Financial Markets and Institutions FC 11-2
[ad_1]
| Submission Deadline | Marks and Feedback |
| Before 6pm on: | 15 working days after deadline (All Levels) |
| Module title & code | Financial Markets and Institutions FC 11-2 |
| Assignment number and title | IR |
| Assessment type | Individual Report |
| Weighting of assessment | 40% |
| Module learning outcomes | 1. Develop an understanding of the role of various financial institutions, both national and international, in managing flow of funds and to understand how companies use financial instruments to raise funds.
2. Develop the ability to evaluate and analyse various characteristics of financial instruments including risk and return. Evaluate and analyse the role played by financial institutions in achieving national economic targets. |
| What am I required to do in this assignment? |
| The largest initial public offering (IPO) in history belongs to Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest integrated oil and gas company and the largest investor-owned oil company. Sporting a market cap of around $2 trillion, this dwarfs the likes of Apple, Microsoft and its Western rivals in the energy field, Shell and Exxon. Write an evaluative report on Saudi Aramco’s IPO. You are required to cover the following in your report: Introduction : Should cover the discussion on objective, types and process of IPO Methodology: Collect data regarding IPO of Saudi Aramco since its launch. Analysis and interpretation: This should include Financial details of Saudi Aramco IPO. The extent to which Saudi Aramco was able to achieve its objectives via IPO. Conclusion An appropriate conclusions based on your findings in the section three (3) of your report. |
| Deliverables |
| Submission Submission of the report will be done via Turnitin Link on MOVE. At the time of submission, you need to make sure that the assignment is your own and all the sources have been acknowledged. |
| Is there a word limit (Number of Words ± 10%)? |
| The word limit is 2000 words with ± 10% flexibility. |
| What do I need to do to pass? (Threshold Expectations) |
| In order to pass this assessment, you need to: Collect the relevant Information which should be clear and evident from the appropriate source for the required period. General understanding of the various issues related to initial public offering. There should be some reference to related theoretical background which should be evident in the report. The assignment should have clear discussion of the ideas related to IPO and has literature review on impact these markets have on various variables. The report should be properly structured and most of the task should be addressed. Conclusions should be evident which should be supported with some reasoning and evidence. The report should show some compliance to HARVARD STYLE referencing. |
| How do I produce high quality work that merits a higher grade? |
|
In order to produce high quality work(A Grade), you need to: Show exceptional use of a wide range of appropriate and current sources, focusing on research based reviews indicating personal research and critical awareness of their status and relevance. Recognise the role played by IPOs in achieving company’s strategic objectives which you should be able to clearly defend if challenged, and can properly incorporate the ideas /published works of others into your own work building upon them. Show the evidence of exemplary understanding of relevant theory and latest research. Reference to appropriate theoretical background that provides support to your discussion. Critical reasoning is consistently evident across the discussions. The tasks have exemplary discussion and detailed narration of the results obtained. Show that the structure is exemplary. Execution of all task is excellent. Discussions are free of grammar or writing errors. A clear layout augments the presentation. Organize the overall report excellently. Provide conclusions that are supported with strong arguments which are outstanding; presents fantastic and balanced critical view; interpretation is very reasonable and objective. Accurate use of Harvard Referencing style. |
| How does assignment relate to what we are doing in scheduled sessions? |
| This assignment covers one of the topic of the module which is about initial public offering. The work done by the students will allow them to practically analyse the importance of IPO and the critical role these markets play in growth of companies. |
| How will my assignment be marked? | |||||||||
| Your assignment be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page. You can use them to evaluate your own work and estimate your grade before you submit. | |||||||||
| No | Criterion | Weighing (%) | Sub Standard / No Attempt (0 Marks) | Poor (20 Marks) | Satisfactory (40 Marks) | Good (50 Marks) | Very Good (60 Marks) | Excellent (70 Marks) | Outstanding (100 Marks) |
| 1 | Information search including the variety of sources used and Referencing | 15 | There is no evidence for information search/ Tasks are incomplete. The references do not clearly comply with the basic requirements of HARVARD STYLE format. | Sources not used to support substantive assertions or argument. Information search is not adequate. Very limited resources are used to discuss the tasks. Limited and uncritical use of a restricted range of sources. The references do not clearly comply with the basic requirements of HARVARD STYLE format. The references are inadequate to support the literature used in the report. Sources used show limited relevance and currency. | Information search is evident. There is an attempt to address some tasks. All the tasks lack proper focus in discussion.
Although the information supports the task, some of them are not properly analyzed and lack paraphrasing at some areas. The report shows some compliance to HARVARD STYLE referencing, but shows many errors. Very few references quoted which are inconsistent with the amount of literature used in the report. Some sources of information are relevant while others are dated. |
Relevant information search is evident, but not adequate.
