Performance Levels / Criteria

PART A: Application of Present Values in Loan Amortisation

(ULO1, ULO2, GLO1, GLO3 & GLO4)

N (0–29)

• Does not demonstrate any ability to calculate loan repayment.
• Does not show any ability to apply each of the component of the formula to work out the amount of the repayment.
• No understanding of how each of the components in the formula relates to each other.
• Range: 0–4

N (30–49)

• Able to write down or point to the correct formula but does not show an ability to apply the formula to calculate loan repayment.
• Shows very little ability to vary each of the component of the formula to work out the answer.
• Shows weak understanding of relationships amongst the variables in the formula.
• Range: 4–7

P (50–59)

• Able to write down or point to the correct formula and shows an ability to apply the formula to calculate loan repayment.
• Shows some ability to vary each component of the formula to work out the answer with minor errors.
• Shows the relationships amongst the variables.
• Range: 7–8

C (60–69)

• Able to write down or point to the correct formula and shows an ability to apply the formula to calculate loan repayment.
• Shows an ability to vary each of the components of the formula to work out the answer with minor errors.
• Shows the relationships amongst the variables.
• Range: 8–9.5

D (70–79)

• Able to write down or point to the correct formula and shows an ability to apply the formula to calculate loan repayment accurately.
• Shows a strong ability to vary each component of the formula to work out the answer.
• Shows a good understanding of the relationships amongst the variables.
• Range: 9.5–11

HD (80–100)

• Able to write down or point to the correct formula and shows an ability to apply the formula to calculate loan repayment accurately.
• Shows a strong ability to vary each of the components of the formula to work out the answer.
• Shows an excellent understanding of the relationships amongst the variables.
• Range: 11–14

PART B: Company Research (ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, GLO1, GLO3 & GLO4)

N (0–29)

• Fails to address the scope of the assignment task.
• Types of information (sources) selected are inappropriate to the assignment task.
• Always presents information from inappropriate sources representing limited points of view.
• Range: 0–3

N (30–49)

• Does not adequately address the scope of the assignment task.
• Types of information (sources) selected are sometimes inappropriate.
• Often presents information from inappropriate sources representing limited points of view.
• Range: 3–5

P (50–59)

• Generally addresses the scope of the assignment task.
• Types of information (sources) selected are generally appropriate.
• Presents information from limited sources representing various points of view and critically analyses information and knowledge.
• Range: 5–6

C (60–69)

• Mostly addresses the scope of the assignment task.
• Types of information (sources) selected are appropriate.
• Present information from relevant sources representing various points of view and critically analyses information and knowledge.
• Range: 6–7

D (70–79)

• Effectively addresses the scope of the assignment task.
• Types of information (sources) selected are appropriate.
• Synthesise information from a range of relevant sources representing various points of view.
• Critically analyses information and knowledge.
• Range: 7–8

HD (80–100)

• Consistently and effectively addresses the scope of the assignment task.
• Types of information (sources) selected are highly appropriate.
• Synthesise information from a wide range of relevant sources representing various points of view and critically analyses information and knowledge.
• Range: 8–10

PART C: Risk and Return

(ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, GLO1, GLO3 & GLO6)

N (0–29)

• No return & risk calculations.
• Incorrect or no analysis of over/under performance.
• No evidence of understanding correlation or beta.
• Incorrect or no calculations.
• Range: 0 – 3.5

N (30–49)

• Major errors in return & risk calculations.
• Limited/incorrect analysis of over/under performance.
• Errors in correlation calculation and explanation.
• Confused explanation of beta with incorrect calculation.
• Range: 3.5 – 6

P (50–59)

• Some errors in return & risk calculations.
• Correct analysis of over/under performance with some errors.
• Errors in correlation calculation and explanation.
• Basic explanation of beta with some calculation errors.
• Some explanation provided for the appropriateness of using historical data to forecast future return.
• Range: 6 – 7

C (60–69)

• Minor errors in return & risk calculations.
• Correct analysis of over/under performance.
• Minor errors in correlation calculation, explanation and/or portfolio construction.
• Reasonable explanation of beta with only minimal calculation errors.
• Shows a good understanding in when to use historical data to forecast future returns.
• Range: 7 – 8.5

D (70–79)

• Accurate return & risk calculations.
• Correct analysis of over/under performance.
• Sound understanding of correlation evidenced by correct calculation.
• Correct calculation and sound explanation of beta.
• Shows an excellent understanding in when to use historical data to forecast future returns.
• Shows an ability to critically evaluate the applicability of the method in a specific company.
• Range: 8.5 – 9.5

HD (80–100)

• Accurate return & risk calculations.
• Correct analysis of over/under performance.
• Comprehensive understanding of correlation evidenced by correct calculation.
• Correct calculation and thorough explanation of beta.
• Shows an advanced understanding in when to use historical data to forecast future returns.
• Shows a strong ability to critically evaluate the applicability of the method in a specific company.
• Range: 9.5 – 12

PART D: Presentation and Referencing

N (0–29)

• Report is poorly structured with multiple errors in language and grammar.
• Lacks credible industry and academic sources.
• Has not used Harvard-style referencing.
• Range: 0 – 1.2

N (30–49)

• Structure of the report lacks coherence and is poorly formatted.
• Multiple errors in language and grammar.
• Lacks credible industry and academic sources.
• Limited compliance with Harvard-style referencing.
• Range: 1.2 – 2

P (50–59)

