As a financial analyst or advisor who may be advising organizations and/or individuals on effective investment strategies, it is crucial that you understand the sources of risk and how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate risk in order to achieve the investor’

Introduction: Size

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

utilizes industry-specific language to establish expertise (100%)

Describes the size of the company relative to other

companies in the industry, both currently and historically (90%)

Describes the size of the

company relative to other

companies in the industry, both

currently and historically, but

response is cursory or inaccurate

(70%)

Does not describe the size of the company relative to other

companies in the industry, both currently and historically (0%)

4.85

Introduction: Leadership Position

Meets “Proficient” criteria and utilizes industry-specific language to demonstrate expertise

(100%)

Assesses the company’s

leadership position in the

industry and defends response

(90%)

Assesses the company’s leadership position in the industry, but response or defense is cursory, illogical, inaccurate, or weak (70%)

Does not assess the company’s

leadership position in the industry

(0%)

4.85

Introduction: Profitability

Meets “Proficient” criteria and utilizes industry-specific language to demonstrate expertise

(100%)

Describes the company’s financial position and

profitability, both currently and

historically (90%)

Describes the company’s financial position and

profitability, both currently and historically, but response is cursory, illogical, or inaccurate (70%)

Does not describe the company’s

financial position and profitability

both currently and historically

(0%)

4.85

Introduction: Major Product Lines

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates exceptional insight into the interrelationship among product lines, revenue, and investment potential (100%)

Analyzes the company’s major product lines in terms of the company’s feasibility as an investment opportunity and defends reasoning (90%)

Analyzes the company’s major product lines in terms of the company’s feasibility as an investment opportunity, but response or reasoning is cursory,

illogical, or weakly defended (70%)

Does not analyze the company’s major product lines in terms of the company’s feasibility as an investment opportunity (0%)

4.85

Investment Analysis: Perception

Meets “Proficient” criteria and description reflects a particularly insightful assessment of the market’s perception of the company’s stock (100%)

Reasonably characterizes the perception in the market of the company’s stock (90%)

Characterizes the perception in the market of the company’s stock, but response is cursory or illogical (70%)

Does not characterize the perception in the market of the company’s stock (0%)

4.85

Investment Analysis: Individual

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates exceptional insight into individual investing (100%)

Reasonably characterizes how stock would be viewed from an individual investor’s viewpoint and explains why (90%)

Characterizes how stock would be viewed from an individual

investor’s viewpoint, but response is cursory, illogical, or weakly defended (70%)

Does not characterize how stock

would be viewed from an

individual investor’s viewpoint

(0%)

4.85

Investment Analysis: Asset Allocation

Strategy

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

demonstrates exceptional insight

into the value of asset allocation

(100%)

Recommends an asset allocation

strategy for including company’s stock in portfolio and justifies recommendation (90%)

Recommends an asset allocation strategy for including company’s stock in portfolio, but response or justification is cursory or

illogical (70%)

Does not recommend an asset

allocation strategy for including

company’s stock in portfolio

(0%)

4.85

Investment Analysis: Portfolio Manager

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

demonstrates exceptional insight

into the value of asset allocation

(100%)

Reasonably characterizes how a portfolio manager would treat this company’s stock and others

from the industry from an asset allocation perspective and explains conclusion (90%)

Characterizes how a portfolio

manager would treat this

company’s stock and others from

the industry from an asset

allocation perspective, but

response or explanation of

conclusion is cursory or illogical

(70%)

Does not characterize how a portfolio manager would treat this company’s stock and others from

the industry from an asset allocation perspective (0%)

4.85

Risk Analysis: Specific Risk

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

demonstrates keen insight into risk identification and classification (100%)

Reasonably characterizes risk

associated with the company, its product(s), and its industry (90%)

Characterizes risk associated with the company, its product(s), and its industry, but response is

cursory, illogical, or inaccurate (70%)

Does not characterize risk

associated with the company, its product(s), and its industry (0%)

4.85

Risk Analysis: Type

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates keen insight into risk identification and classification (100%)

Classifies type of risk and defends reasoning (90%)

Classifies type of risk, but response is illogical, inaccurate, or weakly defended (70%)

