回到网站

Edinburgh Napier University FIN11128

Financial Markets, Institutions and Banking

· 案例展示
 

FIN11128

Financial Markets, Institutions and Banking

Coursework assignment

SESSION 2020/21

<MATRICULATION NUMBER HERE>

I declare that the work undertaken for this MSc assignment has been undertaken by myself and the final assignment produced by me. The work has not been submitted in part or in whole in regard to any other academic qualification.

Edinburgh Napier university

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, MARKETS AND BANKING

FIN11128

Coursework assignment

Trimester 1 2020-21

Type of assessment: 2,500 words. Report or structured essay.

Due date: 22nd October 2020 via Turnitin

Instructions for FIN11128 Coursework

  • Submit your assignment directly to Turnitin once completed.
  • The marking scheme is as follows

The global financial crisis of 2007-8 had significant impacts on the markets, finance, governance, organisations of a range of industries and sectors either directly or indirectly.

The nature and causes of a financial crisis are varied and historically they have taken different forms:

  • Tulip crisis in the Netherlands
  • South Sea Bubble
  • The great depression of the early 20th Century
  • The 2007/8 ‘global’ crisis

In between these there have been other crises, usually linked to a specific industry, economy, country, currency or region. There are even some records that point to currency ‘debasement’ in the Roman and Byzantine empires.

Following the 2007/8 Global Financial Crisis, which many economists consider to be the worst since the 1930’s, then increased focus has been given to try and ensure there is no repeat. A range of measures have been either introduced or reinforced at government, central bank, regulator and international body levels specifically in relation to the banking sector.

A key element of this framework of activity and approaches has included so called ‘stress testing’ for banks, concerns on future financial sustainability and so called ‘prudential regulation’.

Select ONE of the following topics only. Your answers should be supported by suitable reliable sources, literature and citations.

1.

Critically analyse the nature and approach to bank stress testing presently in place, or planned. Consider to what extent individual banks may be considered as ‘safe’. Explain and support your reasoning.

2.

Critically assess the risks and possibilities for a further financial crisis, which may or may not have similar roots to previous ones.

3.

Explain the nature of prudential regulation in any jurisdiction of your choice and critically review the future likely effectiveness of the approach(es) taken.

The word limit, excluding abstract (not required for this assignment), acknowledgements, table of contents, reference list and appendices is set at 2,500 although a 10% margin will be permitted on this occasion should it be required. This means that in-text citations will be included in the word count.

Marks will be allocated as follows:

Introduction including context and importance of the topic

10%

Content. All the required elements to address the question(s) raised

30%

Analysis, critical discussion and interpretation. Quality of arguments with evidence.

30%

Conclusion(s)

15%

Presentation. Clarity, logic layout and ‘readability’. Correct use of referencing and scope/range of sources used.

15%

TOTAL:

100%

The Marking Guide in Appendix A is a guide to the standard of work which will normally attract a grade within the specified range. It also further explains the marking criteria. Naturally, in many cases none of these explanations will exactly fit every student’s work; however it does give you, the student, a clear idea of the level of work expected for a given range of grades.

Formatting and submission instructions

  • The essay should be circa 2,500 words. The essay should be in Arial Font (size 12), 1.5 line spacing. Hint…the format of this document is suitable.
  • Ensure your name is on the cover sheet but not in the essay itself. Your matriculation number must be in the footer of each page. Pages should be numbered.

References should be in accordance with standards of APA 6th Referencing per the guide on Moodle under the coursework section of this module. Please bear in mind Wikipedia or Investopedia should not be used as academic sources, which means that you will not be awarded any credit for arguments based on such sources.

Note: 2,500 words guidance and an allowance of +/- 10% is permitted

  • Please ensure your final version, saved under your matriculation number, is submitted to Turnitin. There will be a Turnitin section available for you to check draft copies. Moodle will have instructions nearer submission date.
  • Feedback for students will be available by no later than three weeks after submission under normal circumstances. Marks that are awarded are provisional until ratification by the Module Board.
  • The assignment will be marked ‘within’ Turnitin and feedback will be visible against your submission.

There are three questions available of which you must only select one. Ensure that this is noted at the top of your submission. It will not be included in the word count total.

Please note the University regulations regarding: Plagiarism, and also “Fit to Sit” – see mynapier for more details.

Appendix A

D5-D1

P5-P2

P1

F1

F2-F5

Introduction and problem formulation or identification

10%

Unambiguous formulation. Very clear statement of aims. Importance of research demonstrated. Scope and remit defined. Underpinned by good references, referenced by the APA 6th system.

Clear formulation.

Aims stated

Importance of area outlined.

Scope and remit partially defined.

Reasonable references.

Acceptable formulation. Aims rather ambiguous.

Scope and remit vaguely defined.

Acceptable references but undistinguished.

Vague formulation and aims.

Poor definition of scope and remit.

Poor referencing.

Little or no problem formulation.

Unclear aims.

Little thought to definition of scope and remit.

Inappropriate or no referencing

Content

30%

Excellent literature review. Good critical account of methods and analysis procedures. Good discussion on assessment of quality of data and its relevance.

Reasonable literature review. Critical account of methods and analysis procedures. Assessment of quality of data and its relevance

Acceptable literature review. Poor critical account of methods and analysis procedures. Little assessment of quality of data and its relevance

Poor literature review. Poor critical account of methods and analysis procedures. Little assessment of quality of data and its relevance

Very poor literature review. Unacceptable critical account of methods and analysis procedures. No assessment of quality of data and its relevance

Analysis

30%

Good critical argument. Findings fully discussed in relation to the literature. Reliability, validity and ‘generalisability’ debated.

Critical argument. Findings discussed in relation to the literature. Reliability, validity and ‘generalisability’ debated.

Acceptable critical argument. Findings discussed in relation to the literature. Some discussion on reliability, validity and ‘generalisability’ debated.

Poor critical argument. Findings only partially discussed in relation to the literature. Little discussion on reliability, validity and ‘generalisability’ debated.

Little critical argument. Findings not discussed in relation to the literature. Little or no discussion on reliability, validity and ‘generalisability’ debated.

Conclusions and recommendations

15%

Conclusions made that are proven to be valid and are fully supported by the research and address the aims. Sensible recommendations made.

Conclusions made that are valid and are fully supported by the research and address the aims. Appropriate recommendations made.

Conclusions made that are supported by the research and address the aims. Recommendations made.

Conclusions made that are supported by the research but validity is questioned and addresses some of the aims. Recommendations made but may not be implementable.

Conclusions made that are not supported by the research and may not address the aims. Inappropriate or no recommendations made.

Presentation and referencing

15%

Excellent format and virtually perfect referencing. Very good layout and structure – easy to read and follow.

Good clear structure and layout, Referencing nearly perfect and clear informative build-up of case or argument.

Poor layout and uninformative supporting sections, leading to poor ‘flow’ throughout the paper. Many mistakes in referencing.

Poor referencing. Poor structure and layout.

No or very poor referencing. Very poor structure and layout.

Note: F6 = “non submission”

Copy and paste your answer here:

所有文章
×

快要完成了!

我们刚刚发给你了一封邮件。 请点击邮件中的链接确认你的订阅。

好的