- October 22, 2015 at 10:06 am #278371
QUICK CHECKLIST FOR T17
I have set out lots of information on this forum but as you come to completing your RAP and before you submit take a quick look through this (and maybe re-read all of the posts) to ensure that you have covered sufficient areas and adopted the right approach for a pass (and it goes without saying don’t forget to reference your sources!)
For those submitting in P31 onwards ensure you do a BRIEF ‘literary review’ about the development and background of CG to put your topic in a context. Mention some of the reports and Commissions set up to investigate the problems and provide solutions to it, the Agency theory issue and development of Codes and legislative but keep it relatively short and to the point.
1. Have you used a suitable Code? (More than one possibly for some overseas companies)
2. Have you made some comparisons with another company /other companies operating in a similar sector particularly on areas where your company may not be performing so well?
3. Have you considered the role of auditors (the length of their appointment and relationship with the Board?) take a look at the attached article about Tesco in relation to its auditors
Any evidence of a threat to audit independence in your company? ( remember that Arthur Andersen were heavily criticised about their relationship with Enron to the point they never recovered their reputation)
4. Have you based most of your work on primary data? – if so you need to remedy this fast…
5. Have you considered all the relevant stakeholders properly? There are two parts to T17 !
6. Do you have prima facie evidence of the impact of CG on company performance? (some basic information on share price / EPS – a few nice graphs please 🙂 )
7. Have you used visual means to display your information wherever possible – saves both on words and lots of boring long paragraphs so makes your work far more interesting to read
8. Don’t forget other aspects of CG that may be outside the code – whistleblowing has been the means of discovery for a lot of malpractices (Enron, Tesco, Olympus and many big name companies); The importance of transparency (those companies with complex tax arrangements or who base themselves in the Caymen Islands don’t spend huge amounts on these complexities and lawyers fees if they have absolutely nothing to hide!). Are there company policies to deal with anti-bribery and money-laundering?
9. And don’t just accept what the Board writes in their CG statements – what they don’t write in it can be more important and what they actually do rather than what they say they do. Question and look for proof (comparisons and research for articles on the company in the business press). A pass requires some critical thought not blind allegiance and a re-write of the company’s CG declarations!
Remember: CG statements can be wishful thinking – take a look at: https://www.tescoplc.com/assets/files/cms/Annual_report_2014/Corporate_governance.pdf
And yet 6 months later this statement is in tatters and I doubt there are many happy smiling faces now….https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29613946
10. Don’t forget that depending on the type of your organisation other regulations as well as the Code may come into play e.g. if you have chosen a bank you will be expected to have outlined the more recent Basel Accords and how your bank complies with these if applicable. In the UK there is the Prudential Regulation Authority and its specific recent guidance on ‘Senior Management Arrangements, Systems & Contols [see SYSC 2 of the PRA Handbook]. ( Both the Basel Committee and the PRA are concerned with risk assessment but Basel looks at capital adequacy etc but the PRA in addition looks at the balance and actual skills of the management)
Obviously withTesco as is often the case hindsight is a wonderful thing but the warning here is not to go overboard in praising your company – stick to facts and make your judgments objective e.g. on the basis of your research you believe that XYZ is adopting measures that are in line with the principles of good CG / or there is evidence that ABC could do more to comply with accepted codes and that it is trailing behind similar companies in important areas. That way if some skeleton emerges from the CG cupboard after you submit your glowing endorsement of the company you won’t be left with egg on your face!
(like the Tesco Board 😀 )
And finally… leading on from the point above: You need to appreciate that CG is a developing & dynamic subject so you must show you are ‘on the ball’. Although you may have used the latest annual report as the basis of your Findings and analysis you have to consider any more recent dramatic/important developments that may have occurred since the report was published that may impact on the entity’s CG e.g. sudden departure of the Chairman, financial scandal etc. This is particularly so if they happened at least 3 months ago. NOTE: It doesn’t mean a complete re-write just a paragraph or so (call it update [since year end] if you like, just to show you are aware of it and really know your subject 😀May 3, 2019 at 12:19 pm #514838
I failed my OBU in period 32 and now i am resubmitting my project under same topic 17 in period 38. reasons for my failure is i was too descriptive in the way i have applied the corp. governance codes and i have just mentioned whether the company has complied or not, i didnt refer anything other than Aviva Plc’s annual reports. further i was failed due to using a tickbox approach.
Following the failure, i have gone through lots of news articles like reuters,guardian,ft adviser etc. and instead of just using a tick box approach i did my projectr as below.
i discussed main 5 sections of UK corp. governance code in part 2, then in part 3;
I made 5 mini topics with those 5 sections under which i have analysed practical scenarios where Aviva has either failed or performed well, i made mini conclusions under each section and also instead of just quoting the full description of CG codes, i have just gave direct reference to them to save word count and to avoid descriptive tick box approach, eg;- bla bla where Aviva has failed to effectively comply with code C.1.1 (Financial reporting council, 2016, p.22).
Further i did not use a nother company as a camparitor, i dont think this will be a issue because nothing about that was mentioned by moderator/marker in my results sheet. and the topic or info. pack doesnt say its a must to use a competitor.
instead i analayzed about the company using CG code UK, practical scenarios and news & stakeholder theory. further i did ratio and financial analysis to show the impacts on shareholders, other graphs and figures to show impact on employees as well.
Please kindly advise whether this approach is fine as i am about to submit my project in next few days, thank you Trephena.
DilanMay 3, 2019 at 1:17 pm #514842May 4, 2019 at 9:18 am #514898
Your approach sounds appropriate. You need to reflect on the importance of what you have found in relation to the various aspects of GC. For example part of the problem with both the recent failures of Carillion and Patisserie Valerie were inappropriate strategies. As Aviva has taken over other companies you could consider how well these takeovers were managed or whether they led to any weaknesses or significant issues and how sharshoulders responded.
I suggest that you stress in your resubmission statement that you are reworking your P32 submission and resubmitting on OLD Topic 17May 11, 2019 at 1:42 pm #515617
HI @trephena, can you kindly advise what are the documents that i should submit, will the below be enough (I have only failed evaluation part in RAP);
Research and Analysis project
List of references
Kindly advise as i am planning to submit on 13.05.2019, thanksMay 13, 2019 at 8:28 am #515742
Yes, if you only failed evaluation then your list seems appropriate. The emphasis is likely to be on Part3 and in ensuring that your sources are appropriately used and referenced.May 21, 2019 at 4:11 pm #516723
Thanks @trephena, I have submitted my project resubmission, but i found a issue with 3 of my references, i used Financial times online version for referencing some facts and now i realized that Financial times is a subscription based site and you cannot view the same page again without subscribing,
I am worried whether this will disappoint the marker, i have used totally 3 financial times sources from my total 45 odd references.
can you kindly advise please. further i have made around 3 grammatical mistakes in the project.May 21, 2019 at 5:18 pm #516733GillianM – OBU Registered MentorModerator
- Topics: 3
- Replies: 476
Please do worry about this. As a former marker I can tell you it should not be a major issue on either front. Even if it is subscription a search engine should bring up the access to the article via the link (even if it cannot be viewed). Perfect English and grammar though desirable in native speakers is mot expected and even I (who I admit am very ‘old school’ on this) would only fail on communication if I couldn’t understand points being made (or things like the word count was seriously exceeded or there was excessive use of unnecessary abbreviations ).
If the rest of your work is good it should not compromise your gradeMay 22, 2019 at 9:46 am #516838
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.