfilling my requirement for 2019 too.
Whilst your mentor sounds expensive, it is true that they are not really able to give you answers. They are a mentor, not a tutor, and their job is to challenge and question your assumptions; rather than tell you the direction to go in, ask you why you chose that direction over others etc.
It can be frustrating while you are going through the process, but ultimately it ensures that it is all your own work, and it will be your achievement.
February 13, 2019 at 3:51 pm #505026Hello Gillian,
Thank you for your message; it is easy for written communication to be misconstrued. I was unaware that you have experienced such behaviour already. It is easy to see now why you would be on alert for it.
You raise an interesting point with regard to mentoring fees. There is a fine balance between charging a fair rate for your time (as well as covering hosting, advertising and site fees etc.) and keeping it affordable for students from less affluent backgrounds. I would think you probably have the best possible balance.
I’m not sure if you are aware of a chap called Sam Harris. He is an author and public figure who has been increasingly offering talks/apps/podcasts etc. with what he deems a fair charge for the content. But with all of his IP, if you are genuinely unable to afford it, he will provide it to you for free. It’s an interesting business model in a time when people are used to free content in some contexts (online news, podcasts etc.) but are happy to pay in others (Netflix, NowTV etc.). Of course, it’s a little easier for him to do that now he is established and presumably affluent enough to afford it.
Still I thought it was an interesting parallel to your concerns over the affordability of mentoring services. Perhaps more mentors in the market will drive down prices.
All the best,
O.
February 12, 2019 at 11:14 pm #504955Hi Gillian,
I have no opinion on your ability as a mentor, nor have I expressed one. You have assumed I have made a personal slight against you; I have not. Please rest assured that if I had a justifiable opinion of your mentorship I would express it openly.
There is nowhere in this thread where @ftloose has indicated a wish to engage your services, nor where you have offered your services to them. On the contrary s/he has instead indicated that they are looking to use Kaplan at a cost of c.£500. The mentor I used was less than this, and you yourself have a lower fee too. Hence, they may find better value Mentors if they have a scout around.
I would also note that I signed off my post by wishing both of you the best, and I meant that sincerely. I have only respectfully disagreed with you; I bear you no ill will.
However in the interests of open expression, I am disappointed in the manner in which you have engaged with me in this thread. I humbly asked you for evidence for advice you stated as fact, and in response you provided none while criticising me for my assumptions. I have made an assumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary (with adequate justification, I feel), when you have made an assumption to the contrary in the absence of evidence. I would hope you accept that as fair criticism as it is intended, and not as a slight.
Congratulations on your full P38 quota, and good luck to all of you.
All the best,
O.
February 11, 2019 at 9:57 am #504739Hi Gillian,
I would respectfully disagree that one must prove that any CPD is valid beyond the three criteria mentioned. If the ACCA have a stipulation that a given project such as the RAP, that otherwise meets those criteria, should be excluded from being CPD in any way then they should explicitly state that. If they choose not to, then they certainly have no business retrospectively censuring members who have undertaken the BSc. in good faith but then not met their annual CPD requirement as a result.
To assume something is valid based on named criteria without any statement to the contrary is in my view perfectly reasonable. The first I have seen any such statement is in your response to @ftloose, and I have sought to determine whether you have an established fact that you are basing your statement on or whether you yourself are making an assumption. I’ve found nothing on the ACCA site, nor the OBU site, but again welcome any links that anyone reading this post can find.
In life it can sometimes be good advice to let sleeping dogs lie. And until someone provides a definitive statement from the horse’s mouth that it is not valid CPD, then I have no intention of even going near the horse’s field. If the ACCA review my CPD, decide that the BSc. is not valid, and demand that I make up a shortfall they have then created, then I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.
@ftloose, good luck with your RAP and CPD should you choose to claim it. You also may find better value Mentors out there if you have a scout around.All the best to you both,
O.
February 10, 2019 at 10:31 pm #504684Hello Gillian,
Do you happen to have a link or reference to where the ACCA have stated that the OBU BSc. does not count as CPD?
As I understand it, verifiable CPD is any learning activity that:
1. Is relevant to your career.
2. You can explain how you have applied that learning to your work place.
3. You can provide evidence that the learning took place.So provided that you can demonstrate these three criteria, which is certainly possible with the BSc., then I would be confident in claiming it as CPD. Particularly as I’ve not seen anything anywere on the ACCA site nor OBU specifically excluding it (I’m happy to stand corrected here).
I’ll concede that your exam results in the early exams count towards part of it, but you still have to write the 9,500 words for the RAP. The RAP is not part of your assessment for the ACCA qualification, ergo I maintain that it is a seperate learning activity.
