be creative but ‘true’
use Analogies and examples
don’t include the essay prompt or essay title
use standard font ( basic font , times new Roman, Arial or Calibri in 12 point type).
use 1″ margins, line spacing 1.5 or double
Indent the first line of each paragraph with a tab
use ‘left alignment’ do not justify
The below is the topic.
“The Lessons we take from obstacles we encounter can be fundamental to later success. Recount a time when you faced a challenge, setback, or failure. How did it affect you, and what did you learn from the experience?”
ACC 3010 ADVANCED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING -2018/19 SMALL GROUP PRESENTATIONS – WEEK 11
ACC 3010 ADVANCED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING -2018/19
SMALL GROUP PRESENTATIONS – WEEK 11
Accounting scandals happen because there is pressure to meet short-term market expectations in terms of financial and share price performance. As long as there are market pressures, we can expect some firms to resort to creative accounting to shore up their performance. Recent corporate scandals are evidence of the continued pressures that companies are under to deliver shareholder value. In the attached article, ‘Fuzzy numbers’, the author David Henry states that even when observing strict accounting rules, companies have opportunities to spin their numbers.
Using the article referred to above and any others considered appropriate, together with relevant examples, prepare a presentation that addresses the following:
What is meant by the term ‘earnings management’ and how is this related to the exercise of prudence?
Do companies only manipulate their financial statements to influence reported profits?
How do companies engage in earnings management?
If, and when, earnings management practices are justified.
As indicated in the Module Outline, ACC3010 is assessed by a combination of a final written unseen examination (75%) and continuous assessment (25%). The continuous assessment consists of a Student Portfolio (10%) and Small Group Presentation (15%), with the small group presentations being held in week 11.
As explained in the Module Outline, please note that:
Marks for the Small Group Presentation will be awarded on a: (i) Group basis, based upon how the Group addresses the issues in the case study; and (ii) on an individual basis, based upon how each student presents and responds to questions.
Students may not swap their assigned small groups without first gaining approval from the module coordinator. If a student does not/cannot attend the presentation, then he/she is still expected to have assisted fully the other group members to prepare for the presentation (the extent of which will be verified by the module coordinator). The non-attending student may receive a mark of between zero and 50% (to be determined by the module coordinator) of the mark awarded to the group, with the other members of the group receiving a ‘bonus’ at the discretion of the module coordinator.
Please also note that:
In preparing for the presentation, students are expected to utilise a range of resources, including textbooks and relevant academic journal articles.
Each small group presenting is required to submit two hard copies of their presentation slides to the tutors at the beginning of the presentation.
It is expected that each Small Group Presentation will be approximately 25 minutes in length. This should comprise a presentation of approximately 15 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of questions from the tutor and other students.
The presentation will be assessed using the ‘Assessment Criteria’ shown below. The ‘marks’ shown for each element of the Requirement are indicative of the time or weight that should be devoted to each in the presentation.
It is expected that those students who are not part of the presenting group will ask the presenting group some questions at the end of their presentation; this will also form part of the assessment.
Small Group Presentation – Some Points for Consideration
Introduce each of the group members (clearly) and outline the structure of the presentation, including which group member will be addressing each part of the presentation / requirement.
Rehearse as a group, and as an individual. It is important that the issues covered by each group member do not overlap with those addressed by other group members, and that each group member is aware of what the other group members are covering. Apart from helping to ensure a coherent presentation, this will give an indication of the approximate length of the overall presentation (and also of each individual member’s contribution).
The slides should have a consistent format, layout and structure. They should contain the key headings / bullet points, NOT masses of text. Your discussion / ‘speech’ should not simply repeat (verbatim) what is on the slides.
When presenting, try to be relaxed and not to block the screen. Also, try to rely as little as possible on notes and avoid the temptation to read directly from your notes or the slides.
Try to speak clearly, and not too quickly.
When not presenting, the ‘other’ group members should appear interested at ALL times.
Present or speak to the ‘audience’ (i.e. the class) – try to make (eye) contact / engage with the audience (not the computer screen, white board or only the tutor).
Refer to the accounting standard / issue being discussed – return to it during the presentation in order to reinforce or remind the audience what you are explaining (i.e. the ‘requirement’, and therefore why what you are saying is relevant).
Be careful not to overload the audience with too much information – both the slides and your discussion. Give (relevant) examples to illustrate the points, but keep them simple so that they can be easily explained (and understood).
Be different? Your tutor (and, in the future, the ‘interview panel’) has to listen to a number of very similar presentations – therefore try to make your presentation stand out / a little different (for the right reasons of course).
When responding to questions, don’t bluff, and be prepared to help / assist other group members if necessary. When presenting in a group, plan in advance how / who will respond to questions.
