FINC3600 Finance in Practice
The Complete Study & Assessment Guide · S2 2026FINC3600 Overview
- Semester 2 2026
- University of Sydney
- Practice-led finance capstone
- Two team projects
- Professional judgement focus
FINC3600 Finance in Practice is a University of Sydney capstone that asks students to apply finance knowledge in realistic, ambiguous professional projects. The unit is built around two team projects: one in corporate finance and one in investment and portfolio management, followed by a reflective professional judgement task.
- Core workflow Diagnose the current position before choosing a transaction or strategic action.
- Quantitative spine Keep debt definitions, peer comparisons, funding bridges and WACC inputs auditable.
- Board standard State the decision first, then support it with visible evidence, implications and conditions.
- Team standard Integrate individual analysis through shared assumptions, peer review and recorded decisions.
- AI boundary Use permitted tools as support, verify outputs and retain responsibility for the conclusion.
How FINC3600 is assessed
| Component | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Project 1 Current Position Brief Briefing paper submission | 5% | Week 4. One page. Due 24 Aug 2026 at 23:59. AI allowed. |
| Project 1 Strategic Recommendation Brief Briefing paper submission | 10% | Week 5. Two pages. Due 31 Aug 2026 at 23:59. AI allowed. |
| Project 1 Presentation Slides Presentation slides submission | 10% | Week 7. Fifteen pages. Due 14 Sep 2026 at 09:00. AI allowed. |
| Project 1 Presentation In-class presentation in either week 7 or week 8. | 5% | Multiple weeks. Ten minutes. AI allowed. |
| Project 1 Presentation In-class presentation in either week 7 or week 8 | 10% | Individual Q&A following the presentation. Fifteen minutes. AI prohibited. |
| Project 1 Participation and Progress Review In-class discussion of project progress and individual participation | 5% | Across Project 1 workshop weeks. AI allowed. |
| Project 2 Strategic Asset Allocation Brief Briefing paper submission | 10% | Week 10. One page. Due 12 Oct 2026 at 23:59. AI allowed. |
| Project 2 Presentation Slides Presentation slides submission | 10% | Week 12. Ten pages. Due 26 Oct 2026 at 09:00. AI allowed. |
| Project 2 Presentation In-class presentation in either week 12 or week 13 | 5% | Multiple weeks. Ten minutes. AI allowed. |
| Project 2 Presentation In-class presentation in either week 12 or week 13 · hurdle | 10% | Individual Q&A following the presentation. Fifteen minutes. AI prohibited. |
| Project 2 Participation and Progress Review In-class discussion of project progress and individual participation | 5% | Across Project 2 workshop weeks. AI allowed. |
| Reflective Professional Judgement Essay Reflective pieces | 15% | Week 13. Nine hundred words plus the published allowance. Due 2 Nov 2026 at 23:59. AI allowed. |
What FINC3600 covers
Finance in Practice moves from evidence and current-position diagnosis into capital structure, leverage, liquidity, ESG, payout policy and WACC. Students then turn the integrated analysis into a material strategic recommendation, explain its financial and non-financial implications, and defend the advice through a concise board pack and live questions.
Team controls, reflection and responsible AI use support the quality of the complete process.
Professional Finance Judgement
Ambiguity, evidence boundaries and the diagnosis-to-decision workflowProfessional finance work begins with an ambiguous decision, not a formula selected in advance.
- Ambiguous business decisions and multiple defensible answers
- Decision framing before data collection
- Facts, assumptions, interpretations and recommendations
- Evidence boundaries and consistent definitions
- Materiality and decision relevance
- Diagnosis, recommendation and monitoring loop
Research and Current Position Diagnosis
Public sources, peer selection, materiality and integrated analysisA credible current-position brief is a selective diagnosis, not a catalogue of company facts.
- Decision-led research questions
- Primary company disclosures
- Market and peer evidence
- Comparable periods and definitions
- Peer selection rules
- Material current-position findings
Capital Structure, Leverage and Liquidity
Net debt, gearing, leverage, maturities and financial flexibilityCapital structure analysis explains how a company funds its assets and how much flexibility remains for a new strategic commitment.
- Gross debt, cash and net debt reconciliation
- Gearing as a capital mix measure
- Net debt to EBITDA leverage
- Liquidity headroom and committed facilities
- Debt maturities and refinancing concentration
- Lease treatment and definition consistency
ESG, Payout Policy and WACC
Risk channels, distributions, CAPM inputs and weighted funding costESG exposure, payout policy, and the weighted average cost of capital belong in the same decision conversation because each affects cash flows, risk, or funding flexibility.
- ESG risks translated into financial channels
- Payout ratio and distribution capacity
- Capital allocation trade-offs
- CAPM cost of equity
- After-tax cost of debt
- Weighted average cost of capital
Strategic Recommendations and Implications
What, Why and How, with funding, sequence, metrics and mitigationsA strategic finance recommendation must tell the board what to do, why the action creates value, and how it can be implemented within financial constraints.
