Assessment Brief
|
Module Code and Title |
IC208 Programming for Finance |
|
Module Convenor |
Dr Vu Tran |
|
Type of Assessment |
Individual project |
|
Weighting of Assessment |
60% |
|
Submission Deadline |
19th April 2024, 12pm (noon) |
|
Submission Point(Blackboard/Turnitin/Other) |
Blackboard |
|
Items to be Submitted |
One report with an appendix |
|
Individual or Group Assessment |
Individual |
|
Module Convenor Office Hours/Opportunities for advice and feedback |
The module convenors and teaching assistants are available for advice and feedback. Individual appointments can be arranged upon request. Please use their emails addresses listed in Blackboard.
I strongly encourage you to utilise the discussion board.
|
1. What is the purpose of this assessment?
The following table shows which of the module learning outcomes are being assessed in this assignment. Use this table to help you see the connection between this assessment and your learning on the module.
|
Module Learning Outcomes being assessed |
|
Carry out a practical project that involve Python applications in Finance
|
|
Data Management and visualisation |
|
Make use of historical data and programming techniques to read, analyse and use different
variables and signals for a decision-making process
|
|
Interpret and critically discuss the empirical results in light of prior finance literature |
2. What is the task for this assessment?
|
Task (attach an assignment brief if required) |
The purpose of this project is to implement and evaluate a trading strategy(ies) using Python coding skills. The project is divided int subtasks, as follows:
1) Download and manage a dataset of financial assets from an online database. You should choose at least 30 financial assets during a period of at least 2 years. There is no
restriction on which assets should be included.
2) Produce summary statistics of the financial assets’ characteristics, e.g., returns, trading volume, liquidity etc., during the sampled period of your choice. Discuss the outcomes of your Python codes. There are merits for explaining your choice of the financial assets, graphical illustrations, discussions in linkages to prior literature.
3) Define a trading strategy(ies) for individual assets.
4) Construct a portfolio of financial assets based on certain criteria, e.g., risk-return optimization.
5) Evaluate the performances of the trading strategy(ies) in (3) and the portfolio in (4).
|
3. What is required of me in this assessment?
|
Guidelines/details of how to prepare your submission
|
Your submission should comprise:
• Report with clear structure (at least introduction, main body, conclusion) and tables and figures.
• Appendix with Python 3.6+ codes. Codes should be for Jupyter Notebook.
• Reference list with all sources used.
The Python codes should be put only in the appendix. The report should NOT include Python codes.
The submission should be uploaded to [Blackboard> IC208>
Assessment].
No extra libraries are allowed except for ones in the Anaconda package and ones covered during the lectures.
|
|
Three key pieces of advice based on the feedback given to the previous cohort who completed this assignment
|
It is essential to get your codes work in Jupyter Notebook.
In addition, the readability of your codes is important. Using comments (#) is recommended.
Furthermore, you should be able to interpret outcomes of your codes and empirical results. "It does not matter whether you find a good trading strategy(ies) or not, you should provide a correct and appropriate interpretation of your findings. Ensure that you dedicate sufficient time to understanding your findings and their implications and communicate this clearly in your report.
For a high mark, you are expected to go beyond the references provided under ‘Resources’ below to show that you have read widely for this project and can link your findings to those of existing studies.
|
|
Formatting Guidelines
|
Microsoft Word |
|
Word limit/guidance and penalty applied |
1,500 words, excluding tables/figures, references. |
|
Referencing Style |
Harvard |
|
Guidance on Academic Misconduct (including using Turnitin practice area) |
You should ensure that the work you produce adheres to the University’s statement on academic integrity and to the regulations regarding academic misconduct (such as plagiarism and cheating).
You can find information about this at: http://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/exams/Policies/examisconduct.aspx
|
4. The Marking Scheme (Marking criteria/rubric)
Please refer to the marking criteria rubric at the end of this document.
5. What resources might I use to get started?
|
Python 3.6+.
Microsoft Word can be used to prepare the report and to format tables / figures.
Lecture and seminar notes.
