外文翻译财务分析.docx

Developing student competencies_ An integrated approach to a financial statement analysis projectThis paper presents an instructional resource for an integrated fi-nancial statement analysis project. The project requires a quantitative analysis of a companys financial statements and a written re-search report. The project is designed to develop students critical thinking and analytical capabilities through the application of course concepts to a real company, while also providing opportunities to develop professional competencies. Following Ansons Instruc-tional Design Model (2007), the integrated project includes supporting activities, which are designed to aid students in achiev-ing the projects learning goals. The supporting activities include in-class instruction on financial ratios, a computer lab session on Excel, draft papers, peer reviews of writing, and paper revisions. The in-tegrated project also serves as an example of an assignment that is consistent with two recent education frameworks, the Inte-grated Competency-Based Framework (Lawson et al., 2014) and the AICPA Core Competency Framework (2015), which both advocate for increased integration of professional competencies within the ac-counting curriculum. Our instructional resource provides project instructions, supporting activities, as well as implementation guid-ance and a grading rubric. The paper discusses adaptations to tailor the project to various courses and audiences. The resources in this article are useful for instructors implementing a financial state-ment analysis project into accounting, finance, financial statement analysis and investment courses targeted at either the undergrad-uate or graduate levels.2.Goals for student learningAnsons Instructional Design Model (2007) reminds instructors to explicitly consider learning goals when developing assignments. The broad learning goals of the integrated course project are for stu-dents to analyze and evaluate accounting disclosures while also developing research, Excel, writing and teamwork skills. Developing competencies in these areas has long been advocated in the account-ing education literature (e.g., AICPA, 2015; Burnett, 2003; De Lange, Jackling, & Gut, 2006; Kavanagh & Drennan, 2008; Lawson, et al. 2014). Our project is designed to achieve these learning goals, and to develop student competencies, by requiring students to analyze financial statements, calculate and interpret financial ratios, research a companys 10-K, and then synthesize this information into a written research report. The specific learning goals of the course project are for students to:A.apply Excel skills to SEC data and prepare summary informationB.prepare and format financial data for presentation and analysisC.calculate, interpret and compare financial ratios using SEC dataD.apply research skills to assess a companys business operations and strategyE.apply research skills to learn about an industryF.apply analytical skills to compare financial statements for two companies in the same industryG.work in teams to create a professional written research reportH.evaluate the work of other students using guided peer reviewsThe projects learning goals can be linked to a subset of the competencies outlined in the AICPAs Core Competency Framework5 (AICPA, 2015), as well as the Integrated Competencies-Based Frame-work for Accounting Education presented by Lawson et al. (2014). The elements of the frameworks and the competencies this assignment specifically seeks to develop are listed in Fig. 2.3.Assignment designAnsons Instructional Design Model (2007) suggests that an assignments learning goals should in-fluence the design of the assignment and its deliverables. The integrated course project comprises two graded components: an individual Excel component and (2) a team written research report. We have allowed students to select a company from the following industry pairs: Target/Walmart, Coke/ Pepsi, Under Armour/Nike, Apple/Microsoft, Buffalo Wild Wings/Famous Daves, or Panera/Chipotle. Students form teams based on the company they select. Teams are then partnered with another team, which is analyzing the other company in the industry pair, to facilitate comparative analysis for the written research report. For simplicity in creating teams, we have typically only used one or two in-dustry pairs per semester. The appendices provide supporting material that can be provided to students, including project instructions (Appendices A and B), peer review questions (Appendix C), a grading rubric (Appendix D), and a team evaluation form (Appendix E). The materials in the appendices have evolved over time, and have been improved based on students comments and through the review process for this article. The materials in the appendices reflect our most current version of the materials.3.Individual Excel componentIndividually, students are required to format the financial statements of a public company and then perform a quantitative analysis of the financial statements and stock performance using Excel. Ac-counting education researchers have documented recruiters desires to hire students with strong Excel capabilities (e.g., Cory & Pruske, 2012; Ragland & Ramachandran, 2014). Ragland and Ramachandran (2014) find that basic functions (viz., add, subtract, multiply and divide), sorting, formatting, and the proper use of if/then statements are the Excel functions perceived to be the most important to ac-counting firm supervisors. The individual Excel component of the course project requires students to perform these functions as an introduction to using the software professionally. Students are provid-ed with an Excel file containing the companys balance sheet and income statement, obtained from the investor relations sections of the companies websites.See the AICPA Core Competency Framework & Educational Competency Assessment Website: / interestareas/accountingeducation/resources/pages/corecompetency.aspx The instructors have modified the Companies downloaded data to only contain the balance sheet and income statement (i.e. superfluous data tabs have been eliminated from the downloaded file). The assignment specifically requires stu-dents to use Excel formulas to perform horizontal analyses on the financial statements, generate common size financial statements, calculate ratios based on financial statement data, and create graphs (what Excel refers to as “charts”). Detailed directions for the individual Excel component of the project are provided in Appendix A.2.3.Team written research reportThe second project component requires student teams to write a research report on their chosen company that is based both on information contained in the companys 10-K and on the quantitative analysis that student team members prepared individually. This second component of the project is designed as a formal writing assignment. Accounting educators have long advocated for the incor-poration of writing assignments into the accounting curriculum (e.g. Albrecht & Sack, 2000; Krom &2.In-class Excel proofing sessionAbout a week later (approximately week 8), students within the same team, who have each indi-vidually completed an Excel schedule for the same company, meet during class to critique each others work. Students are instructed to provide each other with feedback on formatting styles and to compare their calculations. The purpose of the in-class Excel proofing session is to allow students to consider how technical data should be presented and to provide students with an opportunity to resolve their calculation questions and errors. Allowing students to critique the work of their peers provides stu-dents with the opportunity to discover what formatting techniques are preferable. The session also allows students to practice giving and receiving constructive feedback. In addition to critiquing the Excel schedules, student teams are instructed to begin analyzing the companys data to evaluate prof-itability, operating efficiency, solvency and liquidity. Appendix C.1 provides questions that can be used to guide the Excel proofing and the teams first data analysis meeting.Instructors may wish to collect responses to the guided review questions and then provide whole- class feedback on the responses. Common formatting tips, which are frequently identified by students, are to use a consistent font, to check page breaks, use color sparingly, use consistent number formats (e.g., same number of decimal places), and to include titles. Since this Excel proofing session occurs during a class period, instructors are able to meet briefly with students to address questions that arise and to clarify the assignment. This proofing session provides students with early feedback, which allows them to revise and improve their Excel analysis.After the Excel proofing session, students are expected to revise their individual Excel component in accordance with comments from their peers. Students self-report spending on average (median) 6.88 (5.00) hours to complete the Excel component of the project. In the first year we assigned the project, we collected students individual Excel components at the end of the semester when the entire project was due. We now collect the individual Excel component of the assignment within a week of the in-class proofing session. We do this to prevent student procrastination and to mitigate the grading load at the end of the term.3.Drafts ofthe written research report and peer re-iewTeams of four to six students are required to write a research report on the same company they analyzed for the individual Excel portion of the project. Having the written research report com-pleted in teams allows students to build their teamwork competencies and reduces instructor grading time. The written report is completed in two stages. The first stage requires teams to research the co-mpanys most recent 10-K, its corporate website, and a press release to write about the companys products and strategy. The first stage of the written report also requires students to communicate in writing the financial statement trends they identify from their quantitative analysis (i.e. their indi-vidually completed Excel schedules, which contained horizontal, common size, and ratio analyses). Teams are specifically told to discuss the trends of the companys revenue growth, profitability, op-erating efficiency, solvency, and liquidity. A preliminary draft of the first stage of the written report is due two weeks after the Excel proofing session (approximately week 10). The second stage of the written report requires teams to discuss their companys industry, to benchmark their companys strat-egy and financial performance to those of a competing company, and to conclude with an opinion on the companys outlook. The second draft of the paper is due two weeks after the first draft has been submitted (week 12).When the draft papers are submitted (in weeks 10 and 12), the teams exchange their draft papers with another team that is analyzing the other company in the industry pair. For example, a team ana-lyzing Panera exchanges papers with a team analyzing Chipotle. Each team is required to read the draft of the other teams written report and to provide the other team with feedback on the content and writing style of the draft. Peer feedback is typically due one week after the exchange (in weeks 11 and 13). Multiple goals are achieved by exchanging papers. First, it allows for peer feedback on the written report, which reinforces that writing and preparing professional documents is an iterative process.The authors would also like to note the benefits of peer review for faculty. The reviewer reports received through the ed-itorial process forthis manuscript gave the authors an opportunityto revise the