- This topic has 180 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
- Posts
There no prescribed one way of setting this out. It is important to use clear headings though.
Don’t overlook the final element of the impact on stakeholders e.g. many big investors divested themselves of Tesco shares and Tesco ‘s market share has diminished considerably. This as well as questioning the quality of audits (especially as one of the Big Four was involved) – so just 3 things that instantly come to mind. ( Tesco was used fairly frequently as the subject company for OLD T17 so please read through the latter half of the thread “Topic 17 Corporate Governance RESUBMISSIONS ONLY” which currently can be found on page 3 of our topic list.
Please also look at the website of Applied Corporate Governance as there are some interesting articles on CG there including one specifically on Tesco and whistleblowing https://www.applied-corporate-governance.com/tesco-and-whistleblowing.html
Regarding the spreadsheet – you could show changes in market share (calculating the year on year decrease) and perhaps calculations and a bar chart or graph to show the the difference in the originally stated profit and amended profit figures after they have been adjusted to comply with correct financial reporting standards. Charts for market share and profit figures can be shown in the report to illustrate key points and such charts are also useful to break up the text and make it easier for the marker to read and assimilate information.
I’m really struggling. I’m thinking of deferring to the next submission period as the pressure is getting ridiculous. 🙁
I have my research, but I am struggling putting it down the report. For example, I have looked at the external auditors as an example of questionable governance. I have a section which describes what the auditors “should” do, what they actually did, why this was questionable etc and related it back to the code and agency theory. But after the 2014 scandal, this set up changed. So my quesiton is, do I write about the changes in this same section, or do i use a different section later on to write about the changes made (as part of the “organisations response” section.
I am getting so hung up on where to put things in the report, it is really holding me back.
Can i also another quick question. If I am looking at Tesco’s CG practices in 2014, do I use the code relevant at that time to compare. Or do I use the most recent version now as a comparison for everything?
Me again! I’m sorry for clogging up the thread!
I’ve been workin on my report all day. I just sent a section of my part 3 to my mentor and she says I am doing it wrong 🙁 I am soooo confused!
My part 1 sets the scene- so it discusses the topic and organisation choice then gives my objectives and research questions and overall approach to the research
Part 2 is where I outline my sources and how i collected info / limitations and goes into the ethical issues I experienced etc. I am fine with with all of that. I then have the section on accounting and business techniqus used. I have 4 sections to this: Ratio analysis, corporate governane theory (including the code), stakeholder theory and agency theory. I explain about each of them and discuss their limitations. So this is all theory.
Part 3- this is where I am struggling. I was planning to tackle the obvious problem areas with Tesco in turn. So for example, I start with the external auditors. I explain what the code and other guidance suggests, then i have a section which evaluates Tesco’s auditors practices and how it differs from the guidance. I touch on their fees, their independence and the threats that came out of their 30yr relationship with Tesco.
But my mentor says I am going about it wrong. She says i need to follow the layout I prescribed in Part 2. So i should start with ratio analysis, then “do” agency theory. I don’t know what she means by “do” agency theory.
Please help, I am confused.
Vic x
Listen Vicky you are making all of this far harder than you need to. I don’t know who your mentor is (and neither do I need to know) however what you (and perhaps she) need to know is that just reciting theory is not going to get you a pass. It is your analysis of the situation I.e. the content of Part 3, that the marker will be focusing on (as anyone can regurgitate theory). So don’t waste too many words and effort on agency theory – and give just a brief summary of your chosen stakeholder theory model.
In my opinion (and bear in mind I can confidently say I have advised more students than your mentor) you are approaching this correctly. Don’t ‘start with ratio analysis’ – ratios are ancillary to this topic by that I mean they are used to illustrate points but are not key to the topic like they are to Topic 8 ( maybe your mentor is more used to mentoring Topic 8 and she is the one who is confused here?). You therefore only bring in ratios appropriate to the discussion.
You relate the info to the code applicable to the accounting period so the 2012 Code would relate to the problems in YE 2013 and the 2014 Code to 2015 onwards. (I think the Code was only amended in late 2014 and therefore inapplicable to YE 2014 as the 2014 revision is applied to the next full year I.e. YE 2015).
As for for where you discuss the response to the auditor problem, as long as you cover it in Part 3 in the grand scheme of things it does not matter if you do this as one integrated section or separate it out.
Time you started to chill. Get you info down and bring in adequate discussion. When you have finished then you can edit it all as it will be more evident then when you read through with a critical eye which bits are best where
For those thinking of doing this topic who would prefer NOT to choose a UK company there are a couple of Japanese companies that would be suitable see https://blog.applied-corporate-governance.com
You would need to briefly consider those aspects of Japanese CG that are different to the Western model but this would allow you to compare and contrast the two models in your discussions. You could also make some reference to the well documented Olympus case which was a landmark CG Japanese case back in 2010 allowing you to reflect how CG in Japan has changed (or not as the case may be)
Thank you Trephena for that much needed pep talk. I wish you were my mentor!! I need to get a grip and get on with it, which is what I shall do right now. Code of corporate governance here I come……!
You will be fine I am sure. Just chill baby, chill !
[Don’t overlook the importance of referencing however – our “Open Tuition Ultimate Guide to Referencing Your RAP” (available on our homepage) be invaluable in this respect if your mentor is not sufficiently wised up]
Hi again. So I have spent pretty much all of today trying to write about Tesco’s shareholders relations and I am getting nowhere, so I am here to ask for any hints and tips on what i should be looking at when comparing Tesco’s shareholder relations to the Code (Section E). I really don’t know how to start. I’ve looked at the Code, I’ve looked at other examples of good shareholder relations, but I am finding it difficult to bring Tesco in.