Students are expected to read relevant literature which can be accessed via the Library Resources, a recommended guide include:
- Brock, W., Lakonishok, J. & LeBaron, B. (1992) Simple technical trading rules and the stochastic properties of stock returns. Journal of Finance, 47, 1731–1764.
- Conrad & Kaul (1998) An anatomy of trading strategies. Review of Financial Studies, 11, 489–519.
|
6. Late Submission Arrangements
|
Point of Submission : Click or tap here to enter text.
Late Submission Penalty: ☒ The University standard penalty apply
☐ Other: Click or tap here to enter text.
|
|
Plagiarism: ☒ The University’s standard policy on Academic Misconduct applies
☐ Other: Click or tap here to enter text.
|
7. Feedback Arrangements
|
Timing of feedback:
☒ Within 15 working days of submission deadline
☐ When examinations marks are released
☐ Other Click here to add text
|
|
Type of feedback:
☒Mark ☐Generic Feedback
☒Individual Feedback (for each group) ☐Comments written on the assessment
☐Audio Feedback ☐ Video Feedback
☐Breakdown of Mark ☐Other: Click or tap here to enter text.
|
|
Location of Feedback:
☒Blackboard ☐Turnitin ☐ RISIS
☐Other: Click or tap here to enter text.
|
Assessment Criteria Rubric for Marking
|
GRADE BANDS |
DISTINCTION |
MERIT |
PASS |
FAIL |
MAJOR FAIL |
|
|
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA |
80+
OUTSTANDING
|
70 – 79
EXCELLENT
|
60 – 69
VERY GOOD
|
50 – 59
GOOD
|
40 – 49 |
39 AND BELOW |
|
Criterion 1: Evidence of
Knowledge and Technical Skills
Project shows a high degree of Python coding skills including data management, defining functions for trading strategy(ies), evaluate and back testing, and readability of the codes. (50%)
|
Highly precise and extremely clear Python codes to solve all project tasks. Correct Python codes and exceptionally high degree of accuracy and easy to read. Knowledge and technical skills in all tasks go beyond what could have been expected. |
Very precise and clear Python codes to solve project tasks. Correct Python codes and high degree of accuracy and detail when formulating and executing the analyses. |
Very precise and clear Python codes to solve project tasks. Correct Python codes and high degree of accuracy and detail when formulating and executing the analyses. |
Sufficient, clear Python codes to solve project tasks. Potential for minor inaccuracies some project tasks that do not significantly interfere with correctness of analyses.Most of project tasks have been correctly specified and executed, with several but minor mistakes. |
Python codes illustrate significant shortcomings regarding precision and detail of explanation.
Formulation and execution of Python codes demonstrate limited knowledge of underlying concepts and their application in Python. |
Python codes illustrate extremely significant shortcomings so any further analyses are significantly affected. No or extremely unclear explanation of web crawling and data handling. Consistent use of incorrect textual analyses and testing procedures. Extremely limited knowledge of Python. |
|
Criterion 2:
Interpretation and Implications of Results Discussion of findings demonstrating a deep understanding of the subject matter by drawing implications from the findings, highlighting limitations of the approach and its results. (20%)
|
Results are extremely well explained. Their interpretation shows exceptional understanding of techniques and financial theories. Correctly highlights implications of findings for all areas. Clearly discusses limitations of approach. Shows exceptional ability in reasoning. |
Results of analysis are well explained, and interpretation of results shows very good understanding of techniques and financial theories. Clearly and correctly highlights implications of findings for several areas and discusses several limitations of approach. |
Results of analysis are generally well explained, with minor imprecisions. Interpretation of results shows good understanding of techniques and financial theories, although some aspects might be missing. Highlights some implications and limitations of findings. |
Shows some attempts of interpreting results but often superficial, and at times incorrect conclusions are drawn. Implications are partially discussed but are often superficial. Limitations are only implicitly featured and/or not fully understood. |
Discussion of results suggests some lack of understanding of the findings and the underlying theories. No implications of findings were discussed and/or they are not sufficiently supported by results. No awareness of limitations of the approach. |
No attempt at interpreting the finding and explaining the broader meaning of the results. No implications or limitations are highlighted and/or the corresponding discussion reflects a severe lack of understanding of the basic econometric techniques and financial theories. |
|
Criterion 3: Originality Analysis and presentation of results shows some element of ‘uniqueness’ and creativity. (10%) |