materials we provide to students. The reviewers, and editors comments led to a sizable improvement in the clarity of the course project instructions, guided peer review ques-tions and grading rubric shown in the Appendices. Second, it provides students with an opportunity to give and receive feedback, which is an important communication skill in the workplace. In public accounting, associates typically evaluate interns and peers work at an early stage in their career. Finally, it provides students with prelimi-nary research for the benchmarking analysis that is required in the second stage of the report.Encouraging students to approach writing as an iterative process, by requiring drafts and peer review, is a strategy advocated in the pedagogical literature (e.g., Finley & Waymire, 2013; Hirsch & Gabriel, 1995; Matherly& Burney, 2009; Rieber, 2006).An alternative to peer review could be instructor feedback on initial drafts. Hirsch and Gabriel (1995) suggest that instruc-tor feedback on drafts will allow students to learn about the instructors expectations for content and style of the deliverable. Cho, Schunn, and Charney (2006) compare comments from both student peer reviewers and instructors and find that both sets of comments are perceived to be useful for student writers. Interestingly, the Cho et al. study finds no evidence that peer feed-back is perceived as less helpful than instructor feedback. Cho et al. (2006) do document differences in the format of the feedback, with student peer reviewers offering more praise (results in motivation) and directive comments on writing style (which provide specific comments on how to improve the paper). In comparison, instructor reviewers in the Cho et al. study tended to offer directive comments on the content, the insights and the writing style of the paper. Finley and Waymire (2013) document significant im-provements in grades between the initial and final drafts of students papers. Similarly, Rieber (2006) documents statistically higher scores for papers that have been peer reviewed relative to papers without peer review. Rieber (2006) describes peer review as a formative evaluation of writing, which allows students an opportunity to learn from one another, and to revise and improve their written work. Rieber (2006) suggests four possible explanations for the improvement in paper quality following peer review: (1) peer review requires students to complete their writing earlier than the final due date, which allows time for editing, (2) students typically review the directions for the assignment when reviewing the work of others, which may result in a more focused paper, (3) students may write better to avoid dis-appointing their peers, and (4) student reviewers tend to comment about confusing points, which student writers perceive as less critical than a teachers feedback. Student comments from a similar study by Matherly and Burney (2009) suggest that peer review and revision increase awareness of writing errors and lead to improved writing.We have found that students need to be provided with instructions on how to review the writing of their peers. Rieber (2006) and Hirsch and Gabriel (1995) suggest peer review is more successful when it is facilitated with questions that guide students in their roles as reviewers. Appendices C.2 and C.3 provide questions that can be used to guide the peer reviews of the written drafts. The peer review guide instructs students to place check marks in the margin where the writing flows well and question marks in the margin where the writing is confusing. Student reviewers are also asked to provide comments on specific content areas and to assess whether or not the paper provides all the required components of the project. For example, did the paper discuss a press release and explain why it may be important for assessing the value of the company? Did the project identify appropriate ratios and then discuss the trends and the drivers of these ratios? When peer feedback is exchanged, students are provided with time in class to discuss with each other the feedback they are giving and receiving on their written drafts.The first year in which peer reviews were implemented, points were not specifically allocated to the peer review com-ments. In the second year, points were assigned to the peer review comments and student effort level on the peer reviews increased.The second stage of the written report requires teams to discuss their companys industry and to benchmark their companys strategy and financial performance to those of a competing company. The peer review of another teams written report for the first stage of the assignment (i.e. background in-formation and financial statement analysis of a competing company) provides the team with preliminary research for its benchmarking analysis. The final requirement for the written report asks teams to syn-thesize their research and conclude with an opinion on the companys outlook. The outlook opinion assesses whether or not the company is poised for financial and strategic strength going forward. The outlook opinion should be supported bythe quantitative and qualitative analyses in the earlier sections of the written report. A second draft of the paper is exchanged by teams for peer review (week 12). The peer review process is again guided with instructor questions, which are provided in Appendix C.3. This final peer review allows students to receive comments on their writing as well as ideas on content they may have overlooked. In addition, it allows students to assess the relative strength of their own paper. After peer reviews are completed outside of class, students are provided with about ten minutes of class time to exchange comments on their drafts (week 13). The final written re-search report is due the last week of class.4.Project adaptationsThe project could be adapted to focus more on the research