- This topic has 466 replies, 74 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
- Posts
@keith5 – probably not but that is why you look at the position in another similar company to see the composition of their remuneration committee. If most similar size companies have say 4 or 5 people this would indicate a weakness that could impact on some stakeholders e.g. shareholders and employees (maybe the ratio of the average earnings of directors to average employee in this company is higher too?)
Trephena, the charts and graphs that I formulate from the results from observations and interview……how do I write the source. Can I juss write for example Source: Keith5, 2014???
I have observed my report has more kilo bytes than the recommended by OBU.
I think due to the many graphs (20) . How possible can I make it in the range for OBU
Thank you
@alfred – I am not a ‘techie’ person but you may need to explore ways were graphs can be saved in a format using the smallest amount of file space. Alternatively or in addition perhaps there is the possibility to double up some of the graphs so that you show one factor using a bar chart presentation but use a line graph on the same (or even more than one line graph) to show other attributes. If a file exceeds the limits you won’t be able to load it so try the above, search online for possible solutions or ask around to find a friend (friend of friend) who can help you reduce the file size down
@keith5 – you reference these to yourself as you have suggested. I trust however you are not using primary data as your main data source as it really is not usually robust and reliable enough on its own.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 3
- ☆
Hello Trephena,
I am at finishing stages and might submit my project in next couple of days, before submission I just need clarification about something, if I use a piece of information from book like CG definition, it has been referred to Cadbury report. In my references should I refer book from where I read the information or its original source? like Cadbury report@breathless 17 – technically the rule of thumb is you should be referencing the actual source you used but if this is a definition and the author of the book is simply citing Cadbury then you are justified in reverting to Cadbury. In the grand scheme of things, it is not highly important as long as it is reference to a reliable source
Thank you so much. I submitted my project. I felt chills as I submitted and especially on appendices when I were asked to reference my appendices like appendix 1- ratios, appendix 2- statements,, I really had only one appendix and i was not going to start changing at the final point
Before submission, I read your checklist and especially where you say why submit when you can defer to next period and submit a more better RAP- I just told my self- this is it -just submit
Otherwise thank you once again for your generous guidance. Hope all goes well
Alfred
@alfred – always good to get it out of the way. Deferring only becomes an issue if it is the final attempt. Then it is a big decision… The worst case scenario when it is the first attempt is you fail and then you have to pay again to resubmit and you can only get a ‘C’. However all being well it will be good news for you in March, so don’t forget to return to our OT OBU Forum then to tell us how you got on. 😀
Regards
Trephena
Hi everyone and welcome all newcomers to the T17 forum!
From time to time I shall be posting links to interesting relevant articles that I find in the business press or from news sites. Here is one such item that potentially impacts on Part 2 of T17 – how CG impacts on key stakeholders – in this case the supplier relationship.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30338663Although this article by Laura Kuenssberg was just about Premier Foods there are possibly many other well known UK companies that indulge in this unsavoury practice. As this is probably ‘just the tip of the iceberg’, I think more similar cases are likely to emerge as it is well known that big companies squeeze suppliers (I mention Laura Ashley in my article on Evaluation on our homepage for example) – but usually not quite so blatantly as in this Premier Food case!
PS The practice outlined in the article would also fall under the ethics part of T20 if anyone reading this is considering attempting a RAP on that topic
@eminathsana – it usually means that the company itself has changed the link so you will have to do a search to find the latest accounts and report yourself
No end to Tesco’s woes… we have had a review by the Financial Conduct Authority, an ongoing investigation by the Serious Fraud Office and now an inquiry by the Financial Reporting Council:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30575040
this latter investigation probably affects the auditors more than Tesco itself so I expect PwC is very concerned. It means potentially some of the senior audit team and the partner who signed off the accounts may have allowed themselves to be duped and fall far short on due diligence in the their audit(s). Co-incidentally PwC are M & S’s auditors too…
oh ! thanx for the update 🙂
I am doing OBU for the may 2015 submission , so will I be able to include this PwC issue in the project as the FRC’s investigation is likely to take at least a year .