__________
@ftloose (great name), I’m certainly interested to see if you or Gillian can find anything definitive on this, but if not, then frankly I’d suggest you count it as CPD (provided you feel you can demonstrate the three criteria required of all CPD). It is certainly within the spirit of what CPD is supposed to be.Full disclosure: I have claimed my BSc. as CPD, but have not been the subject of a review to test whether or not it was accepted as such. If I am reviewed and told that it does not count, then I shall argue my case with the ACCA.
September 19, 2018 at 9:37 am #475207Thank you Gillian.
Of course, I would never suggest the use of Wikipedia (or any other publicly editable source) as a reference.
I believe your main point, that there probably isn’t any need to reference common ratio formulae, is most pertinent. But if people feel the need to reference each one, Investopedia (edited by analysts and educators etc.), provides definitions of the main ratios which seem acceptable, at least in my experience, to OBU markers.
Comment by GillianM: Agreed! 🙂
September 19, 2018 at 1:13 am #475172I passed, with a grade A and therefore 1st Class Honours.
Thank you @trephena for your wise counsel, and OT generally for the resources provided.
[It looks like Investopedia is ok after all].
Footnote from GillianM of absolute mentoring:
First well done you must be very pleased and proud 😀 as this is no mean feat! If you refer back to my original post on the Referencing thread I had said “So in many respects I would tell you not to worry unduly about this”. However generally, named sources are preferred and speaking as a former senior marker too much use of Wikipedia is definitely frowned upon!
August 23, 2018 at 9:35 am #469060Gillian, thank you for your comprehensive response.
Initially I hadn’t provided references for these formulae for the same reasons you cite; it was my Mentor who told me to go find references for them. Indeed, I didn’t think there were many high quality sources for them, and Investopedia looked like the best compromise.
Hopefully all will be well, and I’ll certainly report back either way.
August 20, 2018 at 1:05 pm #468604It may be a case of trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted (I await the result of my May 2018 submission), but I’ve only recently happened upon the idea that ‘Investopedia’ is not a source that OBU are keen on.
This is somewhat concerning for me as I referenced them 6 times for definitions of financial ratio formulae (such as gross profit, net debt/EBITDA etc.).
Is anyone aware of why the site is not considered reliable? Besides the -pedia suffix, I can’t see that it shares anything else in common with oft-lamented Wikipedia, which has the fair criticism of being editable by just about anyone with an email address. Investopedia, by contrast, is in the business of educating investors through information and articles authored by editors and analysts – it is not editable by all and sundry, to the best of my knowledge. It therefore provides much detail on financial ratios, indispensable tools for analysing financial statements, and therefore hugely useful for Topic 8.
I would be most disappointed to fail for this, especially as it was not highlighted by my Mentor as an area of concern.
Has anyone had an experience of failing their RAP for the inclusion of Investopedia as a source?
May 16, 2018 at 11:48 am #452250All uploaded. Thanks for all your help and advice @trephena
So when are results?
May 16, 2018 at 9:01 am #452236I’VE FOUND A FIX
If you are a Mac user, you must use Firefox to upload and NOT Safari.
I’ve sent this to acca@brookes.ac.uk too so that they can give this advice out to other users who email in.
May 16, 2018 at 12:56 am #452195I think it may be a Mac issue. OBU suggested I select ‘All Files’ when uploading but that’s a Windows option, not Mac, from what I can tell.
I can’t be the first person to upload from a Mac. If anyone has a fix I’d be very grateful. I’m on a MacBook Pro running El Capitan.
May 15, 2018 at 11:30 pm #452190Is anyone having trouble submitting?
When I click to choose the relevant file they are all greyed out and won’t allow me to select them.
May 15, 2018 at 1:13 pm #452082Ooh, one more @trephena
I’ve referenced different webpages from within the same website for ratio definitions. I’m just going through them to append a, b, c etc., but there is no date on these pages.
So, would the correct citations be:
(Website Name, n.d.a)
(Website Name, n.d.b) etc.With the references:
Website Name, n.d.a, Page Name, URL, Accessed Date etc.
May 15, 2018 at 12:45 pm #452070Thanks or your quick response @trephena
I’ll try and put page numbers in if I have time, after all, I want to make the marker’s life easy!
Great news on direct quotes, I do believe the ones I’ve used add value. It’s not a case of me not understanding a point; I believe he chose his word carefully, and never benchmarks occupancy, only RevPAR. The scamp.
