1

FINM7402 CASE ASSESSMENT RUBRIC – Semester 2 2025
QUESTION 1
Fail Below expectation Satisfactory Very good Excellent Outstanding
Computation of the WACC
at the current level
(x1 weighting)
Failed to calculate the WACC
at the current level. (0)
The calculation was mostly
irrelevant, inaccurate and out
of appropriate context. (1)

The calculation was
somewhat relevant and partly
accurate. (2)

The calculation was mostly
relevant and shows good
understanding of the data. (3)
The calculation was relevant
and shows excellent
understanding of the data. (4)
The calculation was fully
relevant and shows complete
understanding of the data. All
formulas are correctly used in
the Excel file. (5)
Computation of the
unlevered beta
(x1 weighting)
Failed to calculate the
unlevered beta. (0)
The calculation was mostly
irrelevant, inaccurate and out
of appropriate context. (1)

The calculation was
somewhat relevant and partly
accurate. (2)

The calculation was mostly
relevant and shows good
understanding of the data. (3)
The calculation was relevant
and shows excellent
understanding of the data. (4)
The calculation was fully
relevant and shows complete
understanding of the data. All
formulas are correctly used in
the Excel file. (5)
Computation of the beta
and cost of equity
(x1 weighting)
Failed to calculate the beta
and cost of equity at varying
debt levels. (0)
The calculation was mostly
irrelevant, inaccurate and out
of appropriate context. (1)

The calculation was
somewhat relevant and partly
accurate. (2)

The calculation was mostly
relevant and shows good
understanding of the data. (3)
The calculation was relevant
and shows excellent
understanding of the data. (4)
The calculation was fully
relevant and shows complete
understanding of the data. All
formulas are correctly used in
the Excel file. (5)
Computation of the cost of
debt
(x1 weighting)
Failed to calculate the cost of
debt at varying debt levels.
(0)
The calculation was mostly
irrelevant, inaccurate and out
of appropriate context. (1)

The calculation was
somewhat relevant and partly
accurate. (2)

The calculation was mostly
relevant and shows good
understanding of the data. (3)
The calculation was relevant
and shows excellent
understanding of the data. (4)
The calculation was fully
relevant and shows complete
understanding of the data. All
formulas are correctly used in
the Excel file. (5)
Computation of the WACC
(x1 weighting)
Failed to calculate the WACC
at varying debt levels. (0)
The calculation was mostly
irrelevant, inaccurate and out
of appropriate context. (1)

The calculation was
somewhat relevant and partly
accurate. (2)

The calculation was mostly
relevant and shows good
understanding of the data. (3)
The calculation was relevant
and shows excellent
understanding of the data. (4)
The calculation was fully
relevant and shows complete
understanding of the data. All
formulas are correctly used in
the Excel file. (5)
Justification and
explanation for your choice
of the optimal capital
structure
(x1 weighting)
No justifications and
explanations are provided.
(0)
Discussion is mostly
irrelevant, vague, or not
linked to WACC results. (1)
Justifications and
explanations are provided
with some understanding.
Choice is partly supported by
WACC results but reasoning
is limited or unclear. (2)
Justifications and
explanations are mostly
relevant and logical. Choice
is supported by WACC
results and reasoning shows
good understanding. (3)
Justifications and
explanations are relevant and
well developed. Choice is
supported by WACC results
with good reasoning. (4)
Justifications and
explanations are fully
relevant and comprehensive.
Choice is strongly supported
by WACC results. Detailed
and objective explanation
convincingly shows why this
capital structure is optimal.
(5)


2

QUESTION 2
Fail Below expectation Satisfactory Very good Excellent Outstanding
Calculation of the FCFF to
Berger as a Firm
(x1 weighting)
Failed to calculate the
FCFF to Berger as a
Firm. (0)
The calculation was mostly
irrelevant, inaccurate and
out of appropriate context.
(1)

The calculation was
somewhat relevant and partly
accurate. (2)

