Refer to the following for a general marking rubic for FINC2011 Group Assignment (S2, 2023)
Question Excellent Good Meet Expectation Below Expectation Well below expectations
Part 1: Company Description All essential foundational and
operational details are included and
discussed comprehensively.
Most key foundational and
operational details are included with
a few minor omissions.
Some foundational and operational
details are provided, but there are
notable missing elements.
Limited foundational and operational
details; many key aspects are
omitted.
Very few foundational and
operational details are provided.
5 4 3 2 1
Part 1: Industry Analysis Provides an comprehsensive
description of the industry and the
company's relative position in the
industry. Provides a comprehensive
and reasoned forecast, backed by
credible data and clearly explained
assumptions.
Provides a detailed description but
may miss one or two key elements.
Provides a good forecast but may
lack depth in discussion or may have
minor issues in data credibility.
Provides a general description of the
industry. Briefly provides an industry
outlook but may have missed some
key factors.
Limited description of the industry
with multiple missing or inaccurately
presented key elements. Minimal or
no discussion of industry outlook.
Incomplete description of the
industry with multiple missing or
inaccurately presented key
elements. No discussion of the
industry outlook.
5 4 3 2 1
Part 1: Corproate Governance or
Stakeholder theory/CSR/ESG
Exceptionally clear alignment
between the discussion and relevant
theory. Comprehensive evidence
presented; all claims are strongly
supported by high-quality, relevant,
and credible sources.
Strong alignment with theory; minor
inconsistencies or areas that could
be further clarified. Considerable
evidence presented; majority of
claims are supported with good
quality sources.
Moderate alignment with theory;
some major points may be missing
or inadequately addressed. Some
evidence presented; several claims
lack strong supporting evidence or
utilize less credible sources.
Limited alignment with theory; many
key aspects of the theory not
addressed or misunderstood.
Limited evidence presented; majority
of the reflection lacks credible or
relevant support.
Minimal or no reference to the
theory; discussion lacks theoretical
foundation. Minimal evidence used;
sources may be inappropriate,
outdated, or largely irrelevant to the
topic.
9-10 7-8 5-6 4-5 below 3
Part 2: Valuation Data is of exceptional credibility,
sourced from authoritative and
reliable sources. Model used is
aligns with current best practices,
and is highly relevant to the analysis.
Assumptions are highly reasonable,
fully transparent, and highly aligned
with current practices. Discussion is
deeply relevant, showcasing a
strong understanding and
connection to the company's context.
Data is largely credible, sourced
from reputable sources with minor
lapses in sourcing. Model used is
largely appropriate, reflecting most
current practices with minor
deviations. Assumptions are largely
reasonable with minor points of
contention or areas of ambiguity.
Discussion is mostly relevant, with
minor areas of misalignment or
missing insights.
Data's credibility is average, sourced
from decent sources but with
noticeable gaps or questionable
credibility. Model used is decent but
shows some major misalignments
with current practices. Some
assumptions are questionable or not
entirely aligned with current practice.
Moderate relevancy in discussion,
but some major points or
perspectives on the company are
missing or misaligned.
Data's credibility is limited, with many
questionable sources or significant
gaps in sourcing. Model used is
outdated or largely inappropriate,
missing many aspects of current
practices. Many assumptions are
unreasonable or misaligned with
current practices. Discussion shows
limited relevance, missing several
key points or making incorrect
assertions about the company.
Minimal credible data, sourced from
largely unreliable or inappropriate
sources. Model is barely relevant or
largely outdated. Assumptions
largely miss the mark, showing a
lack of awareness or
misinterpretation of current practices.
Discussion barely relates to the
company, showing a weak grasp of
the context or analysis.
50-55 41-49 31-40 20-30 below 20
Part 3 Portfolio Portfolio risk and return calculations
are accurate, demonstrating deep
understanding and precision.
Portfolio is justified using a blend of
current theoretical frameworks and
practical real-world insights.
Exceptionally detailed and clear
forecast that is aligned with client
preferences and goals.
Calculations are largely accurate
with minor discrepancies or errors.
