FINM7403 Written Project Marking Rubric Semester 2, 2023
Part A Insufficient Below Expectation Competent Effective
Ideas
[1 mark]
The report provides a limited
assessment of the current
economic state. The proposed
economic shock is one that would
be difficult to justify. The report
shows limited evidence of
research.
[2 marks]
The report provides a basic
assessment of the current
economic state. The proposed
economic shock is at least
somewhat plausible. The report
demonstrates foundational
research.
[3 marks]
The report offers a clear
assessment of the current
economy and market
expectations. The proposed
economic shock is reasonably
realistic. Ideas are backed by
adequate research.
[4 marks]
The report delivers a clear and
accurate assessment of the current
economy and market expectations.
The economic shock is plausible and
thoroughly researched. Ideas are
robustly supported by research.
Argument
[1 mark]
The report lacks a cohesive
economic story underlying the
proposed shock and its
consequences. Minimal
justification is given for industry
selection.
[2 marks]
The economic story behind the
shock is present but lacks depth.
The report offers basic justifications
for industry selection.
[3 marks]
The economic story is developed
and aligns with the proposed
shock. At least some meaningful
consequences of the shock have
been considered. The report
provides clear justifications for
industry choices.
[4 marks]
The economic narrative is coherent,
thoroughly detailing the proposed
shock and its implications. The report
articulates highly effective
justifications for industry choices.
Analysis
[1 mark]
The assessment of the economy
shows limited familiarity with
appropriate methods.
Adjustments to return
expectations are poorly aligned
with the economic story. The
numerical optimization of
portfolio weights is substantially
incorrect or is missing.
[2 marks]
The report demonstrates a basic
understanding of methods for
analysing key economic indicators.
Adjustments to return expectations
convey some awareness of the
economic narrative. A numerical
optimization of portfolio weights is
attempted but with errors.
[3 marks]
The report demonstrates a
methodical analysis of key
economic indicators and recent
shocks in the assessment of the
economy. Adjustments to return
expectations align well with the
economic narrative. The
numerical optimization of weights
is mostly accurate.
[4 marks]
The report exhibits a thorough and
precise analysis of key economic
indicators and recent shocks in the
assessment of the economy.
Adjustments to return expectations
are entirely consistent with the
economic narrative. The numerical
optimization of portfolio weights is
complete and without errors.
Structure
& Clarity
[0 marks]
The report lacks a clear structure.
The writing may be unclear or
lack motivation.
[1 mark]
The report has a foundational
structure but could benefit from
clearer motivation and improved
clarity.
[2 marks]
The report includes a clear
structure with an introduction
and conclusion. The motivation is
evident, and the writing is mostly
clear.
[3 marks]
The report is excellently structured and
motivated, guiding the reader with
ease. The introduction and conclusion
effectively encapsulate the narrative.
The writing unambiguously conveys
the authors’ intended meaning.
FINM7403 Written Project Marking Rubric Semester 2, 2023
Part B Insufficient Below Expectation Competent Effective
Argument
[1 mark]
Choices made in employing
valuation techniques are poorly
justified or missing. Assumptions
and estimates lack clarity. The
decision on weight adjustments
lacks clear rationale.
[2 marks]
Choices made throughout the
valuation process are somewhat
justified but may lack depth.
Assumptions and estimates are
generally explained. The decision
on weight adjustments is provided
with basic rationale.
[3 marks]
Clear justification is provided for
choices made in employing
valuation techniques.
Assumptions and estimates are
adequately explained. The
decision on weight adjustments is
coherent and aligns with the
valuation results.
[4 marks]
Comprehensive justification is
provided for all choices made during
the valuation process. All assumptions
and estimates are thoroughly
explained. The decision on weight
adjustments is well-reasoned, drawing
from all valuation insights.
Analysis
[0 marks]
The financial statement analysis is
cursory or missing key
components. The DCF
computation is rudimentary or
contains errors. The multiples
comparison is superficial or
poorly explained.
[1 mark]
The financial statement analysis is
present but may lack depth in ratio
comparisons. The DCF analysis is
adequate but may have minor
inconsistencies. The multiples
comparison provides basic insights.
[2 marks]
A detailed financial statement
analysis is presented with clear
ratio comparisons. The DCF
analysis is systematic and mostly
accurate. The multiples
comparison analysis provides
clear insights and highlights
disparities in valuation.
[3 marks]
The financial statement analysis is
comprehensive, highlighting key trends
and disparities. The DCF analysis is
precise and methodical. The multiples
comparison is thorough, fully
identifying and explaining any
valuation disparities.
Structure
& Clarity
[0 marks]
The report lacks a clear structure.
The writing may be unclear or
lack motivation.
[1 mark]
The report has a foundational
structure but could benefit from
clearer motivation and improved
clarity.
[2 marks]
The report includes a clear
structure with an introduction
and conclusion. The motivation is
evident, and the writing is mostly
clear.
[3 marks]
The report is excellently structured and
motivated, guiding the reader with
ease. The introduction and conclusion
effectively encapsulate the narrative.
The writing unambiguously conveys
the authors’ intended meaning.
FINM7403 Written Project Marking Rubric Semester 2, 2023
Communication &
Formatting
Insufficient Below Expectation Competent Effective
Communication
[0 marks]
The report lacks a professional
tone, contains several spelling or
grammatical errors, and is
difficult to follow. Visuals are
poorly inserted, lack clarity, or
their relevance is ambiguous.
[1 mark]
The report occasionally strays
from a professional tone and
contains minor spelling or
grammatical errors. Visuals are
present but not all are clearly
labelled or appropriately scaled.
[2 marks]
The report is mostly professional
with minimal errors. Visuals aid
understanding and are mostly
clear and well-labelled.
[3 marks]
The report maintains a consistently
professional tone, is error-free, and
communicates efficiently. Visuals
effectively aid comprehension and
are clear, labelled, and
appropriately scaled.
Formatting
[0 marks]
The report neglects several of the
formatting requirements.
References are rarely used or
incorrectly cited. A cover page
may be missing, or if present,
does not adhere to
requirements.
[0.5 marks]
The report adheres to some
formatting requirements but
overlooks others. References are
used but sometimes incorrectly.
A cover page is included but
might have omissions or errors.
[1 mark]
The report meets most
formatting requirements with
minor oversights. References are
correctly cited with only minor
inconsistencies. The cover page
largely follows guidelines.
[2 marks]
The report closely adheres to all
formatting requirements. All
external sources are consistently
cited using the UQ Harvard
referencing style. The cover page
includes all required details
accurately.