Read the guidance carefully and address the requirement – for example, a copy of the slides was to be given to the tutor at the beginning of the presentation.
SMALL GROUP PRESENTATION – ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Presentation Group: Student Names:
Presentation Marking Rubric
Visual Appeal – 15%
No errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. Visually appealing / engaging.
Some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on two or more slides. Significant visual appeal.
Many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information was contained on many slides. Minimal effort made to make slides appealing.
There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. The slides were difficult to read and too much information had been copied onto them. No visual appeal.
Comprehension – 20%
Extensive knowledge of the case. Members showed complete understanding and accurately answered all questions posed.
Most showed a good understanding of the case. All members were able to answer most of the questions posed.
Few members showed good understanding of some parts of the case. Only some members accurately answered questions.
Presenters did not understand the case. Majority of questions answered by only one member or majority of information incorrect.
Skills – 20%
Regular/constant eye contact. The audience was engaged, and presenters held the audience’s attention. Appropriate speaking volume and body language.
Most members spoke to majority of audience; steady eye contact. The audience was engaged by the presentation. Majority of presenters spoke at a suitable volume. Some fidgeting by member(s).
Members focused on only part of audience. Sporadic eye contact by more than one presenter. The audience was distracted. Speakers could be heard by only half of the audience. Body language was distracting.
Minimal eye contact by more than one member focusing on small part of audience. The audience was not engaged. Majority of presenters spoke too quickly or quietly making it difficult to understand. Inappropriate body language.
Content – 20%
The presentation was a concise summary of the topic with all questions answered. Comprehensive and complete coverage of information.
The presentation was a good summary of the topic. Most important information covered; little irrelevant info.
The presentation was informative but several elements went unanswered. Much of the information irrelevant; coverage of some of major points.
The presentation was a brief look at the topic but many questions were left unanswered. Majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out.
Group preparedness / participation / dynamics – 15%
All presenters knew the information, participated equally, and helped each other as needed. Extremely prepared.
Slight domination of one presenter. Members helped each other. Very well prepared.
Significant controlling by some members with one minimally contributing. Prepared but with some just reading off slides.
Unbalanced presentation. Multiple group members not participating. Evident lack of preparation / rehearsal. Dependence on slides.
Adherence to timing (15 mins) – 10%
Overall Mark Awarded
RISK AMPLIFICATION AND RIPPLE EFFECT By definition, risk amplification is a concept
Write a college Admission Essay with a minimum of 500 words and a max of 650 words. The applicant Writing Assignment Help RISK AMPLIFICATION AND RIPPLE EFFECT
By definition, risk amplification is a concept that explains how the events related to hazards link up with the social, psychological, cultural, and institutional processes in a manner that can attenuate or heighten personal and social risk perceptions and shape behavior (Frewer, 2003, p. 124). The concept explains all the relationships that exist between the hazards related issues and the other social aspects that explain how individuals in different areas perceive risks (Kasperson, Renn, Slovic, Brown, Emel, Goble, Kasperson, and Ratick, 1988, p. 178). More specifically, the concept operates by explaining the processes of attenuation and riffle effects. Through attenuation, the concept tries to explain how a risk happens in the focus region and its effect spread to the areas surrounding the area of focus (Kasperson, et al., 1988, p. 180). Just like an antenna, the origin of the risk is considered as the point from where a signal is generated and transmitted to a broad region, and this happens to be the first stage of the risk amplification process (Kasperson, et al., 1988, p. 180). In this stage, the effect of a risk is always felt by only those who are in a path that is affected by the risk. The meaning of this is that, if a risk affects the social well-being of a given population, it is only their social well-being and not anything else that is affected in the population (Frewer, 2003, p. 125). This concept explains how different individuals perceive the risks that they come across. Just like the normal amplification process, risk amplification explains how the risk effects are felt from its point of origin as it acts outwards (Frewer, 2003, p. 138). In most cases, the risks affect those who are far from its point of origin as opposed to what could happen under normal circumstance where the intensity of the risk would be more at the area of origin as opposed to the areas where it spreads out (Kasperson, et al., 1988, p. 185). The area covered by the risk determines its impact on the affected population.
