COURSEWORK ASSIGNMENT 2
This is an individual assignment. You are required to answer all parts of the assignment. The hand-in date for the assignment is 29 NOVEMBER 2019.
The Intended Learning Outcomes of the Assignment are:
Evaluate key trends in monetary and financial markets and the banking sector orally or in writing. Evaluate the literature on the existence of financial intermediaries. Examine and assess the principle of delegated monitoring Understand bank regulation, and especially regulations on capital adequacy.
a) Explain and discuss why banking firms exist focusing, in particular, on the asset (lending) side of their balance sheets. [60 marks]
b) Briefly discuss the implications that the delegated monitoring model may have for policy. [40 marks]
Explain and demonstrate your answer in an essay of no more than 1,000 words in total.
The assignment relates mainly to lectures 3 and 4 including the suggested readings. An understanding of the lecture material is also helpful for writing the essay. The question aims at testing your understanding of the literature on the theory of financial intermediaries in general, and in particular that part of the literature focusing on the asset side. It is expected that you explain carefully the principle of delegated monitoring as it is presented in the Diamond (1996) model and the ideas in the literature that came before Diamond (1996). It is also very important that you discuss the implications of the literature on delegated monitoring for policy, and in particular the implications for bank regulation.
Please ensure that your assignment is properly referenced.
Avoid the temptation of presenting the discussion under separate headings. I expect to see coherent and logical communication of ideas and economic and financial concepts with linkages between the central points of the question.
The marks will be allocated as follows:
Relevance of content, structure and logical development 40% Demonstrable knowledge of the topic 25% Use of supporting literature and examples from financial systems 15% Structure, and connectedness between all parts of the discussion 10% Strength of conclusion 10%
Cecchetti, S. and Schoenhholtz, K. (2018) Money, Banking and Financial Markets (4th ed). McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Greenbaum, S. and Thakor, A. (2007) Contemporary Financial Intermediation, Elsevier.
Allen, F. and Santomero, A. (1988) The Theory of Financial Intermediation, Journal of Banking and Finance, 21, 1461-1485.
Allen, F. and Santomero, A. (2001) What Do Financial Intermediaries Do? Journal of Banking and Finance, 25, 271-294.
Diamond, D. (1996) Financial Intermediation as Delegated Monitoring: A Simple Example, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly.
Ramakrishnan, R. and Thakor, A (1984) Information Reliability and a theory of financial intermediation, Review of Economic Studies, 51, 415-432.
The hand-in date for Coursework Assignment 2 is FRIDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2019 by 23:56. The coursework report must be submitted via the Moodle dropbox.
Note: This is the latest date we are allowed to give for handing in the assignment. No extensions beyond this date are possible.
Late Submission of Coursework
Coursework submitted after the published submission date without a valid Extenuating Circumstances Form (ECF), but within ten working days of that date, will be marked. The mark awarded will be limited to the module pass mark (40% unless otherwise specified in the module handbook).
Coursework submitted more than ten working days after the published submission date will not be marked, and a mark of zero will be recorded on the student’s record. It will be recorded as a non-submission.
Students are strongly advised to keep a copy of their work. Corruption of computer disks is not an adequate excuse for late hand in, as work should be adequately backed up.
The coursework word count is a MAXIMUM OF 1,000 WORDS (THERE IS NO ±10% MARGIN) excluding reference list, bibliography, appendices, the cover page, abstract, glossary and list of tables, figures, charts and abbreviation. Tables are expected to be primarily for the presentation of numerical data. Work that exceeds 1,000 words will not be read beyond the stated word count.
The word count should be stated at the top of your submission. A falsely stated word count is an assessment offence, which will be referred to PBS Student Assessment and Assessment Regulations Lead.
The work should be word processed. Font size should be between 12 and 14 and ‘easy to read’ e.g. Calibri, Arial, Times New Roman. Line spacing should be between 1.5 and 2 with (approx.) 4 cm margins all round. The Header must include the student number and the Footer must include a page number. There are no extra marks for excessive presentation; for example elaborate graphics on the cover sheet.
All sources should be acknowledged and appropriately cited within your work, following the University’s approved referencing conventions [APA 6th ed.]. For further guidance see: http://referencing.port.ac.uk/
Referencing is required to give intellectual credit to your source, help your reader recover your source easily and to avoid being accused of plagiarism.
Students are reminded that the University will not tolerate academic dishonesty in any form. This is cheating. For further guidance see Student Handbook pages 8 and 9:
Include a Reference List of all items cited in your work and follow this with a Bibliography to show your wider background reading.
Students are reminded of the need to avoid plagiarism in all assessments. The definition of plagiarism includes claiming somebody else’s work as your own, for example through inadequate referencing of sources of material used (including Internet sources). Direct quotations must be enclosed in quotation marks and referenced. Using other people’s ideas requires a reference even if it is not a direct quote. The University Regulations describe plagiarism as:
the incorporation by a student in work for assessment of material which is not their own, in the sense that all or a substantial part of the work has been copied without any adequate attempt at attribution, or has been incorporated as if it were the student’s own when in fact it is wholly or substantially the work of another person or persons.
Any student suspected of plagiarising will be referred to the PBS Student Assessment and Assessment Regulations Lead and an Academic Misconduct Hearing will be arranged.