Strong justification using either
theory or practice with only minor
gaps in rationale. Strong forecast
with minor areas that might not
perfectly align with the client's
preferences. Strong demonstration of
critical thinking with minor areas that
might be conventional or less
insightful.
Moderate accuracy in calculations;
some notable errors that could
impact portfolio decisions. Adequate
justification for the portfolio, but some
key theoretical or practical
considerations might be overlooked.
Adequate forecast, but with some
aspects potentially conflicting with
the client's interests or preferences.
Adequate critical thinking but tends
to follow traditional lines of thought
without much deviation or reflection.
Significant errors in risk and return
calculations that substantially affect
the understanding of portfolio
dynamics. Limited justification,
lacking depth in theoretical support
or practical examples. Limited
forecasting that doesn't largely reflect
the client's preferences or lacks
depth. Limited evidence of critical
thinking, mostly replicating standard
portfolio construction practices
without insight.
Major inaccuracies dominate,
revealing a lack of understanding or
care in the process. Weak
justification that doesn't align well
with standard theories or practical
approaches. Very weak forecast that
barely considers the client's
preferences or lacks rationale.
Demonstrates an exceptional level of
critical thinking, showcasing deep
insights, reflections, and innovative
approaches to portfolio construction.
Minimal critical thinking
demonstrated, largely missing the
nuances and depth required for
portfolio construction.
12-15 9-11 6-8 3-5 below 2
Cohesiveness and Consistency
and Formatting
The report has a clear, intuitive
structure with seamless transitions.
Conclusions drawn align perfectly
with the data presented, reflecting a
sound and logical interpretation of
the findings. Interpretations of data
remain consistent throughout the
report, with every section building
logically on the previous. Report and
excel spreadsheet has a flawless,
professional layout, using consistent
fonts, headers, and spacing. Visually
appealing and easy to read.
Consistent application of formatting
rules throughout the report; clear
adherence to a style guide or
standard. All sources are cited and
referenced, following a consistent
and appropriate citation style
throughout.
The report is mostly well-structured
with a few minor areas where the
flow might be disrupted or less
intuitive. Conclusions mostly align
with the data, with minor deviations
that don't substantially impact the
report's validity. Interpretations are
largely consistent, though minor
variations in perspective or approach
are evident in some sections. Minor
inconsistencies or issues in report
and excel spreadsheet layout, but
overall, the report maintains a strong
visual presence. Mostly consistent
formatting with minor deviations that
don’t detract from the overall
professionalism of the report. Minor
inconsistencies or errors in citations,
but overall, a strong effort to
acknowledge sources properly.
The report's structure is average,
with some noticeable sections where
logical flow is disrupted. Some
conclusions drawn do not fully align
with the data presented, leading to
potential questions on interpretation.
Some inconsistencies in how data is
interpreted arise, leading to slight
variations in the narrative or
conclusions. Report and excel
spreadsheet have adequate layout,
but some areas might feel cluttered
or inconsistent, causing mild
distraction. Some inconsistencies in
formatting, noticeable but not overly
distracting. Some sources might be
missing or improperly cited, but the
majority are correctly acknowledged.
The report often feels disjointed,
lacking a consistent logical flow in
multiple sections. Multiple
conclusions conflict with the data,
causing significant concerns about
the report's analytical rigor.
Significant shifts in data
interpretation disrupt the coherence
of the report across sections. Report
and excel spreadsheet has multiple
issues with visual presentation,
lacking consistency in font sizes,
headings, or spacing. Multiple
noticeable inconsistencies in
formatting that disrupt the flow and
coherence of the report. Significant
issues with citations, with many
sources missing or improperly
acknowledged.
The report lacks a clear structure,
with content appearing randomly or
haphazardly. Most conclusions
contradict or ignore the data
presented, casting doubt on the
report's overall reliability. Data
interpretation lacks any consistency,
leading to contradictory or disjointed
narratives within the report. Report
and excel spreadsheet Layout is
distracting and haphazard,
significantly affecting readability.
Very inconsistent formatting, making
the report appear disjointed and
hastily put together. Very few
sources are cited correctly; lacks
adherence to any recognized citation
style.
9-10 7-8 5-6 4-5 below 3