One Page essay paper
One Page
Course Project Guidelines
Overview:
It is a group project (with a minimum of 10 students not more than 11) where students are required to analyze the financial condition of two banks of their choices in terms of Profitability and risk. Students are supposed to deliver a written report in addition to a presentation.One Page
Report:
Should include three parts:
1. Select two conventional banks from Bahrain. Using financial statements, Present and compare the two banks (History, organization, structure, and corporate social responsibility)
2. Using tables and graphics make a CAMEL Analysis of the two banks:One Page
· Capital Adequacy: The purpose of capital, the ratio for evaluating capital adequacy, The measurement of capital, Prompt Corrective Action
· Asset Quality: Concept of asset quality, Impact of asset quality on bank’s financial statements. Analyzing asset quality ratios. Adequacy of allowance for loans and leases losses (ALLL)
· Management Competence: Management organization and function. Assessment of management. Evaluation factors and ratings
· Earnings Ability: Analysis of the different components of earnings (ROE, ROA). Importance of earnings to a bank’s financial condition
· Liquidity Risk: Liquidity risk management. Factors for evaluating liquidityOne Page
Report Format:
· WRD doc of Minimum Pages 10, Maximum 20 : Font: New Times Roman, Font Size: 12 , Spacing: Single
· PPT File of Maximum 15 slides.
Important Note:
Report should be written with your own words without repeating the statements or sentences available in the financial reports of the commercial bank you have chosen (Avoid plagiarism).
The grading rubrics is given below for your reference.One Page
| Marks | |
| Present and compare the two banks | 3 |
| Capital Adequacy | 2 |
| Asset Quality | 2 |
| Management Competence | 2 |
| Earnings Ability | 2 |
| Liquidity Risk Liquidity | 2 |
| originality in reporting | 4 |
| PowerPoint presentation | 3 |
| Total | 20 marks |
| Above Expectations | Meets Expectations | Below Expectations | |
| 90%-100% | 70%-89% | <69% | |
| Present and compare the two banks | A deep explanation is provided for History, organization, structure and corporate social responsibility of the two banks.One Page | A limited explanation is provided for History, organization, structure and corporate social responsibility of the two banks. | A weak explanation is provided for History, organization, structure and corporate social responsibility of the two banks. |
| Capital Adequacy | The purpose of capital, ratio for evaluating capital adequacy is properly explained and compared for both banks | The purpose of capital, ratio for evaluating capital adequacy is not properly explained and compared for both banks | The purpose of capital, ratio for evaluating capital adequacy is poorly explained and compared for both banks |
| Asset Quality | Concept of asset quality, Impact of asset quality on bank’s financial statements. Analyzing asset quality ratios is properly explained and compared for both banks. | Concept of asset quality, Impact of asset quality on bank’s financial statements. Analyzing asset quality ratios is not properly explained and compared for both banks. | Concept of asset quality, Impact of asset quality on bank’s financial statements. Analyzing asset quality ratios is poorly/ not adequate explained and compared for both banks. |
| Management Competence | Management organization and function. Assessment of management. Evaluation factors and ratings is properly explained and compared for both banks.
|
Management organization and function. Assessment of management. Evaluation factors and ratings is not properly explained and compared for both banks. | Management organization and function. Assessment of management. Evaluation factors and ratings is poorly/ not adequate explained and compared for both banks. |
| Earnings Ability | Analysis of the different components of earnings (ROE, ROA) is properly explained and compared for both banks.
|
Analysis of the different components of earnings (ROE, ROA) is not properly explained and compared for both banks. | Analysis of the different components of earnings (ROE, ROA) is poorly/ not adequate explained and compared for both banks. |
| Liquidity Risk Liquidity | Risk Liquidity management. Factors for evaluating liquidity
is properly explained and compared for both banks.
|
Risk Liquidity management. Factors for evaluating liquidity is not properly explained and compared for both banks.
|
Risk Liquidity management. Factors for evaluating liquidity is poorly/ not adequate explained and compared for both banks. |
| originality in reporting | Organization clarity & originality in reporting is exceptional | Organization clarity & originality in reporting is above average | Organization clarity & originality in reporting is not up to the mark |
| PowerPoint presentation | The presentation provides clear and comprehensive explanation to the project | The presentation provides limited explanation to the project | The presentation provides unclear and weak explanation to the project |