Any advice?
x
Have you put two key words in a search engine “Tesco AGM” ?
I suspect when you do you will be inundated with articles from not just the Financial press but also Share Action….
…The Code is never going to give you anything dynamic – it is a static instrument about what things should be like in an ideal world if everything was going to plan and everyone was doing what they should.
[Let’s put it like this, I found a wealth of information when I put in those 2 magic words in omniscient Google ]
Hi vickyshaw,
How’s your topic 17 going? I’m also writing on topic 17 and I’m also stranded in part 3 after successfully completing parts 1 and 2. I can’t defer to the next submission period. My family would be unspeakably disappointed if I had to wait until November to submit. I’m still keeping my head up and working towards May submission in less than two weeks! I hope you are too (or that you’ve already submitted)!
@vickyshaw said:
Hi again. So I have spent pretty much all of today trying to write about Tesco’s shareholders relations and I am getting nowhere, so I am here to ask for any hints and tips on what i should be looking at when comparing Tesco’s shareholder relations to the Code (Section E). I really don’t know how to start. I’ve looked at the Code, I’ve looked at other examples of good shareholder relations, but I am finding it difficult to bring Tesco in.Any advice?
x
I missed this quote for my last post about topic 17. It’s past 3 AM. I guess my brain is fast asleep!
Hi, all.
am planning on submitting this Nov and was wondering how much time is needed to comfortably complete this project. i was looking at spending 2 hrs a day 4 days a week. will this be enough?
am thinking of doing topic 17 as I’ve been following these forums and i think it’ll give me a good chance of getting a good grade.
Many thanks
Well done that you are planning ahead Frank as taking your time over this will give you the opportunity to develop insight (ideas and thoughts on improvements take time to emerge). 8 hours pw for say 20 weeks if used appropriately (good research and information sources) should be more than adequate for a good grade.
Don’t forget though that the Topic 17 title has now changed so you must choose a company that has recently (no more than 5 years ago) been involved in a scandal. Many high profile banks fit this bill and obviously the current furore over Facebook is a very recent example.
Explore the issues and repercussions from as many angles and stakeholder positions as possible and look for articles in the business press and the Applied Corporate Governance website. Good luck!
@trephena. thanks, i should now get my sleeves rolled! will keep you posted on how i progress.
Well here’s a good one and very topical so there is sure to be lots of relevant material on it in the business press both now and during the next few months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44129678
As you probably know with Carillion, the proverbial hit the fan a few months back but as with Tesco (which, like some of its products is nearing the end of its shelf-life – for Topic 17 that is) it is set to run for a while to come ! 😀
Hi trephena,
For topic 17, if I chose an US company, is there any corporate governance code to follow? I did search online, but seems US doesn’t have an overarching code for the country. Or any other guidelines could be used as a substitute?Thank you for your help!
Ling
US Corporations tend to be governed by a combination of Federal and state law, including the Foreign Corrupt practices Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act. Many of the types of practices and procedures that you would find in CG Codes are set out in the last two but have the force of law (unlike most Codes which are principle based so have no legal teeth)
Whistleblowing also has a higher profile (and in the case of reporting crimes against the US government under the False Claims Act it can be very financially rewarding).
Decide why you are choosing a particular company and use business articles to guide you towards the legal and governance issues as they may mention particular statutes that the company has broken.
Thank you trephena! The company I chose has worldwide operation but it’s an US company. Should I just focus on the events happened in the US? or anything happened around the world?
Focus on the scandals and breaches of CG wherever they may have happened regardless of whether they took place outside the USA.
Thank you trephena. I hope this is my last question. If the company I chose is not a publicly traded company, does Sarbanes-Oxley Act still apply?
To be honest I’m not sure but probably not. However as with other CG codes the principles behind them are the benchmark for good governance so even if the company is not legally bound by SOX legislation serious discrepancies between the provisions of the Act and corporate behaviour could still be construed as evidence of weak governance and used as examples.
@ trephena,
Hi Trephena, I’ve been going through the forum to get an insight before i start writing anything and did realise from your chat to Alfred about T17, that you advised having done P1 or have the text to read.
I’ve not done any P level papers yet. if i have to read the old P1 notes (as the paper is changing this year), how much of the text do i need?
Any other prior advise you can suggest? am not used to writing reports tbh.
Many thanks
Hi Frank
The old Topic 17 was far more ‘routine’ than the new one and as such required a student to be fairly familiar with the details of the CG Code.
Now new Topic 17 involves an appreciation of the principles of good governance and business ethics in relation to those making corporate decisions and formulating policy. As it involves selecting a company involved in a CG scandal and analysing what went wrong and the overall impact on a variety of stakeholders, it develops a student’s practical analytical skills (rather than rote learning).
Whilst it is probably not necessary to have passed P1, some knowledge of what good governance means and the consequences of poor governance need to be understood. Being able to research well using a number of sources (including business pages) and produce balanced arguments are now vital. Therefore being able to apply critical thinking skills are what will get a pass (regardless of whether you have passed P1 or not).
Some references to the Code will normally be appropriate but whereas the application of a stakeholder model invariably used to revolve around students producing Mendelow’s Matrix, these alone are now inadequate for a pass. Lots of reading around the topic therefore is better than just being word perfect with respect to a P1 manual!
The Info Pack sets out a basic structure but you should ensure that you use plenty of headings and avoid dense passages of text (inter-space them with appropriate graphs, charts etc to break up the text).
- The topic ‘(Archive) T17 Corporate Governance’ is closed to new replies.