Choose a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) here: https://www.marketindex.com.au/asx-listed-companies and register your chosen company with your Lecturer (in your campus) in the class or via email by Week 9.

Academic Experts

11 May 2026 • 9 min read

HI6025 Group Assignment T1 2026

Group Assignment

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester	T1 2026
Unit Code	HI6025
Unit Title	Accounting Theory and Current Issues
Assessment Type	Group Assignment
Weight	40 %
Word Limit	3000 words ± 500 words Please use "word count" and include the word count in the assignment cover page
Submission Guidelines	All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page. The assignment must be in MS Word format unless otherwise specified.
Academic Integrity Information	Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding academic integrity. All assessments must comply with academic integrity guidelines. Please learn about academic integrity and consult your teachers with any questions. Violating academic integrity is serious and punishable by penalties that range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.
Penalties	This assessment must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date and time, as late penalties apply (refer Student Handbook). Assessment submitted without a completed Assessment Cover Page will receive a twenty percent (20%) penalty. This assessment must be submitted in Microsoft Word format (unless otherwise explicitly specified in the assessment instructions). Submissions which breach this requirement will receive a twenty percent (20%) penalty. A twenty percent (20%) penalty will be imposed for all single student (solo) group assessment submissions. Assessments submitted to Blackboard via a Virtual Private Network will receive a fifty percent (50%) penalty. Assessment submitted to Blackboard via an overseas IP address is a direct breach of the Holmes' Student Academic Conduct and Integrity Policy and will be reported for academic misconduct with associated penalties imposed. Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Holmes Institute Adapted Harvard Referencing method. The use of an incorrect reference method, and/or missing/incorrect citations will receive a twenty percent (20%) penalty. For all other penalties, please refer to the Group Assessment Instructions listed on Blackboard.

Group Assignment Guidelines and Specifications

Choose a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) here:

https://www.marketindex.com.au/asx-listed-companies and register your chosen company with your Lecturer (in your campus) in the class or via email by Week 9. No student can use the same company as another student, so register your company early.

10% will be deducted if your group did not register your chosen company with your Lecturer in your campus.

Provide the following details if emailing your Tutor to register your company:

Group Number
Campus you are registered (Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane/Gold Coast)
The name of the company as your 1st choice, 2nd choice & 3rd choice.

[If your 1st choice is taken, you will get your 2nd choice etc.]

Part A: (25 marks)

Executive Remuneration and Positive Accounting Theory

Obtain the latest annual report of your group's chosen company (2025 or 2024 only if 2025 isn't available), and critically evaluate its executive remuneration structure using Positive Accounting Theory (PAT).

Required:

1. Identification of Remuneration Structure (6 marks)

Identify and clearly explain the key components of the executive remuneration package, including:

Fixed remuneration (salary)
Short-Term Incentives (STI)
Long-Term Incentives (LTI)

For each component, include any relevant performance measures (if applicable) (e.g., profit, EPS) used to determine payouts.

Present your answer in a table format, with clear explanations for each component.

All information must be supported with appropriate references to the company's Remuneration Report.

HI6025 Group Assignment T1 2026

2. Evaluation Using Positive Accounting Theory (14 marks)

Using the identified remuneration structure in (1), critically evaluate how it may influence managerial behaviour by applying:

Bonus Plan Hypothesis
Debt Covenant Hypothesis
Political Cost Hypothesis

Students must:

Support your answer using at least three (3) relevant academic journal articles.
Link specific remuneration components (e.g., STI, LTI, performance targets) to each PAT hypothesis
Explain how these incentives may lead to specific accounting choices or earnings management behaviour
Support arguments with examples from the company's Remuneration Report

This is the core of the assignment — marks are awarded for critical analysis rather than description, and arguments must be supported with relevant academic literature.

3. Overall Evaluation, Conclusion and Recommendations (5 marks)

Assess whether the remuneration structure:

Aligns managers' interests with shareholders
Encourages or discourages opportunistic behaviour

Based on your evaluation, propose two (2) recommendations to improve the remuneration structure.

Recommendations should be realistic and supported by relevant academic literature. Answers that demonstrate such support will achieve higher marks.

Additional Instructions for Part A:

Students must explicitly link remuneration components to managerial incentives and accounting behaviour using Positive Accounting Theory.
Use at least three academic journal articles in Q2.
Students must use the most recent Annual Report.
Your chosen journal articles must be published from year 2010 onwards.

For academic journal articles, you can search online using Google Scholar (not Google) or access relevant Accounting and Auditing Journals via the ProQuest Database.