Re: question 3, the in-text citation appears as, say, (Peston, R., 2014), and in the reference list it appears as:
Peston, R., 2014. UK economy back at pre-crisis level. [Online]
Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28479902
[Accessed 24 March 2018].So I’ve no fears that the marker won’t find the quote, it’s just a shame that ‘BBC News’ hasn’t been included automatically.
One final question: is it possible to upload what is ready and save progress, rather than submit the same time? I’m conscious of the servers becoming too busy to accept files, so to upload what I have at the moment might be a smooth move.
Thanks, O.
May 14, 2018 at 11:25 pm #451979Hey @trephena
Quick couple of referencing questions!
First, after following the guidance in the Information Pack I was under the impression you only needed a page number if you are quoting directly, not if you’re paraphrasing a statement or point. So that’s where I’m at with my referencing. This is contrary to the Golden Rules! Do I have to go back and dig out page numbers? ?
Secondly I have used a couple of direct quotes. For instance, the CEO saying that they had effective yield management. I’m of the opinion that that was positive spin on poor occupancy rates and set out why I thought so, so wanted his statement verbatim. Should I still paraphrase?
And finally, I’ve used Microsoft Word’s referencing tool which is pretty good. It uses the correct designators, generates an alphabetical list etc, but it lists web sources slightly different to that in the Information Pack.
For example it would list:
Author, Year, Article Title [Online], URL and date accessed.
It’s not listing the publication (The Telegraph, say). I could go in and manually add the text but was wondering if there was something I was doing wrong that could do it automatically. I am, for example, putting ‘The Telegraph’ in the Website Name field.
Thanks!
O.
April 29, 2018 at 9:13 pm #449384@trephena Ha! I went for a roast myself this evening and have become very well acquainted with a bottle of Tempranillo. I’d have liked to get to know it more but I have work tomorrow and I’m over 30.
What breed of dog do you have? I love dogs. I don’t believe in the concept of a soul myself, but if they do exist, dogs’ are the purest.
I appear to have followed the road to operating leverage due to my concern of lack of ratios (or specifically, shareholder ratios on account of Travelodge being a private equity company). They do have high fixed costs which is what brought it onto my radar.
Without it I’ll have: revenue, market share, RevPAR, ARR, occupancy, gross profit %, ebitda %, times interest earned and current ratio. I could potentially bring in net debt/ebitda as a gearing-type ratio -unadjusted or adjusted at 8x rent as per Moody’s/S&P. However I’m currently 2,000 words over my word count, so I have some serious editing to do.
If I just left it out do you think I’d have enough ratio coverage?
April 28, 2018 at 7:53 pm #449213Hello @trephena
Does this Saturday evening find you with a bottle of Rioja? I myself have taken a detour off into some rhubarb infused gin, which is quite interesting. It is softening the blow of having to work on and edit my RAP on such an evening.
I wonder if you could offer some insight into Operating Leverage? I understand it as a concept (I think), but when I use the equation:
(Degree of) Operating Leverage = % Change in EBIT / % Change in Sales
I see a huge drop (from over 5 to less than 1) in the third year, despite no material change in fixed or variable costs. I mean, each year the costs are increasing but fairly linearly. There is a slight increase in fixed costs as a proportion of total costs, but it really is small. In these cases I would expect the DOL to be roughly consistent.
The sales increase for that year is smaller than previously, leading to a small denominator. But the increased fixed costs (higher operating leverage!) means a small increase in the numerator, too. So you end up with a DOL at roughly 1.
So it feels a little bit like this is just a quirk of the calculation, particularly as the company has not taken any actual steps to reduce fixed costs. So I’m at a loss as to what to say. Do I note it as an anomalous quirk of the equation, and that there has not actually been a decrease in operating leverage? I can’t use a different equation, as I don’t have an easy way of identifying the cost mix for Premier Inn (the above calculation with this comparator yields sensible results).
If I can’t reconcile it I might have to leave it out!
Also, slightly off topic. I plan to send copies of my RAP to friends for feedback in addition to my mentor. I’m always keen for more though; is there a mechanism where OT members can submit their RAPs privately for Moderators like yourself to cast a critical eye?
Regards, O.
April 12, 2018 at 6:51 pm #446432I don’t think I’ve properly chilled since sometime in 2009!
However I have taken something of a more relaxed view, especially since I read your post. I guess I’ve been concerned about running out out ratios; I can’t do shareholder as the company is privately owned, etc. ROCE seems perhaps a little redundant as it is primarily a leasehold business – they only really own fixture and fittings. At some point the suitability of the company itself comes into question!