• Inconsistently presented report with some errors in structure and formatting.
• Minor errors in language and grammar.
• Utilises a limited range of credible industry and academic sources referenced using Harvard-style with minor errors.
• Range: 2.0 – 2.4

C (60–69)

• Generally well-presented report with appropriate structure and formatting.
• Minor errors in language and grammar.
• Utilises a moderate range of credible industry and academic sources referenced using Harvard-style with minor errors.
• Range: 2.4 – 2.8

D (70–79)

• Professionally presented report with appropriate structure and formatting.
• Fluent use of language with few grammatical errors.
• Utilises multiple credible industry and academic sources referenced using Harvard-style with minimal errors.
• Range: 2.8 – 3.2

HD (80–100)

• Professionally presented report with appropriate structure and formatting.
• Fluent use of language with correct grammar.
• Utilises at least 10 credible industry and academic sources accurately referenced using Harvard-style.
• Range: 3.2 – 4

Overall Marking Guide

• N: 0 or above
• N: 12 or above
• P: 20 or above
• C: 24 or above
• D: 28 or above
• HD: 32 or above

Assessment Summary and Approach

Assessment Requirements

The assessment is divided into four key parts, each testing specific learning outcomes (ULOs and GLOs). The total marks are 40, distributed across different components. The key requirements are:

Part A: Application of Present Values in Loan Amortisation

• Demonstrate ability to use the loan amortisation formula.
• Apply components of the formula to calculate loan repayment.
• Show understanding of relationships between variables.
• Accuracy in applying formula and interpreting outcomes is critical.

Part B: Company Research

• Research credible industry and academic sources.
• Address the scope of the assignment comprehensively.
• Synthesise information from multiple viewpoints.
• Critically analyse information and demonstrate depth of understanding.

Part C: Risk and Return

• Perform accurate return and risk calculations.
• Analyse over/under performance.
• Demonstrate understanding of correlation and beta.
• Use historical data appropriately to forecast returns.
• Critically evaluate applicability of the method in a specific company.

Part D: Presentation and Referencing

• Present work in a clear, professional structure with proper formatting.
• Use correct grammar and fluent academic writing.
• Reference at least 10 credible industry and academic sources using Harvard style.

Overall Marking Guide

• N (Fail): Below 20 marks
• P (Pass): 20 or above
• C (Credit): 24 or above
• D (Distinction): 28 or above
• HD (High Distinction): 32 or above

Stepwise Academic Mentorship

The academic mentor guided the student in a systematic manner, ensuring each section of the assessment was approached strategically.

Step 1: Understanding Part A – Loan Amortisation

• Mentor explained the present value formula and its components (interest rate, repayment period, principal).
• Worked through examples to show how varying each component changes the repayment outcome.
• Emphasised linking formula application with interpretation of relationships between variables.
• Student was guided to solve practice calculations until confident with accuracy.

Step 2: Tackling Part B – Company Research

• Mentor directed the student to identify credible databases, journals, and industry reports.
• Explained the difference between reliable and non-reliable sources.
• Guided the student in synthesising information from multiple perspectives instead of relying on one source.
• Helped with structuring critical analysis, ensuring sources were connected logically to the assignment scope.

Step 3: Completing Part C – Risk and Return

• Mentor introduced the concepts of return, risk, correlation, and beta with practical financial examples.
• Step-by-step guidance was provided on calculating returns and risk using historical data.
• Discussed how to interpret over/under performance and when to apply correlation/beta effectively.
• Mentor highlighted the importance of critical evaluation—showing not just results, but also discussing their applicability in a real-world company context.

Step 4: Structuring Part D – Presentation and Referencing

• Mentor reviewed drafts for structure, coherence, and formatting.
• Corrected grammatical errors and refined academic tone.
• Provided training on Harvard referencing style with examples.
• Ensured the student used a minimum of 10 credible academic and industry sources.

The Best Choice

By following this step-by-step mentoring approach, the student:

• Mastered loan amortisation calculations and demonstrated conceptual understanding (Part A).
• Researched from a wide range of credible sources and presented a critical, well-synthesised discussion (Part B).
• Accurately performed return and risk calculations, analysed data effectively, and critically evaluated the method (Part C).
• Produced a professionally structured, well-written report with correct Harvard referencing (Part D).

Learning Objectives Covered

• ULO1 & ULO2: Application of financial formulas and evaluation of company data.
• ULO3: Analysis of risk and return using theoretical and practical frameworks.
• GLO1: Advanced discipline knowledge.
• GLO3: Digital literacy in sourcing and analysing academic/industry data.
• GLO4 & GLO6: Critical thinking, evaluation, and application in real business contexts.

The assessment thus not only tested technical calculations and financial analysis but also research, academic writing, and critical thinking skills, ensuring a holistic learning experience.

Get Help with Your Assignment the Right Way

Looking for guidance on your assignment? You can download the available sample solution to understand the structure, formatting, and approach. However, please note that this file is meant strictly for reference and learning purposes only. Submitting it as your own work may result in plagiarism issues and academic penalties.

If you need a 100% original, plagiarism-free solution tailored to your specific requirements, our team of professional academic writers is here to help. With subject experts across multiple disciplines, we ensure:

• Custom-written solutions based on your exact instructions.
• Zero plagiarism, with a Turnitin report available on request.
• Timely delivery to meet urgent deadlines.
• Academic quality that aligns with your university standards.

Don’t risk your grades with copied content get the guidance you need while staying safe and confident.

Choose wisely:
Download Sample Solution