MBA 640 Business Risks and uncertainties Project Paper

December 14, 2022

MBA 640 Business Risks and uncertainties Project Paper

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

MBA 640 Business Risks and uncertainties Project Paper

MBA 640, Business, Risks, Uncertainties, Project, Paper

[Order Now]

Overview: The final project for this course is the creation of an external capital funding proposal. Most businesses face a landscape of uncertainty and a never-ending stream of risks and opportunities. Managers must continually project the likely financial impact of decisions, make recommendations, act on those decisions, determine how to pay for them, and evaluate the costs and effectiveness of what has been done.

Many decisions are short-term, routine, and operational. Others are longer-term investment decisions that require substantial new resources, such as developing new services, expanding into new geographic markets, or undertaking business combinations or spin-offs.

Each requires managers to forecast, plan, and make decisions based on a thorough understanding of both internal and external factors that can affect a company’s financial success. For the summative assessment in this course, you will bring your finance and economics knowledge to bear by preparing an external capital funding proposal for a major international investment at a publicly traded corporation.

In order to secure the support of potential financial backers, your proposal will need to lay out what the proposed investment opportunity is, how it fits within the company’s broader mission and goals, its financial impact, and the amount being requested and why (including alternative funding mechanisms considered).

In addition, it will also need to include information on the organization’s context, risk factors, and microeconomic assumptions that could affect the success of the investment. Prompt: Submit a short paper that addresses Section III, Part C; Section V; and Section VI of the final project. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

III. Justification:

Financial impact. This section should discuss the project’s most likely financial implications and the consolidated financial projection with and without the project. Be sure to:
Project the incremental, annual, and cumulative cash benefits and outflows associated with the proposed expansion for the next seven to 10 years, using a spreadsheet or other relevant presentation vehicle to support your narrative. Be sure to justify your assumptions and methodology based on sound microeconomic and financial principles. For example, what assumptions have you made about demand, price, volume, capital purchase costs, incremental hiring, and so on?
Develop a consolidated financial projection of revenue, pretax income, and cash flow for the overall business, over that same number of years, both with and without the proposed investment. Use a spreadsheet or other relevant presentation vehicle to support your narrative, being sure to describe any relevant assumptions.
Financing: In this section, compare the proposed loan to alternative financing methods. Specifically: A. Weigh the pros and cons of raising money using internal financing mechanisms versus seeking funding through global capital markets via loans,

commercial paper, bonds, or equity financing. Which might be viable alternatives should the loan not be approved? Support your answer with appropriate research and evidence.

Assess the viability of a business combination as a mechanism for expanding into the new market. Is this a reasonable option for the company? Why or why not? Support your answer with appropriate research and evidence.
Track Record: Use this section to persuade the lender that you are credit-worthy. You must: A. Convincingly argue that your organization is on solid financial footing, and thus at a low risk for default, supporting your argument with appropriate

financial statements, ratios, and other indicators of financial performance and health. B. Convincingly argue for your organization’s trustworthiness, providing credible evidence of legal and ethical financial behavior. For example, this

might include recent audit results; credit history; absence of significant lawsuits, recalls, or regulatory judgments; or other evidence designed to show that the company holds itself to the highest legal and ethical standards.

Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your investment project and justification paper should be approximately 8–10 pages in length (excluding spreadsheets, other exhibits, and list of references as necessary). It should be double-spaced with 12-point Times New Roman font and one-inch margins, and should use APA format for references and citations.

Critical Elements Proficient (100%) Needs Improvement (75%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Justification: Financial Impact:

Expansion

Projects expansion’s incremental, annual, and cumulative cash benefits and outflows over specified time period, using relevant presentation vehicle to support narrative and justifying assumptions and methodology based on sound microeconomic and financial principles

Projects cash benefits and outflows over specified time period, using relevant presentation vehicle and justifying assumptions and methodology, but response contains inaccuracies, omits key details, or is poorly grounded in microeconomic and financial principles

Does not project expansion’s incremental, annual, and cumulative cash benefits and outflows over specified time period

Justification: Financial Impact:

Consolidated

Develops consolidated financial projection for overall business with and without the proposed investment over specified time period, using relevant presentation vehicle to support narrative and describing relevant assumptions

Develops consolidated financial projection for overall business with and without the proposed investment over specified time period, using relevant presentation vehicle and describing assumptions, but response contains inaccuracies or omits key details

Does not develop consolidated financial projection for overall business with and without the proposed investment over specified time period

Financing: Global Capital

Markets

Weighs pros and cons of raising money using internal financing versus global capital market mechanisms, identifying viable alternatives based on appropriate research and evidence

Weighs pros and cons of internal financing versus global capital market mechanisms, identifying viable alternatives based on research and evidence, but response contains inaccuracies, omits key details, or research and evidence are not relevant or cursory

Financing: Business

Combination

Assesses the viability of a business combination as a mechanism for expanding into the new market, supported by appropriate research and evidence

Assesses the viability of a business combination as a mechanism for expanding, supported by research and evidence, but response is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or research and evidence are not appropriate

Does not assess viability of a business combination as a mechanism for expanding into the new market

Track Record: Financial

Performance

Convincingly argues that organization is on solid financial footing, supported by appropriate financial statements, ratios, and other indicators of financial performance and health

Argues that organization is on solid financial footing, supported by financial statements, ratios, and other indicators of financial performance and health, but argument is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or supporting evidence is not credible, appropriate, or convincing for lenders

Does not argue that organization is on solid financial footing

Track Record: Legal and Ethical

Convincingly argues for organization’s trustworthiness, providing credible evidence of legal and ethical financial behavior

Argues for organization’s trustworthiness, providing evidence of legal and ethical financial behavior, but argument is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or evidence is not credible or convincing to lenders

Does not argue for organization’s trustworthiness, providing evidence of legal and ethical financial behavior

Articulation of Response

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas

Total 100%

[Order Now]

MBA 640 Business Risks and uncertainties Project Paper

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.