AFIN 3052 Assessment 2 – In-Depth Analysis

AFIN 3052 Assessment 2 – In-Depth Analysis Student Group No.: Fail 0-49% Introduction (Max: 10) Content and Analysis Part 1-Portfolio Optimization and Risk Management (Max: 35) Pass 50-64% Credit 65-74% : Distinction 75-84% High Distinction 85-100% • Introduction is vague or incomplete; it does not clearly state the aim of the exercises. • Provide a basic introduction of the aim of the exercises, but lacks clarity or detail. • Provides an adequate • Provides a clear and • Provides a clear and introduction of the aim of comprehensive comprehensive the exercises, but may introduction explaining introduction explaining lack some details or the aim of the exercises. the aim of the exercises contextual depth. with insightful context. • Inadequate detail and interpretation of numerical results; fail to provide meaning analysis. • Meets basic • Provides clear details of • Provides a detailed, expectations for details the numerical results, but accurate analysis of the and interpretations of lacking some depth or numerical results with numerical results, but is broader implications. insightful somewhat generic or interpretations. superficial. • Provides a detailed, accurate analysis of numerical results with insightful interpretations, which goes beyond the data to explore implications. • Conclusion provides an incomplete or unclear summary of findings; does not effectively conclude the report. • Conclusion provides a • Conclusion adequately • Conclusion effectively basic summary of summarizes findings, but summarizes findings, findings, however lacks may lack linkage to aims linking back to aims. depth or insight. or depth. • Conclusion effectively summarizes findings, linking back to aims and adding reflective insights or recommendations. Part 2-Industry Momentum Investing (Max: 25) Conclusion (Max: 10) Page 1 of 2 Fail 0-49% Pass 50-64% Credit 65-74% Distinction 75-84% High Distinction 85-100% Clarity, Structure, and Style (Max:10) • Report is difficult to follow due to poor structure or clarity with significant stylistic issues. • Report is generally comprehensible with some structural or stylistic weaknesses. • Report is mostly clear and structured, with minor lapses in clarity or academic style. • Report is clear, concise, and wellstructured; understandable by nonspecialists; follows academic style. • Report is exceptionally clear, concise, and wellstructured; easily understandable by non-specialists; follows academic style precisely. Referencing and Academic Integrity (Max:10) • Inadequate referencing and frequent citation errors; minimal use of recommended sources. • Some referencing present, but with noticeable errors or missing citations. • Proper referencing with minor inaccuracies or inconsistencies in citation style. • Uses a wide range of sources. Referencing is consistent with the Harvard referencing style. • Uses a wide range of Total marks: Comments: Page 2 of 2 sources effectively; all sources are accurately cited using Harvard referencing style. /100