Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
The case requires that you evaluate five capital budgeting proposals being considered by Target.
Each student should submit a written case analysis by Wednesday, February 23 at 11:59 PM. The case analysis should consist of 15-20 PowerPoint slides that address the questions in the case and supplemented below. Please include your name on the case analysis.
Your analysis should address the following questions:
1. Provide and overview of the case, including a description of Target Corporation and how its business model compares with those of competitors.
2. Describe Target’s capital budgeting process, including a discussion of the financial metrics and other considerations considered in the decision process.
3. Describe each of the Capital Project Requests (CPRs)
4. What recommendation would you make for each of the CPRs—accept or reject? Explain how you considered the metrics and other considerations for each CPR in your decisions.
5. Why does Target use different hurdle rates for the store and credit card businesses (9% and 4%, respectively)? What data would you use to confirm whether those rates are reasonable?
6. Would your decisions change if the approval of a CPR would require that Target raise external funds in the debt or equity markets to fund the CPR?
The analysis will be evaluated on the following criteria: (1) quality of answers; (2) clarity of the PowerPoint presentation
The analysis will be weighted as follows:
· Overview of case 15 points
· Description of capital budgeting process 15
· Description of each of the CPRs 15
· Recommendations 35
· Hurdle rates 10
· Effect of financing on decision 10
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
|