The calculation was mostly
relevant and shows good
understanding of the data. (3)
The calculation was relevant
and shows excellent
understanding of the data. (4)
The calculation was fully
relevant and shows complete
understanding of the data. All
formulas are correctly used in
the Excel file. (5)
Calculation of the implied
growth rate in light of the
current market value of the firm
(x1 weighting)
Failed to calculate the
implied growth rate in
light of the current market
value of the firm. (0)
The calculation was mostly
irrelevant, inaccurate and
out of appropriate context.
(1)

The calculation was
somewhat relevant and partly
accurate. (2)

The calculation was mostly
relevant and shows good
understanding of the data. (3)
The calculation was relevant
and shows excellent
understanding of the data. (4)
The calculation was fully
relevant and shows complete
understanding of the data. All
formulas are correctly used in
the Excel file. (5)
Revalue the firm with new
WACC and find the change in
the firm value
(x2 weighting)
Failed to revalue the firm
with new WACC and
failed to calculate the
change in the firm value.
(0)
The calculation was mostly
irrelevant, inaccurate and
out of appropriate context.
(1)

The calculation was
somewhat relevant and partly
accurate. (2)

The calculation was mostly
relevant and shows good
understanding of the data. (3)
The calculation was relevant
and shows excellent
understanding of the data. (4)
The calculation was fully
relevant and shows complete
understanding of the data. All
formulas are correctly used in
the Excel file. (5)
Is this the right valuation
approach to use at this point in
the case? Why or why not?
(x1 weighting)
No discussion is
provided, or explanation
is irrelevant. (0)
Attempted discussion with
little understanding.
Argument is vague or
inaccurate. (1)
Some discussion was
provided with partial
understanding. (2)
Provides somewhat logical
reasons for the choice, but
the discussion is not fully
developed. (3)
Explanation addresses the
suitability or unsuitability of
the valuation approach used.
The discussion was
supported by relevant
reasoning. (4)
Comprehensive discussion
with detailed explanations
and logical reasonings on the
suitability or unsuitability of
the valuation approach used.
(5)
If not, is there any other
alternative approach that will be
particularly useful in this
situation? Explain.
(x1 weighting)
Failed to calculate the
change in firm value
using an alternative
approach. (0)
The calculation was mostly
irrelevant, inaccurate, and
out of appropriate context.
(1)
The calculation was
somewhat relevant and partly
accurate. (2)
The calculation was mostly
relevant and shows good
understanding of the data. (3)
The calculation was relevant
and shows excellent
understanding of the data. (4)
The calculation was fully
relevant and shows complete
understanding of the data. All
formulas are correctly used in
the Excel file. (5)

3


QUESTION 3
Fail Below expectation Satisfactory Very good Excellent Outstanding
Discussion of why Berger
reduced its debts
(x1 weighting)
No discussion was provided,
or explanation was irrelevant.
(0)
Attempted discussion with
little understanding. Reasons
provided were vague,
inaccurate, or not linked to
Berger’s situation. (1)
Some discussion was
provided with partial
understanding. Reasons
mentioned were somewhat
relevant but unclear. (2)
Discussion was provided with
good understanding.
Reasons mentioned were
somewhat relevant. (3)
Discussion was provided with
good understanding.
Reasons explained were
clear, and supported by
Berger’s situation. (4)
Comprehensive discussion
was provided with logical
understanding. Reasons
mentioned were fully
relevant, objective, well
presented, and supported by
Berger’s financial data. (5)
Discussion of whether
Berger adjusts capital
structure toward the
optimal level
(x1 weighting)
No discussion was provided,
or explanation was irrelevant.
(0)
Attempted discussion with
little understanding. Reasons
provided were vague,
inaccurate, or not linked to
Berger’s situation. (1)
Some discussion was
provided with partial
understanding. Reasons
mentioned were somewhat
relevant but unclear. (2)
Discussion was provided with
good understanding.
Reasons mentioned were
somewhat relevant. (3)
Discussion was provided with
good understanding.
Reasons explained were
clear. (4)
Comprehensive discussion
was provided with logical
understanding. Reasons
mentioned were fully
relevant, objective, and well
presented. (5)


学霸联盟