accounting and managerial finance revision i need someone to revise this assignment below are my profs comment kindly follow them keenly

I have attached the instruction document, outline, and the paper that needs revision

Use the professors comments to revise. I got 48% and I need at least 50% in this paper. So please be keen on the profs instructions


Generic Skills: Communication and presentation: Overall the report is nicely presented, the language used is formal and appropriate for the intended audience. However, it is highly recommended that the student avoids the overuse of bullet points, especially not for analysis. Furthermore, the language or phrases are quite repetitive and needs some proofreading. Harvard referencing style is consistently applied, though the work should be more cited. Knowledge & Understanding: The answer to both questions show that the student has a good range of knowledge of ratio analysis, but rather insufficient evidence of understanding project valuation methods. PMI’s ratios are mostly interpreted, however their equations and calculations are not shown. Moreover, PMI’s share price and working capital are briefly but adequately discussed. However, it is not clear how the student calculated the NPV, APV and WACC in Question 2 as the report only shows some final figures within the text, without any definitions or calculations. Analysis: PMI’s ratios are analysed and compared to a relevant competitor, BAT. The discussions are good, but could have been more detailed and the external comparison should have been conducted for all years (2015-2018). Moreover, it is recommended to always accompany ratio analysis with relevant charts to show the trend of the ratios over time. However, Question 2 provides very little or limited analysis and evaluation of the measures in the scenarios given. Synthesis/Creativity/Application: the work shows good application of the ratio analysis, but limited application of NPV, APV and WACC. It is not clear if the student knows how to apply them as the calculations are not shown. Evaluation: The work shows little evidence of critical reflection in question 2 parts 5 and 6, where the student briefly discusses the risks of the project and limitations of the methods. However, the discussions are short and mostly not cited.