Having said that, too many ratios and you just don’t have enough words to do any meaningful analysis. I’m really starting to appreciate what the Information Pack meant when it states that you *only* have 7,500 words, especially when it suggests you allocate so many to parts other than the actual analysis.
Looking again at T&L and THL, it is clear that it is almost entirely debt financed (bank, and later bonds). I could treat the investor loan note (at 17% interest!) as a pseudo-shareholder’s capital, as the bank has first lien on the senior debt, but I don’t think that’s the best option.
Instead I’m thinking of doing the Times Interest Earned ratio, as for an all debt business, it’s ability to meet its finance cost (lease interest and debt/bond interest) is perhaps a more useful measure of its health. In addition (or alternatively), I could do net debt to EBITDA to get a feel of just how long it will take to pay it off (and how that is changing over time). What do you think, are two necessary?
I believe I can jimmy a similar figure out of Premier Inn (albeit with some Costa included) as a bit of a comparison.
That would mean for analysis I’m therefore looking at Revenue (with a look at growth, market share, RevPAR and occupancy/ARR), Gross Profit, EBITDA (or maybe Operating Gearing), and TIE. And linking all that to PEST/SWOT and the Board’s strategy.
How does that sound?
April 10, 2018 at 7:42 pm #446031Hey @trephena
Well, if I manage to graduate I’ll be sure to look out for you there! At the moment it feels like I keep coming up against constant bumps that are hindering my writing. I’ll definitely get on with your SWOT suggestions, thanks.
This evening I’ve been trying to wrestle with the capital structure of Travelodge and I feel like I’m being a complete idiot!
So at the very top you have a company based in Luxembourg called Anchor Holdings SCA (AH). I believe these are the original lenders who took a debt/equity swap in 2012 when Travelodge was struggling.
AH own the parent company of the Travelodge group, which is Thame & London Ltd (T&L), who produce group consolidated accounts. The company that basically does all the work in the group is Travelodge Hotels Ltd (THL), and between THL and T&L are a series of holding companies. They all seem to just lend money to each other which as I alluded to a few weeks ago I believe is just background noise.
So I’ve mainly been interested in the parent, T&L and the company that does all the work, THL; furthermore, all this so far is really moot for most of the ratios until you come to debt.
When I look at THL, the subsidiary running the hotels, it has a healthy balance sheet with shareholder’s funds of £774.6m in 2014 (a mix of called up share capital at £300m, revaluation reserve and profit & loss account). It lists the leases as fixed assets. Within debtors there is £592.8m owed from other group companies, and within liabilities, there is £111.9m owed to other group companies. There is no debt to speak of.
Then, I go up to T&L, the ultimate parent. Its balance sheet shows a deficit of £78.1m for 2014, which is almost entirely accumulated losses. First off, the share capital is £1 (one million shares at £0.000001)! Up at this level you can see all the secured bank debt £394.3m and unsecured loan of £127.0m from AH in Luxembourg to fund the modernisation programme. But I can’t see any investment in the holding companies under assets. Up here I seem to have all the debt and no equity.
So I feel a bit stumped as I come to look at gearing. I don’t feel I can use THL here for this ratio as it looks like the company is being financed by debt held elsewhere in the group. But at the same time I can’t see how that has worked though to the consolidated balance sheet as I can see the (bank/investor) debt there but not the assets.
I feel like I’m missing something painfully obvious! I guess if the debtor/creditor loan balances in THL can’t be found up at T&L, it means that these loans in and amongst the holding companies cancel out on consolidation which proves it’s just background noise? So the whole show is completely financed by bank debt? Have I answered my own question? But where is the investment in subsidiary companies asset?
Arrrgh! Help! What am I missing?!
April 8, 2018 at 4:02 pm #445655Hello @trephena , did you enjoy your trip to Japan? I’ve never been myself, but it’s on my list of places to visit. Did you get to see the cherry blossoms blooming?
You would always be welcome to drop by for some Rioja, although it might be a little bit of a trip; I’m based in Cheshire.
Thank you for the further advice you have given. I took it upon myself to query OBU directly regarding the assumptions I was having to make with Whitbread and they were very helpful. It seems that they are quite relaxed provided you fully explain what you are doing and your justifications.
I’ve made some good progress I feel and I’m currently getting stuck into Part 3. I’ve completed PEST and done most of SWOT – although I’m a little unsure of how much detail with the latter as most of the opportunities and threats were identified in PEST if not discussed as such. I don’t want to end up repeating myself.
What seems clear to me so far is that, whereas initially I was concerned about using up to 7,500 words, now I’m concerned I’m going to struggle to fit everything in to that word count! I’m just going to plod on, see where it ends up, and then go back and cut words where I can.