Some journals can be accessed in ProQuest by clicking on the links below:

Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal
Journal of Applied Accounting Research
The Accounting Review
Journal of International Accounting Research

HI6025 Group Assignment T1 2026

Log-in details in ProQuest Username: HOLMES2004; Password: PQLogin2025@

Accounting journals can also be accessed via the ProQuest Database link available via the Student Login page in the Holmes website.

Search and read several articles before you select the article you will use here.

The chosen articles must be referenced using the Holmes Adapted Harvard Referencing style, with the article's hyperlink added to the reference list.

Avoid using ChatGPT generated material and submit them as your assessment. Ensure your assessment submitted for marking are from reliable sources, properly referenced, and is your own work, not the output, or a copy from generative AI, such as ChatGPT.

Part B: (12 marks)

"Professional judgment plays a central role in the application of accounting standards in financial reporting."

Using your group's allocated company listed on the ASX, critically discuss this statement with reference to any two (2) of the accounting standards discussed in class.

Choose from the following:

AASB 116: Property, Plant and Equipment
AASB 138: Intangible Assets
AASB 119: Employee Benefits and
AASB 16: Leases

Required:

1. Professional Judgement Disclosures (4 marks)

Using the latest financial report, select any two (2) relevant disclosures (one for each chosen accounting standard) where professional judgment is applied.

For each disclosure:

Clearly identify and explain the disclosure.
Provide clearly labelled screenshots (including any relevant notes to the financial statement) to support your answer.

2. Evaluation of Transparency (4 marks)

Evaluate whether the company's disclosures provide sufficient transparency for stakeholders to understand those professional judgments. Provide specific examples to support your answer.

3. Conclusion and Justification (4 marks)

Clearly state whether you agree or disagree with the statement and justify your position with reference to your analysis, relevant accounting standards, and two (2) relevant academic accounting literature.

Your chosen academic journal articles must be published from year 2010 onwards.

Assignment Structure:

The assignment should include the following components:

The assignment cover page which clearly states your group members' names and student numbers, and all other required details.
Executive summary
Table of contents
A brief introduction or overview of what the assignment is about
Body of the assignment with appropriate section headings
Conclusion
List of References (follow the Holmes Adapted Harvard Referencing guidelines)

Marking Criteria	Weighting
Part A
1. Identification of Remuneration Structure Identify and clearly explain the key components of the executive remuneration package, including: Fixed remuneration (salary) Short-Term Incentives (STI) Long-Term Incentives (LTI) For each component, include any relevant performance measures (if applicable) (e.g., profit, EPS) used to determine payouts. Present your answer in a table format, with clear explanations for each component. All information must be supported with appropriate references to the company's Remuneration Report.	6%
2. Evaluation Using Positive Accounting Theory Using the identified remuneration structure in (1), critically evaluate how it may influence managerial behaviour by applying: Bonus Plan Hypothesis Debt Covenant Hypothesis Political Cost Hypothesis	14%
3. Overall Evaluation, Conclusion and Recommendations Assess whether the remuneration structure: Aligns managers' interests with shareholders Encourages or discourages opportunistic behaviour Based on your evaluation, propose two (2) recommendations to improve the remuneration structure. Recommendations should be realistic and supported by relevant academic literature. Answers that demonstrate such support will achieve higher marks.	5%
Part B
1. Professional Judgement Disclosures Using the latest financial report, select any two (2) relevant disclosures (one for each chosen accounting standard) where professional judgment is applied. For each disclosure: Clearly identify and explain the disclosure. Provide clearly labelled screenshots (including any relevant notes to the financial statement) to support your answer.	4%
2. Evaluation of Transparency Evaluate whether the company's disclosures provide sufficient transparency for stakeholders to understand those professional judgments. Provide specific examples to support your answer.	4%
3. Conclusion and Justification Clearly state whether you agree or disagree with the statement and justify your position with reference to your analysis, relevant accounting standards, and two (2) relevant academic accounting literature. Your chosen academic journal articles must be published from year 2010 onwards.	4%
Overall Presentation of Assignment	3%
TOTAL Weight	40%

Student Assessment Citation and Referencing Rules

Holmes has implemented a revised Harvard approach to referencing. The following rules apply:

Reference sources in assignments are limited to sources that provide full-text access to the source's content for lecturers and markers.
The reference list must be located on a separate page at the end of the essay and titled: "References".
The reference list must include the details of all the in-text citations, arranged A-Z alphabetically by author surname with each reference numbered (1 to 10, etc.) and each reference MUST include a hyperlink to the full text of the cited reference source. For example:1. Hawking, P., McCarthy, B. & Stein, A. 2004. Second Wave ERP Education, Journal of Information Systems Education, Fall, http://jise.org/Volume15/n3/JISEv15n3p327.pdf
All assignments must include in-text citations to the listed references. These must include the surname of the author/s or name of the authoring body, year of publication, page number of the content, and paragraph where the content can be found. For example, "The company decided to implement an enterprise-wide data warehouse business intelligence strategy (Hawking et al., 2004, p3(4))."