Does not classify type of risk (0%) 4.85

Risk Analysis: Impact

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

cites specific, relevant examples

of the impact of risk that

establish a robust context for the

analysis (100%)

Analyzes the impact of the identified risk (90%)

Analyzes the impact of the

identified risk, but response is

cursory or illogical (70%)

Does not analyze the impact of the identified risk (0%)

4.85

Risk Analysis: Balanced

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

demonstrates exceptional insight into balancing risk and return (100%)

Assesses the extent to which the

risk can be effectively balanced with return and justifies reasoning (90%)

Assesses the extent to which the

risk can be effectively balanced

with return, but response or

reasoning is cursory or illogical

(70%)

Does not assess the extent to which

the risk can be effectively balanced with return (0%)

4.85

Risk Management Strategies: Technique

Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates exceptional insight into risk management techniques (100%)

Recommends risk management technique for most appropriately minimizing or mitigating the effect(s) of identified risk and explains why (90%)

Recommends risk management technique for minimizing or mitigating the effect(s) of identified risk, but recommendation or reasoning is cursory or illogical (70%)

Does not recommend risk management technique for minimizing or mitigating the effect(s) of identified risk (0%)

6.47

Risk Management Strategies: Maximizing

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

demonstrates exceptional insight

into balancing risk and return (100%)

Suggests strategies for maximizing return in the face of the identified risk and explains why

(90%)

Suggests strategies for maximizing return in the face of the identified risk, but suggestion or reasoning is cursory or illogical (70%)

Does not suggest strategies for

maximizing return in the face of

the identified risk (0%)

6.47

Risk Management

Strategies: Effectiveness

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

demonstrates exceptional insight

into effectiveness measurement (100%)

Makes appropriate

recommendations for determining effectiveness of risk/return management measures over time (90%)

Makes recommendations for

determining effectiveness of risk/return management

measures over time, but recommendations are cursory or

illogical (70%)

Does not make recommendations

for determining effectiveness of risk/return management measures over time (0%)

6.47

Feasibility: One Ratio From Each

Accurately calculates standard financial ratios from each category for the company (100%)

Calculates standard financial ratios from each category for the company, but with gaps in

accuracy or detail (70%)

Does not calculate standard

financial ratios from each category

(0%)

3.88

Feasibility: Compare

Compares calculated ratios for

the company to those of its competitors/industry average

and identifies discrepancies (100%)

Compares calculated ratios for the company to those of its competitors/industry average

and identifies discrepancies, but with gaps in accuracy or detail (70%)

Does not compare ratios or does not identify discrepancies (0%)

3.88

Feasibility: Discrepancies

Meets “Proficient” criteria and cites specific, relevant examples

that establish a robust context for the analysis (100%)

Analyzes ratio discrepancies between company and its

competitors and explains why they exist and their impact on the company’s potential as an

investment opportunity and

defends reasoning (90%)

Analyzes ratio discrepancies

between company and its

competitors, but response or

reasoning is cursory or illogical

(70%)

Does not analyze ratio discrepancies

between company and its competitors (0%)

3.88

Feasibility: Strengths

and Weaknesses

Meets “Proficient” criteria and cites specific, relevant examples

that establish a robust context for the analysis (100%)

Analyzes selected company’s strengths and weaknesses as a

potential investment opportunity and defends rationale (90%)

Analyzes selected company’s strengths and weaknesses as a potential investment opportunity, but response or defense is cursory or illogical (70%)

Does not analyze selected company’s strengths and

weaknesses as a potential investment opportunity (0%)

3.88

Conclusion

Meets “Proficient” criteria and makes novel insights into the company as an investment vehicle (100%)

Explains if selected company

would be recommended as an

investment opportunity over its

competitors and justifies

rationale (90%)

Explains if selected company would be recommended as an investment opportunity over its competitors, but response or justification is cursory or illogical

(70%)

Does not explain if selected company would be recommended as an investment opportunity over its competitors (0%)

3.88

Articulation of Response

Submission is free of errors

related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, and organization

and is presented in a professional

and easy to read format (100%)

Submission has no major errors

related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, or organization

(90%)

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact

readability and articulation of main ideas (70%)

Submission has critical errors

related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, or organization

that prevent understanding of

ideas (0%)

2.99

Earned Total 100%