If any student has a query about any of the above matters and wishes to obtain clarification or further information please contact the module co-ordinator or your personal tutor.
Marking and Feedback
Marking will be done in accordance with the marking criteria grid below (Table 1) and the University of Portsmouth grading criteria for UG level 6 (Table 2). Marks and feedback will be available by Wednesday 8 January 2020. Marks will be posted on the Student Portal, and your marked coursework and tutor’s feedback will be available to you once it has been marked and processed. If there is any delay in the processing of marks, the module co-ordinator will communicate this to you and make arrangements for the marks to be posted on Moodle so that you receive them as soon as they are ready.
Individual feedback will be provided on feedback sheets. These sheets will highlight the strengths of the work and identify development points to help you to work out where you went wrong and how you can improve your performance in the future.
6 | P a g e
Table 1: Marking Criteria – Essay Type
Component and Suggested Marks
Failure < 40% Pass 40 – 55%
Good Pass 56 – 69%
Introduction and background to topic
Limited introduction not focussed on aims of assignment
Topic well focussed but introduction and context incomplete
Introduction clearly expressed; context well defined
As for good pass
Understanding of key issues
Minimal understanding of key issues
Main issues largely identified, but some lack of focus
All issues clearly understood, with some differentiation in terms of importance
Issues clearly understood and differentiated in terms of importance
Evidence of reading and/or choice of appropriate concepts
Little evidence of reading or limited /inappropriate use of module material; unclear theoretical framework; important work uncited or key concepts ignored
Evidence of reading or appropriate use of module material but with some gaps. Literature /concepts adequately but not critically reviewed.
Good critical literature review or well-justified choice of module material. Theoretical framework supports study.
Demonstrates high level of scholarship.
Analysis Largely descriptive; practically no analysis of central issues. Qualitative or quantitative data analysis inaccurate.
Some critical analysis of central issues, but with some inaccuracies.
Relevant and full analysis
Comprehensive and critical analysis of central issues.
Presentation and evaluation of evidence
Some evidence to support arguments but uncritical acceptance of material; poor or incomplete citation; unjustified conclusions.
Appropriate evidence, generally assessed critically; weak interpretation of qualitative aspects; some gaps in linkages between evidence and conclusions.
Full, critical assessment of discriminatingly selected material; some evidence of independent thought
Full, critical assessment of discriminatingly selected material; evidence of independent thought; substantial individual insights evident
Presentation: Structure, clarity, use of grammar, correct spelling
Poor: lack of structure and clarity; grammatical mistakes; inadequate referencing
Reasonably clear presentation; reasonable referencing; few grammatical/spelling mistakes
Demonstrates very good communication skills; accurate referencing; very few/no grammatical or spelling errors
Excellent communication skills; accurate referencing; virtually no errors; scholarly, well-organized treatment of material
Attainment of learning objectives
Attainment of few/none of the relevant learning objectives
Attainment of a good majority of the relevant learning objectives
Attainment of substantial majority of the relevant learning objectives
Attainment of nearly all of the relevant learning objectives
Table 2: University of Portsmouth General Grading Criteria for Level 6
As below plus: Outstanding work – contains accurate, relevant material, demonstrates understanding of complex subject matter and is able to view it in a wider context. Shows originality and confidence in analyzing and criticizing assumptions, is aware of the limits of knowledge. Likely to add new insights to the topic and approaches the quality of published material. Evidence of extensive research, uses and presents references effectively. Outstanding quality in terms of organization, structure, use and flow of language, grammar, spelling, format, presentation, diagrams, tables etc. 70-79 As below plus: Outstanding work – contains accurate, relevant material, demonstrates understanding of complex subject matter and is able to view it in a wider context. Shows originality and confidence in analyzing and criticizing assumptions, is aware of the limits of knowledge. Evidence of extensive research, uses and presents references effectively. Excellent in terms of organization, structure, use and flow of language, grammar, spelling, format, presentation, diagrams, tables etc. 60-69 As below plus: Very good work – contains most of the information required, is accurate and relevant and demonstrates understanding of the subject matter and attempts to view it in a wider context. Shows some originality of thought with good critique and analysis assumptions, is aware of the limits of knowledge. Well-researched, good use and presentation of references. Very good in terms of organization, structure, use and flow of language. 50-59 As below plus: Work that attempts to address the topic with some understanding and analysis, key aspects of the subject matter covered. Research extends to primary sources. Appropriately cited and presented references. Satisfactory presentation with respect to presentation, organization, language, grammar, spelling, format, diagrams, tables etc. 40-49 Adequate work which attempts to address the topic with limited understanding and analysis. Some research using texts, Internet and key reference sources with reference citation and presentation according to convention. An attempt to follow directions regarding organization, structure, use and flow of language, grammar, spelling, format, diagrams, tables etc. 30- 39 FAIL – Anything which is inadequate in most or all of the following: length, content, structure, analysis, expression, argument, relevance, research and presentation. Work in this range attempts to address the question / problem but is substantially incomplete and deficient. Serious problems with a number of aspects of language use are often found in work in this range. 0-29 FAIL – No serious attempt to address the question or problem, and / or manifests a serious misunderstanding of the requirements of the assignment. Acutely deficient in all aspects.