Can I write , there is this problem faced by Tesco and auditors of Tesco is PwC , who are the auditors of M&S as well , hence M&S audited reports are also in question if the PwC feel guilty ? giving reference to that article
@eminathsana – it is just good to show the marker that you are up to speed on current issues so you could just mention this issue in passing. Possibly as an example of how even a company (Tesco) previously considered as ‘reputable’ was high-jacked by strong personalities in the boardroom and used complex arrangements to cover sleight of hand in manipulating financial results and how the auditors (Tesco used PwC but had also recently changed auditors so possibly if more than one year is affected then more than one big UK audit firm) did not pick up on the latter….
Parallels here with Enron – crooked forceful CEO+ others, manipulation of revenue and Arthur Andersen, which kicked off SOX legislation and here we are more than 10 years on….
thank you 🙂
As I am doing the RAP on M&S’s 2014 annual report , it’s financial year ends at 29th March 2014.
In the FRC website it has 2 edition of UK code , one is effective from September 2012 and the latest one is effective from September 2014 and it says
“Companies with reporting periods beginning before 1 October 2014 should continue to report against the September 2012 edition of the Code, although they are encouraged to consider whether it would be beneficial to adopt some or all of the new provisions in the revised code earlier than formally expected.”if that is the case I have to follow September 2012 edition , but my question is , do i have to check the latest edition of the code as well while reviewing whether M&S compliance on the code ? and also do I have to go through each and every provision of it and check whether M&S has complied it or not .
@eminathsana The company will have used the 2012 code so principally you will use that for the March 2014 accounts. However there are probably only a few areas that have been changed in the 2014 Code, so you could compare any of the changes while stating for example that although the company complied under the 2012 Code under the New code they would have to so more in a particular area. Remember that you are assessing the QUALITY of the CG so anything that is evidence of this quality will form part of your evaluation (and it is safe to assume that the 2014 Code is intended to improve CG). Students who tend to get the best grades are those that ‘step outside the box’ a bit and are proactive. Markers like to see that students are interested and knowledgeable about their topic and those students who only do the minimum to pass usually don’t get more than a C grade.
@ trephena
thank you
Can I use the Abbreviation for corporate governance as “CG” and also for research and analysis project as ‘RAP” in this project ?
@eminathsana – No problem using CG and RAP as abbreviations. However do not go overboard on using too many non-conventional abbreviations: CEO and EPS are fine but I have come across students who use non-conventional (i.e. those not widely used) or ambiguous abbreviations (e.g. IA can mean Internal audit or Intangible Assets). It can drive the markers mad and in extreme circumstances I have known the work being failed on Communication (even if there has been a list of abbreviations included as an appendix) on the grounds that abbreviations had been used to try to circumvent the word count and that the marker had to keep breaking off to refer to the list and then re-read bits to try to make sense of what had been written. So if in doubt about using any abbreviation then my advice is don’t do it!
@trephena I wish I could contribute to this T17 platform but arrgg I don’t have the confidence till the results come in March
Alfred
Hi I am have submitted RAP in the past but failed topic 17. I want to resubmit in May. I choose shell Plc I am considering changing this what do you think. Is it too late to start writing now?
@dorcas- you need to examine the reasons why you failed previously. Usually for T17 it is because the student has overly relied on company sources of information so the report is not balanced as it just restates the company’s own CG statement or does not question or critique the information.
So be successful you need to show a range of sources and take a broader appraisal of the situation not just blindly accept what the company tells you but seek out articles from the business press that either support or contradict the company stance and make also make comparisons with similar companies.
There is certainly time to re-submit in May. I suggest you read through this whole 17 forum to get ideas of the right approach and also read my article on our homepage about how to do a resubmission statement – which helps you focus on how to do a successful resubmission. See http://www.opentuition.com/obu for the obu homepage
- The topic ‘OLD (Pre-Period 35) Topic 17 Corporate Governance – RESUBMISSIONS ONLY’ is closed to new replies.