There is a good attempt to address the tasks. All the tasks are discussed but one or two tasks lack focus or clarity. The report demonstrates a basic level of HARVARD STYLE referencing, but still contains major deficiencies. No sophistication is evident i.e. Websites do not follow Harvard Referencing style. Majority of the sources are relevant and current. |
Very good usage of variety information from various sources. Contents are properly paraphrased. The usage of information can be better if it relates to the context.
All tasks are discussed properly. The report demonstrates a solid understanding of the basic elements of HARVARD STYLE formatting. In-text citations if presented at relevant areas will lend more appropriateness to the report. Sources used to support the discussions are relevant and current. |
Excellent application of the relevant information from variety of sources. Excellent usage and quoting of the literature at relevant discussions. All the tasks are discussed astutely with proper focus.
Use of a wide range of appropriate sources, indicating critical awareness of their status and relevance. The report demonstrates excellent HARVARD STYLE formatting skills. In-text citations are presented at relevant areas. Consistent use of relevant and current sources that enhance the discussions. |
Exceptional use of a wide range of appropriate and current sources, focusing on research based reviews indicating personal research and critical awareness of their status and relevance. Accurate use of Harvard Referencing style.
Student recognizes the concept of intellectual property, can defend him / herself if challenged, and can properly incorporate the ideas / published works of others into their own work building upon them. Skillful use of credible, relevant and current sources of information that augments quality of discussion |
| 2 | Understanding of relevant concepts & Issues with reference to appropriate theoretical background, illustrations. | 25 | No evidence of understanding the issues or any concept. | Limited evidence of understanding the issues. Very poor conceptual understanding of the topics. | General understanding of the various issues. Some reference to related theoretical background is evident. | Good understanding of the various issues. Majority of the tasks show evidence of good understanding of related appropriate theoretical background. | Evidence of very good understanding of relevant theory and research in all tasks. | Evidence of excellent understanding of relevant theory and research. Reference to appropriate theoretical background provides support to the discussion. Some illustrations that support the theoretical background are easonin in the discussions. | Evidence of exemplary understanding of relevant theory and research. Reference to appropriate theoretical background provides support to the discussion. Illustrations are provided that amplify the theoretical background. |
| 3 | Application, Argument and Analysis. Detailed discussion on the tasks involved and critical awareness. | 30 | Lack of analysis of information. No discussion is evident. No interpretations are found in the report. | The discussed tasks are completely out of focus.
Task are not properly addressed. Limited evidence of critical evaluation of material. Poor analysis of information. Although there is evidence for some discussion, they are discrete and lacking focus. It does not reflect critical application of the concepts to the case. |
Use of a range of appropriate sources. But without critical evaluation, or missing some significant items
Evidence of a general critical stance. Evidence of limited critical evaluation in some areas, with some lost opportunities or misunderstandings. |
There is good evidence for critical analysis and reasoning in some areas.
Evidence of critical evaluation in some areas, although some material not evaluated. |
Use of a wide range of easoningn sources with some critical awareness of their status and relevance
Very good application of the information to the case. There is evidence for in-depth analysis of data. However, all tasks are not consistent in analysis and can be presented in a better manner. Evidence of good critical appreciation and evaluation of relevant theory and research and a systematic attempt to relate it to the topic |
Excellent analysis of the easoningn and precise application to the case. Critical easoning is evident while discussion of all the tasks.
Evidence of thorough critical appreciation and evaluation of relevant theory and research and a systematic and creative attempt to relate it to the topic |
Critical easoning is consistently evident across the discussions. The tasks have exemplary discussion and detailed narration. |
| 4 | Presentation and structure Clear introduction, logical structure, and overall organization of the report. | 10 | The report is unorganized to the point of being virtually unreadable. Majority of the tasks are incomplete Lacks cohesion and orderly flow. |
The assignment has unacceptable failings in structuring and / or clarity of written expression |
Though discussion of the ideas is clear, a coherent flow of thought is not evident. The report is unorganized, but can be read. Poor flow of the report structure. The assignment has failings in structuring and / or clarity of written expression, which impair its capacity to communicate | Evidence for a coherent presentation is evident, but lacks uniformity throughout the essay.
The report is somewhat organized. The flow is not coherent and needs improvement. While the assignment has some failings in structuring and / or clarity of written expression, these do not impair its capacity to communicate. |
The report is well organized. There is orderliness in the structure. Coherence is also evident but there is still scope for improvement.
A generally well-structured and expressed assignment, that communicate clearly. |
The report is well organized with a cohesive discussion. The structure of the report is excellent.
