BEAM065 Bank Management 
	
	
		Coursework 2 (60% of the mark for this module) Submission Deadline: 1st May. Word limit: 3,000. 
	
	
		This assignment consists of two options. Both options are worth 100 marks. YOU NEED TO CHOOSE EITHER OPTION 1 OR OPTION 2. 
	
	
		Option 1 
	
	
		Using data from Compustat for a large sample of banks (at least 50) and over a period of at least 5 years, examine the determinants of bank dividend payouts:
	
	
		- Fama and French (2001) hypothesis 
	
	
		- Risk-shifting theory 
	
	
		- Signalling theory 
	
	
		- Life-cycle theory 
	
	
		As proxies for dividend payouts, you can use any (or all) of the following variables:
	
	
		-   Dividend-to-asset ratio
	
	
		-   Dividend-to-equity ratio
	
	
		-   Dividend payout ratio
	
	
		Or you can use dividend payout dummy variables as follows:
	
	
		-   Dividend pay dummy
	
	
		-   Dividend increase dummy
	
	
		-   Dividend decrease dummy
	
	
		-   Dividend omission dummy
	
	
		In your analysis, you can consider different dimensions/variables, e.g., bank capital, bank size, deposits, and any other, following the relevant literature.
	
	
		Moreover, you can use a variety of specifications (as many as you want, e.g., large banks and small banks or different periods). You should also discuss your results by comparing them with those in the relevant literature. Finally, you should discuss the potential pitfalls of the methodology used (if any).
	
	
		(100 marks) 
	
	
		(no more than 3,000 words) 
	
	
		IMPORTANT: For your analysis you MUST use STATA. The reference list, 
	
	
		tables (including notes and titles of the tables) and figures (including notes and titles of the tables) do NOT count towards the word limit. You do NOT need an introduction or conclusion in your report, but you can divide your report into three different sections, one to describe briefly your methodology, one for your  dataset (e.g, database used and sampleselection), and one for the discussion of the results. 
	
	
		Suggested structure for the report: 
	
	
		1.1 Methodology 1.2 Data 
	
	
		1.3 Discussion of the results 
	
	
		Option 2 
	
	
		Download the annual reports of two banks, “Bank X” and “Bank Y”, for the last 5 years. These two banks must be headquartered in the same country and must be competitors in at least one line of business (e.g., they engage in “retail banking” activities). Then, compare the two banks in terms of: 
	
	
		a)  Overall performance and its main drivers
	
	
		b) Risk profile
	
	
		c)  Corporate governance structure
	
	
		d) Dividend payout policy (if any)
	
	
		e)  International activities (if any)
	
	
		f)  Funding strategies
	
	
		g) Hedging strategies (if any)
	
	
		(100 marks) 
	
	
		(no more than 3,000 words) 
	
	
		IMPORTANT: The reference list does NOT count towards the word limit. You do NOT need an introduction or conclusion in your essay.
	
	Further guidelines 
	This assignment requires you to focus on the concepts and theories developed in weeks 1 to 10, and is related to the ILOs 1-2, 4-10.  You are expected to read all of the relevant core academic material on ELE. Evidence of reading optional articles will be rewarded if it improves the quality of your answers. The marking criteria are stated in Appendix A below.
	IMPORTANT: Academic misconduct 
	The material you submit must be your own work and written in your own words. Where you have used quoted material, you must make full reference to it.
	You might be asked to send the data used in your analysis to the Module Leader (Dr.  Thaer Alhalabi), along with any other file that you might have used for your data analysis (e.g., 
	Excel file, STATA do-file or log file). Dr. Thaer Alhalabi might also ask you to explain how you ran the regressions, either via email or during an online meeting on Teams. Further investigation of potential academic misconduct might ensue, according to University regulations.
	More information on referencing style 
	https://vle.exeter.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=6748§ion=2 
	Late Submission of Assignments 
	You must submit your assignment by the deadline specified. If you fail to submit on time, the following penalties apply:
	•     Work submitted up to 1 hour after the deadline, which has reached the standard of the
	module passmark or above, will be subject to a penalty of 5% of the total available mark for the coursework, down to a minimum score of the module passmark.
	•     The penalty for assessed work submitted up to two weeks and without an agreed extension is a capped mark of 50%.
	•     Assessed work submitted more than two weeks beyond a submission date will receive a mark of zero.
	Mitigation
	• https://www.exeter.ac.uk/students/infopoints/yourinfopointservices/mitigation/
	BART Submission
	Online Submission Student Summary Sheet v19
	Online Submission Student Handbook v19
	Academic Honesty Advice for Students prior to Submission v2
	Appendix A: Marking Rubric 
	