Academic Integrity

Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding academic integrity, as it is integral to maintaining academic quality and the reputation of Holmes' graduates. Accordingly, all assessment tasks need to comply with academic integrity guidelines. Table 1 identifies the six categories of Academic Integrity breaches. If you have questions about Academic Integrity issues related to your assessment tasks, please consult your lecturer or tutor for relevant referencing guidelines and support resources. Many of these resources can also be found through the Study Skills link on Blackboard.

Academic integrity breaches are serious offences punishable by penalties ranging from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.

Table 1: Six categories of Academic Integrity breaches

Plagiarism	Reproducing the work of someone else without attribution. When a student submits their own work on multiple occasions this is known as self-plagiarism.
Collusion	Working with one or more other individuals to complete an assignment, in a way that is not authorized.
Copying	Reproducing and submitting the work of another student, with or without their knowledge. If a student fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent their own original work from being copied, this may also be considered an offence.
Impersonation	Falsely presenting oneself, or engaging someone else to present as oneself, in an in-person examination.
Contract cheating	Contracting a third party to complete an assessment task, generally in exchange for money or other manner of payment.
Data fabrication and falsification	Manipulating or inventing data with the intent of supporting false conclusions, including manipulating images.
Source: INQAAHE, 2020

Marking Rubric

Part A

Marking Criteria	Excellent (HD)	Very Good (D)	Good (C)	Satisfactory (P)	Unsatisfactory (F)
1. Identification of Remuneration Structure (6%)	Accurately identifies all components (fixed, STI, LTI) with clear explanations. Performance measures well integrated. Excellent table format and strong evidence from Remuneration Report.	Clear identification and explanation with good use of evidence. Minor omissions.	Adequate identification; explanations somewhat descriptive. Limited integration of performance measures.	Basic identification with minimal explanation. Weak structure or limited evidence.	Incomplete or incorrect identification. Little or no supporting evidence.
2. Evaluation Using Positive Accounting Theory (14%)	Excellent critical evaluation applying all three PAT hypotheses. Strong linkage between incentives and managerial behaviour. Insightful analysis.	Good application of PAT with clear links. Minor gaps in depth.	Adequate application; some analysis but partly descriptive.	Basic understanding with weak or unclear application. Mostly descriptive.	Poor or incorrect application of PAT. No meaningful analysis.
3. Overall Evaluation, Conclusion and Recommendations (5%)	Strong evaluation with well-justified conclusion. Recommendations are realistic, insightful, and supported by academic literature.	Good evaluation and conclusion. Recommendations supported but less insightful.	Adequate evaluation; recommendations somewhat general with limited support.	Limited evaluation and weak recommendations. Minimal literature support.	Little or no evaluation. No meaningful recommendations or support.

Part B

Marking Criteria	Excellent (HD)	Very Good (D)	Good (C)	Satisfactory (P)	Unsatisfactory (F)
1. Professional Judgement Disclosures (4%)	Accurately identifies two relevant disclosures with clear explanation. Screenshots well-labelled and effectively integrated. Strong evidence.	Good identification and explanation. Screenshots included with minor issues.	Adequate identification; explanation lacks depth. Screenshots present but not well integrated.	Limited explanation and weak use of screenshots.	Incorrect or missing disclosures. No meaningful evidence.
2. Evaluation of Transparency (4%)	Insightful evaluation of transparency with strong examples. Demonstrates critical understanding.	Good evaluation with relevant examples.	Basic evaluation; limited critical insight.	Minimal evaluation; largely descriptive.	No meaningful evaluation.
3. Conclusion and Justification (4%)	Clear, well-justified position. Strong integration of analysis, accounting standards, and ≥2 academic articles (2010+).	Clear position with good justification and use of literature.	Position stated but limited justification or weak integration of sources.	Unclear position with minimal support.	No clear position or supporting evidence.

Overall Presentation

Marking Criteria	Excellent (HD)	Very Good (D)	Good (C)	Satisfactory (P)	Unsatisfactory (F)
Presentation (3%)	Excellent structure, clarity, formatting, and referencing. Professional presentation.	Well-presented with minor issues.	Adequate presentation; some formatting issues.	Poor structure or inconsistent referencing.	Very poor presentation; difficult to follow.

HI6025 Group Assignment T1 2026

Sign up for more like this.