An assignment whose clear structure and expression significantly enhances its argument |
The structure is exemplary. Execution is excellent. Discussions are free of grammar or writing errors. A clear layout augments the presentation. |
| 5 | Language | 5 | The report is difficult to read due to overwhelming errors or misspellings. There are too many sentence formation errors | The report is difficult to read due to overwhelming errors or misspellings | Frequent compositional errors or misspellings, but the report can be read does not take away significantly from the quality. | Well executed. Few grammar or writing errors. Reads easily and generally well. | Well executed. Few grammar or writing errors. Reads easily. Is fairly well organized | Reads easily. Is well organized. Execution is excellent. No grammar or writing errors. Reads easily. | Excellent overall organization of the report. |
|
6 |
Conclusions & Recommendation | 15 | Conclusions are not supported with any reasons or evidence; no evidence of any interpretation. Presents hardly any recommendations, realistic, appropriate or otherwise. | Conclusions are supported with very weak reasoning and little evidence; Interpretations are one sided and not objective. Presents recommendations but these not realistic or appropriate and with little, if any, support from the analysis and concepts discussed. | Conclusions are supported with limited reasoning and evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided interpretation. Presents recommendations which are somewhat realistic and appropriate but not very specific; there is some support from the analysis and concepts discussed | Conclusions are supported with reasons and evidence; presents a fairly balanced view; interpretation are reasonable. Presents specific, recommendations supported by the analysis and concepts discussed. | Conclusions are supported with strong arguments and evidence; interpretation is both reasonable and objective. Presents detailed, specific, realistic recommendations clearly supported by the analysis and concepts discussed. | Conclusions are supported with excellent arguments and evidence; presents a clearly balanced and critical view; realistic and appropriate interpretation is both reasonable and objective. | Conclusions are supported with strong arguments which are outstanding and evidence; presents fantastic and balanced critical view; interpretation is very reasonable and objective. |
Old grading System (Before Feb 2015)
| GRADING SLAB | ||
| GRADE | GRADE POINT | Range of Marks in % |
| A+ | 16 | 86 to 100 |
| A | 15 | 76 to 85.9 |
| A- | 14 | 70 to 75.9 |
| B+ | 13 | 67 to 69.9 |
| B | 12 | 63 to 66.9 |
| B- | 11 | 60 to 62.9 |
| C+ | 10 | 57 to 59.9 |
| C | 9 | 53 to 56.9 |
| C- | 8 | 50 to 52.9 |
| D+ | 7 | 47 to 49.9 |
| D | 6 | 43 to 46.9 |
| D- | 5 | 40 to 42.9 |
| E | 4 | 35 TO 39.9 |
| F | 2 | 20 TO 34.9 |
| F- | 1 | 0 TO 19.9 |
| G | 0 | NA |
New Grading System (Starting Feb. 2015)
| Grade Letter | Mark Band % | Grade Descriptor | |||
| A+ | 80-100 | Outstanding | P A S S | An outstanding piece of work. Shows evidence of wider reading and originality Strongly analytical. All important points are covered. Arguments should be supported by examples and evidence, objectively presented and evaluated, Well-structured and well written, without noticeable grammatical or other errors. Correctly referenced | |
| A | 75-79 | Excellent | |||
| A- | 70-74 | ||||
| B+ | 67-69 | Commendable | Very good work. All main points will have been covered, though minor issues may have been omitted. The work will be analytical, balanced and soundly based. Examples and supporting evidence should have been included. The writing should be essentially correct, without major grammatical or other errors. Generally referenced correctly | ||
| B | 64-66 | ||||
| B- | 60-63 | ||||
| C+ | 57-59 |
Good |
Generally good work. Most points will have been covered, but many finer points will generally have been missed. Shows limited reading. Arguments/analysis should be basically well structured and balanced with relevant examples, but with errors and gaps. The writing is clear, but has errors that nevertheless do not obscure the meaning. Referencing will be present but may at times be inaccurate or insufficient. | ||
| C | 54-56 | ||||
| C- | 50-53 | ||||
| D+ | 47-49 |
Satisfactory |
Satisfactory. Shows sufficient grasp of the subject to be acceptable. Tends to be descriptive. Examples and evidence is likely to be weak and limited. Shows limited reading. Referencing is likely to be absent or very poorly carried out. | ||
| D | 44-46 | ||||
| D- | 40-43 | ||||
| E | 35-39 | Marginal Fail | F A I L | Unsatisfactory/ Compensatable fail. Serious errors and omissions. Very little analysis | |
| F | 25-34 | Fail | Work of a very poor standard with little relevant information and/or serious errors. | ||
| F- | 01-24 | Fail | Work containing little of merit | ||
| G | 0 | Non-Submission | No work submitted |
[Button id=”1″]
[ad_2]
Source link
"96% of our customers have reported a 90% and above score. You might want to place an order with us."