- What, Why and How recommendation structure
- Amount, scope and timing
- Funding source and sequencing
- Financial and strategic implications
- Risks, mitigations and accountable owners
- Monitoring metrics and decision triggers
Board Communication and Q&A
Action titles, vertical proof, appendices and defensible answersBoard communication is decision architecture. A persuasive deck begins with the recommendation and organises evidence so the audience can test it quickly.
- Audience and decision objective
- Recommendation-first storyline
- Action titles and vertical proof
- Exhibit selection and visible workings
- Appendix and source discipline
- Direct question answering
Teamwork, Reflection and Responsible AI
Team controls, feedback, reflective judgement, privacy and verificationProject quality depends on a team process that makes individual reasoning visible. A practical team contract defines roles, deadlines, decision rights, meeting routines, evidence standards, and escalation steps.
- Team contracts and decision rights
- Roles, milestones and integration
- Progress review and peer accountability
- Reflective incident analysis
- Feedback and changed future practice
- AI privacy and assessment boundaries
The available materials give detailed guidance for the corporate finance project, where students research a listed company, diagnose its current position and advise senior decision makers. The work begins with public evidence from financial reports, market announcements, investor briefings, industry information and suitable listed peers.
Students then integrate capital structure, leverage, liquidity, payout policy, ESG exposure and WACC rather than presenting those topics as unrelated mini-reports. The next stage turns the diagnosis into a material strategic recommendation.
A defensible recommendation states the action, dollar amount, funding source, timing and sequence, then shows the financial and non-financial implications through base and projected metrics. The board pack must communicate the decision clearly, keep detailed workings available in appendices and remain internally consistent across slides, numbers and assumptions.
Live questions test whether each student understands the complete recommendation, not only the section they prepared. Team processes are therefore part of the finance work: agendas, decision records, assigned actions, peer review and integration controls protect the quality of the final advice. Reflection asks students to explain how they approached uncertainty, recognised limitations and adjusted judgement.
Generative AI can support permitted learning and feedback tasks, but privacy, originality, source verification and acknowledgement remain essential, and responsibility for the analysis cannot be delegated.
Worked example · free
Recalculate leverage after a staged investment
- +1Current gearing = 360 / (360 + 840) = 30%.
- +1Current leverage = 360 / 180 = 2.0 times.
- +1Projected net debt = 570 - 90 = $480 million.
- +1Projected leverage = 480 / 200 = 2.4 times.
- +1The project raises leverage even after the EBITDA improvement, so the funding case must show maturity and liquidity headroom.
- +1Approval should depend on a downside EBITDA test and a clear condition for pausing later spending.
Key terms
- Current Position
- An integrated diagnosis of the company before a strategic action is chosen.
- Materiality
- The significance of an issue to long-term value, financing capacity or a decision.
- Net Debt
- Interest-bearing debt less cash under a clearly stated and consistently applied boundary.
- Gearing Ratio
- Net debt divided by the sum of net debt and equity.
- Leverage Ratio
- Net debt divided by EBITDA using comparable definitions and periods.
- Liquidity Headroom
- Cash and credible facility capacity available after near-term obligations and commitments.
- Payout Ratio
- Dividends divided by net profit after tax for the relevant period.
- Cost of Equity
- The return equity investors require for the risk they bear, commonly estimated with CAPM.
- WACC
- The market-value weighted cost of equity and after-tax debt for the relevant business activity.
- Action Title
- A slide heading that states the conclusion the evidence below is intended to prove.
- Professional Judgement
- A defensible conclusion built from evidence, explicit assumptions, challenge and decision context.
- Peer Review
- A structured quality check of another team member's evidence, calculations, logic and consistency.
FINC3600 FAQ
What makes Finance in Practice different from a lecture-based unit?
The unit uses prior finance knowledge in live, ambiguous projects rather than centring study on a sequence of new concepts. Students research, calculate, integrate and defend professional advice. Several recommendations may be plausible, so marks depend on visible evidence, coherent judgement, financial and non-financial implications, and communication suited to senior decision makers.
How should I approach the current position brief?
Begin with reliable public evidence and comparable peers, then interpret the five required corporate finance lenses together. Identify the two material risks or opportunities that best explain the company's position. Keep definitions and dates consistent, state what each important metric means, and avoid proposing an implementation before the diagnosis is complete.
Which corporate finance calculations matter most?
The project materials emphasise net debt, gearing, leverage, liquidity measures, payout, CAPM inputs and WACC. The important skill is not collecting every possible ratio. Select decision-relevant measures, show the inputs and definitions, compare them with history or peers, and explain the mechanism linking each result to financial flexibility or long-term value.
What belongs in a strategic recommendation?
