Describe the extent to which the Singaporean economy was affected by the 2008-9 global financialcrisis
Describe the extent to which the Singaporean economy was affected by the 2008-9 global financial
crisis, and the reasons for this.
Overall word limit 4,000 words
Should focused on:
1. How crisis starts?
2. Effects on Singapore?
Eg: what MAS did?
3. Why? Why MAS act so fast than other country?
15BSB695 FSMI coursework 1 15BSB695 Financial Systems, Markets and Institutions Group Coursework
GROUP TASK With explicit reference to the concepts and topics covered in your 15BSB695 lectures,
describe the extent to which the Singaporean economy was affected by the 2008-9 global financial
crisis, and the reasons for this. Overall word limit 4,000 words (see next page) 15BSB695 FSMI
coursework 2 Coursework Notes: 1. This is a group assignment. Student groups (minimum 3 members,
max. 5 members) should be chosen by students and advised to Christopher Spencer and David Tan by
Friday 11th March 2016. 2. Each GROUP member will be awarded a mark based on the GROUP mark. 3. The
report will count 25% towards your overall assessment in this module. 4. The report should be of a
maximum 4,000 words. The word count excludes references and relevant appendix materials (maximum 10
pages) but includes tables, reference citations in the text, diagrams, contents pages and headings.
Reports that are over-length will have marks deducted by 1% for every 100 words over the limit.
There are no specific word limits on each part of this task as areas do overlap and a more
integrated report is sought. 5. The report should be submitted via the Coursework box by 7pm on
Friday 6th May 2016, together with a Group Coursework coversheet. 6. The assessment criteria noted
in Appendix A will be used to mark this assessment and as a basis for feedback. 15BSB695 FSMI
coursework 3 Appendix A 12BSB695 Group Coursework Assignment – Criteria for assessment In assessing
the assignment the following equally weighted criteria will be used. The statements in the mark
ranges are indicative. Criterion <40% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% >70% Content Very basic detail, some
inaccurate reporting of case. Little detail or explanation, general “headlines” without much
supporting text. Reasonable level of detail. Some key points missed. Good level of detail and
explanation. Most key points covered. Clear facts, very well explained, Good level of detail (not
overboard) Use of models / concepts No basis in theory or accepted models. Basic use of theory,
derived from lectures alone. Good use of theory, based largely on lectures Good use of relevant
theories /models / concepts extending beyond the lecture notes. Excellent use of relevant theories
and models, extending beyond the lecture notes. Evidence of Research No citations / references.
Statements have no supporting evidence. Statements often not supported by evidence, few sources
cited. Statements supported, some meaningful research undertaken. Good referencing, statements
supported by evidence. Good sources used. Wide range of research. Excellent sources of data and
references. Analysis / application No real analysis or application of theories. Descriptive,
shallow, shows basic information without any analysis. Good attempt to analyse, or prioritise
issues. Good attempt to analyse, or prioritise issues and to draw conclusions. Evidence of
argument, analysis and discussion. Good conclusions drawn. Presentation of report Unstructured,
messy, spelling and grammar mistakes Neat and tidy but with no real structure. Some spelling
errors. Well presented with minimal errors. Room for improvement in structure. Well presented with
a good attempt to structure. Good logical structure, neat and tidy. Good “signposts” (headers /
footers / sub-headings)