A ripple effect is defined as a situation that explains how a situation spreads across a given region in an incremental way (Barsade, 2002, p. 645). The effect of the happening is felt outwards from the key focus point where the main risk originates from. It is the second stage of the risk amplification process (Kasperson, et al., 1988, p. 179). For example, in the ripple effect, the risk produced spreads equally in all areas from its point of origin. Just like ripples spreads in all areas from their point of origin, a risk at this stage is always felt by everybody who is around its area of focus. Its consequences are felt by all individuals within its focus area (Moerer-Urdahl, and Creswell, 2004, p. 30). At this stage, the risk affects the population in all aspects without discriminating on what element to affect or not to affect (Barsade, 2002, p. 670). The concept behind ripple effect is that, as a risk spreads out from its point of origin, its consequence expand and are felt over a wider geographical region as it continues to spread (Moerer-Urdahl, and Creswell, 2004, p. 32). Though the impact may decline as the area covered by the risk expand, its intensity at the point of origin remains strong compared to the other areas. As such, ripple effect explains how a phenomenon or a risk spreads from one region to the other outwards with its consequence spreading over a larger surface while its intensity decrease with the increased surface area (Kasperson, et al., 1988, p. 178).
Barsade, S.G., 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), pp.644-675.
Frewer, L.J., 2003. Trust, transparency, and social context: implications for social amplification of risk. The social amplification of risk, 2, pp.123-137.
Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X. and Ratick, S., 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk analysis, 8(2), pp.177-187.
Moerer-Urdahl, T. and Creswell, J.W., 2004. Using transcendental phenomenology to explore the “ripple effect” in a leadership mentoring program. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2), pp.19-35.
Risk Management SARF examines how risk events connect with social, psychological, cultural
SARF examines how risk events connect with social, psychological, cultural and institutional processes to amplify risk perceptions thereby shaping risk outcomes and behavior (Kaperson et al., 1988; Renn, 1991).
Components of SAFR
• Information Sources
The source of information can be news media, direct experience or direct brokers
• Individual or Social Amplification Stations
These are the individuals who generate and transmit (amplify) information; it may be social groups, journalists or industry spokespeople. They amplify information through communication channels like direct conversations, telephones, and letters or behavioral responses.
• Individual or Organizational behavior
This is the behavior of the individual or organization towards the risk. They may take industrial action, or avoid the risk, or stigmatize or evaluate the risk.
• Ripple Effects
This is the resultant effect of the risk event. It may result in loss of sales, regulatory interventions, or product recalls.
• Hazard Characteristics
Looks at how the hazard is was it fatal, or catastrophic or long-term.
The Process of SAFR
The process of social amplification begins by filtering incoming signals where only a section of all information is processed. The signal is then decoded and processed in relation to cognitive heuristics and attaching social values to it to know its significance on policy and management. Interaction with peer groups validates the signals which then lead to the formulation of risks which either tolerate the risk of takes actions against the risk. The group or individuals then begin to accept and tolerate the risk or ignore it or change the risk.
Risk Amplification and Ripple Effect
Risk amplification is the process of escalating or intensifying signals during conveyance of information from its source to transitional transmitters and the final receiver (Kasperson, Jhaveri & Kasperson, 2013). The information is altered by adding or deleting some of the incoming signals to the message and passing on the next transmitter. Ripple effect is the secondary economic or social consequence of the event. This extends beyond direct harm to the environment and humans. It may include indirect impacts that are so significant that may lead to loss of trust in an institution, insurance costs, liability or alienation from the community (Kasperson, Jhaveri & Kasperson, 2013).
Key Mechanisms, Processes, Effects of SAFR from Case Study Analysis
In the case study, residents from Whinney Lane were disturbed by the operator setting up a communication site in their area. The process was found to pose a great health risk to the residents after carrying out an internet search. Though the operator denied the health risk claims and gave a different health report that portrayed the process as safe, the residents chose to employ their own report. Their view was that the operator acted against their belief of accountability. The mechanisms for social amplification applied by the residents were the use of local newspaper and television media where they raised awareness of their concerns and sought for support. Social amplification of the risks arising resulted in several responses that included, protests against the development as they waved banners while singing, confrontations with the company’s security guards and lobbying the government regarding the issue.
Why They Occurred and What Risk Managers Should Have Done Differently
The reason these behavior responses occurred was that the council officials denied residents an opportunity to raise their objections and discuss issues surrounding the development even after discovering omissions in plan report. Even after residents raised health concerns, the council officials were reluctant to stop the development. In such cases, before problems get out of hand, it is essential that risk managers engage the parties that are aggrieved and listen to their points of concern. Lastly when the company seems to be in wrangles with the neighboring community a public relations department should be set up earlier to address any issues of concern.
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O. and Slovic, P., 1988. Social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework, Risk Analysis 8, 177–187.
Kasperson, R., Jhaveri, N., & Kasperson, J. X., 2013. Stigma and the social amplification of risk: Toward a framework of analysis. In Risk, media and stigma (pp. 25-44). Routledge.
Renn, O., 1991. Risk communication and the social amplification of risk, in R. E. Kasperson and PJ. M. Stallen (eds) Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives, pp. 287–324. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.