March 18, 2018 at 8:46 pm #442975Many thanks for your comprehensive response. I don’t know where you find the time to answer so many questions – but I’m eternally grateful for it!
I did indeed neglect to mention ratio analysis separately, however I was considering them; in my mind I had lumped them in with KPIs in general.
That is one thing I’ve been keen to try and do as I think of how I can organise all the data. After reading your RAP Guide Part 1 I’ve taken on board your assertion that the business and financial results are inter-related. In fact I’m trying to even not separate them in my RAP; for instance, I want to try and put them alongside each other in the results rather than separate analyses.
For example, as I look at Revenue growth I’d also like to show RevPAR at the same time. Revenue growth is great, but is it being achieved just because there are more rooms or is it because they’re filling the rooms more efficiently? My aim is to use the financial ratios as a base, bring in a KPI if it is relevant, then move onto other ratios and repeat (grouped as, say, profitability, gearing etc.).
As I continue I’m finding other points that I would appreciate clarity on, if you’ll indulge me?
1. I can find some comparative figures for Premier Inn (such as revenue) as it is listed separately in Whitbread’s accounts. However I can’t find a figure for gross profit as they lump that in with their restaurants (although Costa is separate). However I will then be able to find other comparative figures, such as RevPAR, occupancy etc. So my question is: does it matter if I don’t have a comparative figure for some Travelodge results (gross profit, EBITDA, ROCE and gearing spring to mind), and can I just use comparators where I can find them? And then just state the lack of availability of data is a limitation?
2. As an extension to question 1, I have other bits of industry data (no-Premier Inn) that I can bring in at selected points where it is available. Surely that’s fine to do to try and add a bit more of a complete picture?
3. Whitbread’s accounts run to the end of February each year and Travelodge is as per the calendar year. Therefore to compare (say) Travelodge 2014 with Premier Inn, Whitbread’s 2015 results would be a closer approximation (having March – December 2014 within them). So my question is, can I match Travelodge’s 2014, 2015 and 2016 with Whitbread’s 2015, 2016 and 2017, noting the 3 month difference. Or do I have to pro-rata Whitbread’s accounts?
I hope all that makes sense; I’m about a third of the way through a delicious Rioja….
Thanks again,
O.
March 10, 2018 at 3:37 pm #442085Hello @trephena
I was wondering if you be so kind as to offer a little more guidance to me?
I am at the stage where I have done some KPI analysis, PEST, Porter’s 5 and a SWOT, along with an environment timeline to give myself a fairly broad view of the company and what was going on in the wider economy over the period. So now I am thinking of how I bring that together, draw some conclusions from it, and present it to the reader in a logical and ordered fashion.
That’s where I feel a little stuck!
For example, I’ve been putting the SWOT together as I’ve been reading about the company in chronological order. I can identify weaknesses and opportunities (say) early on in 2014, and by the end of 2016 the company has turned those weaknesses into strengths and exploited those opportunities! Obviously that’s great for the company, but it feels like it’s hard for me to add value to it. In fact it could almost look like I skipped to the end and saw what they did, then go back to the start and say “They should do this…”.
So I’m cautious of my RAP turning into a story of what the company did without offering any further insight. Therefore I have what I guess is writer’s block on how to get started.
Would you say the following is a good approach?
1. A short narrative of major events leading up to the period under review to give a little context to where the company is, and what it itself wants to achieve (taken from the BOD report).
2. A PEST/Porter’s 5/SWOT analyses at the beginning of the period to look into more detail regarding the company and its environment.
3. A narrative of the actions the company took in pursuit of their declared strategy over the three years, and the reactions they had to any external events, and link these to the KPIs (in an appendix).
4. A comparison of this performance (the KPIs) to those of a comparator.
5. An updated PEST/Porter’s 5/SWOT analyses at the end of the period to summarise the new position/environment of the company.
6. A conclusion, where I offer an opinion on how well or badly the company really did vs. their comparator, how well they achieved the aims they set out in their strategy, and offer ideas on how they can continue?
How does that sound?
Thank you,
O.
March 10, 2018 at 3:00 pm #442078Hello @loveo
I am in a similar situation with Travelodge, and I am using 2014, 2015, and 2016. As far as I know, we are now in a period of time where if 2017 results are published, we do not have to use them but may do so if we wish.
Personally I would not (at least for a full analysis) and if anything maybe make a small reference to them if they give an indication of an outcome from a specific event from the period under review.
O.
March 5, 2018 at 2:43 pm #440349Thank you, @trephena
- AuthorPosts