Extremely well-thoughtout approach to analysis and presentation which enhances readers’ understanding and goes beyond what is expected. Approach is extremely well explained and clearly supported by an underlying rational. |
Well-thought-outapproach to analysis andpresentation of results. Approach is well explained and supported by an underlying rational. |
Analysis and presentation of results is well motivated and shows elements of originality/creativity, butgreater effort could have been made. Approach is reasonable but could be better justified and/ormore innovative. |
Approach to analysis and presentation of results is not always well-thought-out and lacks effort and originality. Approach lacks economic intuition and/or is not properly motivated. |
Approach to analysis and presentation is not motivated and lacks effort and originality.Approach has factual shortcomings and is not sufficiently explained. |
Approach to analysis and presentation lacks effort and originality. Approach is inaccurate and/or non-existent and has not been motivated. |
|
Criterion 4: Scholarship and Independent Research Reflect a deep understanding of the scholarly literature and lecture materials and link the findings of existing studies to those of your own analyses. (10%) |
Uses a vast variety of academic literature which is highly relevant to the questions. Shows an exceptionally high understanding of published literature and reflects a highly critical and evaluative approach. Comparisons between scholarly literature and own findings are extremely frequent and exceptionally insightful. |
Uses various academic studies which are highly relevant to answering the questions. Shows a high understanding of published literature and reflects an overall critical and evaluative approach. Comparisons between scholarly literature and own findings are frequent and precise. |
Uses a reasonable number of studies to compare and contrast which are relevant, with few exceptions. Shows a sufficient understanding of the literature with minor shortcomings that do not affect the main messages of the study.Several comparisons between literature and own findings, with minor imprecisions. |
Engagement with published literature could have been more extensive. Some of the cited literature may lack relevance for the question. Main findings of literature are understood but several inaccuracies. Comparisons between literature and own findings may occasionally be superficial and/or could be more explicit. |
Only few studies have been discussed, mainly covering the recommended readings. Discussion is superficial and/or contains imprecisions and significant inaccuracies. Comparisons between literature and own findings are sparse, incorrect and/or lack analytical depth. |
Engagement with scholarly literature is effectively non-existent. Own findings are not linked to existing studies and/or comparisons are factually incorrect. |
|
Criterion 5: Presentation, Structure and Style Show a clear and logical structure, a high standard of presentation, good use of tables and graphs and include substantive referencing in the Harvard referencing style. (10%) |
Extremely well organised. Structure of essay supports line of argument. Fluent and engaging style. Tables and graphs are well designed, illustrate the main findings and are easily readable. In-text references and reference list are consistent and conform to recommended conventions. Conforms to word limit. |
Well organised with fluent and engaging style. Tables and graphs are well-designed, illustrate the main findings and are easily readable. In-text references and reference list are consistent and conform to recommended conventions. Conforms to word limit. |
Coherent structure. Generally, clear style. Tables and graphs are generally well-designed and easily understood but could have been more effectively used to highlight findings. In-text references and reference list may show minor deviations from conventions. Conforms generally to word limit. |
Generally, well-structured but occasionally lacks coherence. Tables and graphs are used to report results but occasionally lack clarity and/or could have been better designed. In-text references and reference list may not fully conform to conventions. May deviate from word limit. |
Often no clear structure and coherence. Typographical and grammatical errors interfere with meaning. Tables/ graphs are difficult to read and/or outputs from Python have been directly pasted into the report. In-text references and reference list may be inconsistent and/or not conform to conventions. May deviate from word limit. |
No structure and coherence. Frequent typographical and grammatical errors that interfere with meaning. Tables and graphs are non-existent, not readable and/or represent output directly pasted from Python. In text referencing and reference list is inadequate and does not conform to conventions. May deviate from word limit. |