State the action, dollar amount, funding source, timing and sequence. Explain why it follows from the current-position diagnosis, compare plausible alternatives and show base and projected metrics. Include non-financial consequences, risks, mitigations and an approval condition so the Board can see both the value case and the boundary that protects the downside.
How do I prepare for the board presentation and Q&A?
Use action titles that form a complete story, keep calculations and sources easy to find in appendices, and reconcile every repeated number. Rehearse questions across the whole pack because any member may be challenged on any section. A strong answer opens directly, gives decisive evidence, names the limitation and closes with the decision consequence.
How can generative AI be used responsibly in this unit?
Use permitted tools for learning support, feedback, mock questions or clarity, not to complete the assessment or replace the team's judgement. Protect personal and university information, verify every factual and numerical output against reliable sources, edit the work yourself and acknowledge the software and assistance. Disclosure does not cure a prohibited use.
How can I strengthen my reflective professional judgement?
Record a specific project event, the assumption or action you took, evidence of the outcome, feedback received and the adjustment made. Then name the principle you will carry into the next project. Reflection becomes useful when it explains how judgement changed under uncertainty, rather than offering a general statement about communication or teamwork.
Questions students ask in each FINC3600 chapter
- Why can more than one recommendation be defensible?
- Real finance decisions combine uncertain forecasts, strategic priorities, funding constraints, and different tolerances for risk. Two teams may weight those factors differently while using sound evidence. A defensible answer therefore makes its assumptions explicit, compares alternatives fairly, explains the trade-offs, and states what evidence would change the conclusion. Chapter 01 · Professional Finance Judgement
- Which sources should be collected first?
- Begin with audited financial statements, annual reports, results presentations, debt notes, and formal company announcements because they establish the reporting boundary. Add market data, credible industry evidence, and peer disclosures only after the core company facts are reconciled. This sequence reduces the risk of building analysis around inconsistent summaries. Chapter 02 · Research and Current Position Diagnosis
- Why are gearing and leverage both needed?
- Gearing describes the balance between net debt and equity, while leverage compares net debt with an earnings proxy. A company can look moderate on one measure and stretched on the other because market values, accumulated equity, or cyclical EBITDA differ. Use both, then examine liquidity, maturities, and downside resilience. Chapter 03 · Capital Structure, Leverage and Liquidity
- How does an ESG issue become finance analysis?
- Trace a specific issue through an operating or funding mechanism. For example, water scarcity may reduce output, increase capital expenditure, raise insurance costs, or impair an asset. Estimate timing and magnitude where evidence permits, identify uncertainty, and connect the channel to cash flow, risk, financing access, or valuation. Chapter 04 · ESG, Payout Policy and WACC
- How specific should a recommendation be?
- It should be specific enough for the board to understand the action, amount, scope, timing, funding, ownership, and decision conditions. Precision does not require invented data. Where evidence is incomplete, state a range, make the recommendation conditional, and identify the diligence needed before final approval. Chapter 05 · Strategic Recommendations and Implications
- What makes an action title effective?
- An effective title states one decision-relevant conclusion that the slide's evidence can prove. It is specific, concise, and directional rather than a label such as Market Overview. Read the title and exhibit together: if the exhibit cannot support the claim, narrow the title or replace the evidence. Chapter 06 · Board Communication and Q&A
- What should a useful team contract contain?
- It should assign roles and decision rights, set milestones and meeting routines, define evidence and review standards, record how work will be integrated, and establish an escalation process for missed commitments or disagreement. The contract should be revisited when the project changes rather than filed away after formation. Chapter 07 · Teamwork, Reflection and Responsible AI
How to prepare for the assessments
Study FINC3600 as a decision process rather than a catalogue of definitions. Build one evidence register for the company and record each source, date, metric definition, calculation, peer basis and implication. Practise moving from a current-position fact to a material risk or opportunity without jumping immediately to a transaction.
Recompute gearing, leverage, payout, CAPM cost of equity and WACC from printed inputs, then explain the driver and decision consequence in one sentence. When the team chooses a recommendation, maintain a single scenario for amount, funding, timing, projected metrics, risks and implementation triggers. Read slide titles alone to test the Board story, and keep detailed workings easy to retrieve in appendices.
Rehearse questions with rotating challengers so everyone can defend funding, peers, ESG, WACC and execution. Keep a brief reflection log throughout the project, capturing assumptions, feedback and adjustments while they are fresh. If AI supports a permitted task, apply privacy and originality rules first, verify the output independently, preserve your own reasoning and document the assistance accurately.
The most valuable routine is simple: know the number, explain the mechanism and own the uncertainty.
Your AI Finance tutor for FINC3600
Stuck on a hard FINC3600 question? Sia is AskSia’s AI Finance tutor — ask any FINC3600 Finance in Practice question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how the course is actually taught and assessed. Read this whole study guide free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.