		
			| 
					Mark 
				 | 
					(Fail/Condon able Fail) 
				 | 
					Pass 
				 | 
					Merit 
				 | 
					Distinction 
				 | 
					Weighting 
				 | 
		
			| 
					Marking Criteria 
				 | 
					<50 
				 | 
					50-59 
				 | 
					60-69 
				 | 
					>70 
				 | 
					% of total mark 
				 | 
		
			| 
					Knowledge and Understanding of the Subject 
				 | 
					Gaps in 
				 
					knowledge 
				 
					and only 
				 
					superficial 
				 
					understanding of the well- 
				 
					established principles of area(s) of 
				 
					study. 
				 | 
					Broad 
				 
					knowledge and 
				 
					understanding of material, of well- established 
				 
					principles of 
				 
					area(s) of study, and of the way in which those 
				 
					principles have been developed. 
				 | 
					Very good 
				 
					knowledge and understanding of material, of 
				 
					well- established principles of 
				 
					area(s) of study, and of the way in which those principles have been developed. 
				 | 
					Very good, 
				 
					detailed 
				 
					knowledge and 
				 
					understanding of material, main 
				 
					concepts/theories at this level. 
				 
					Awareness of the limitation of their knowledge, and how this 
				 
					influences any analyses and interpretations based on that knowledge. 
				 | 
					40% 
				 | 
		
			| 
					Analysis and Interpretation 
				 
					Demonstration of logical 
				 
					analysis and critical 
				 
					interpretation. 
				 | 
					Little or no analysis of findings, 
				 
					concepts or theoretical  ideas; 
				 
					descriptive, 
				 
					simplistic and 
				 
					anecdotal and/or 
				 
					incorrect. 
				 | 
					Satisfactory 
				 
					application and analysis of 
				 
					findings/concepts, perhaps with 
				 
					some deviation  from theoretical premises. 
				 | 
					Good application and analysis of 
				 
					findings/concepts carried out in 
				 
					line with 
				 
					methodological and theoretical premises. 
				 | 
					Application and analysis of 
				 
					findings/concepts 
				 
					carried out 
				 
					accurately and 
				 
					with high degree of competence in line with 
				 
					methodological and theoretical premises. 
				 | 
					45% 
				 | 
		
			| 
					Style and Structure 
				 
					1) Clear 
				 
					structure, and attention to 
				 
					grammar and spelling. 
				 
					2) Use of 
				 
					recommended and other 
				 
					reading 
				 
					materials. 
				 
					3) Correct academic 
				 
					referencing. 
				 | 
					Poor structure and grammar which is hard to follow or 
				 
					understand; 
				 
					incorrectly 
				 
					formatted, 
				 
					with no 
				 
					references or poorly chosen ones. 
				 | 
					Overall structure and organisation is satisfactory. 
				 
					Internal 
				 
					coherence of the 
				 
					whole is 
				 
					satisfactory. 
				 
					Make 
				 
					consistently sound use of appropriate academic 
				 
					conventions and 
				 
					academic honesty. 
				 | 
					Good structure and grammar, 
				 
					which is easy to follow and 
				 
					understand. Make 
				 
					consistently good 
				 
					use of 
				 
					appropriate academic 
				 
					conventions and 
				 
					academic honesty. 
				 | 
					Clearly structured and lucidly 
				 
					expressed.  Make consistently 
				 
					excellent use of appropriate 
				 
					academic 
				 
					conventions and   academic honesty Evidence of 
				 
					further research. Excellent range and quality of 
				 
					references to 
				 
					support analysis. 
				 | 
					15% 
				 | 
		
			| 
					  
				 | 
					  
				 | 
					  
				 | 
					  
				 | 
					  
				 | 
					Total 100% 
				 |