+1 (951) 902-6107 info@platinumressays.com

Art History: Select one work of art from either this weeks lecture or reading that you found especially captivating

Homework Answsers / History

Assemblage of Artifacts from the Daegok-ri Site, Hwasun

Bronze ritual object with farming scenes

Asia 1000 B.C.E.–1 C.E.

Introduction

China

India

Iran

Iraq

Japan

Jordan

Korea

Bronze Age Korea

Syria

Turkey

Vietnam

Bronze ritual object with farming scenes

Artwork Detailsby The National Museum of Korea

Essay by Lee Jinmin

Today, it is very challenging for us to envision daily life during prehistoric times. With no written records, almost all of our ideas about prehistoric life must be derived from excavated artifacts. In particular, any prehistoric artifacts that feature images are invaluable sources of information. Thus, this bronze ritual object has great significance, since it is decorated with various farming scenes that enable us to visualize agricultural practices from ancient times.

Uniqueness of the farming design

Dating the artifact: Fifth or fourth century B.C.E.

Correlation to pottery designs and Bronze Age fields

Shaman praying for bountiful harvest

Bronze Ritual Object with Farming Scenes, Early Iron Age, 12.8 cm wide, Treasure 1823 (National Museum of Korea)

A variety of ancient bronze artifacts have been found in Korea, including weapons, tools, and ritual objects. Most of the artifacts that feature decorative designs or patterns are ritual objects, which were used to perform ceremonial rites. In particular, many ritual objects are decorated with geometric patterns of lines and dots, which likely represent the sun, stars, lightning, or other natural phenomenon that were then worshipped with a mixture of awe and fear. These dense and elaborate geometric designs were not merely artistic expressions, but also powerful symbols that were believed to represent and enhance the authority of the leader. However, bronze

artifacts inscribed with realistic images are exceptionally rare, limited to one artifact shaped like a pauldron (a shoulder plate on a suit of armor) and a few bronze artifacts that are shaped like split bamboo, which are decorated with images of deer and human hands. Therefore, the discovery of an ancient bronze artifact inscribed with multiple farming scenes was truly unprecedented.

The bronze ritual object with farming scenes has a width of 12.8 cm, although most of the lower section is missing. Along the top of the object are six square holes showing signs of abrasion, indicating that it was likely hung by threading ties through the holes. A decorative frame of incised lines and dots runs around the perimeter and vertically down the center, dividing the surface into panels containing different scenes. In the most intact panel, on the right, a naked man with a feather in his hair plows a field, while another person raises a hoe. In the left panel, a person is putting something into a jar. It is believed that these images represent planting the fields in spring (right) and storing the harvest in jars in the autumn (left).

The reverse side of the object also has decorative panels, as well as a ring shaped like twisted rope attached to a loop. Both the right and left panels on the reverse side feature an image of a bird perched in a tree with two branches.

In ancient times, birds were considered to be sacred mediators that flew between the heavens and the earth, connecting shamans with the gods and bringing peace and bounty to a village. Many bird-shaped vessels and bronze artifacts inscribed with bird images have been found at ancient burial or ritual sites. Birds were also prominently featured on sotdae (sacred guardian poles with birds at the top), which were erected to bring peace and prosperity to a village.

Split bamboo-shaped artifact, Early Iron Age, bronze, Seo-gu, Korea (National Museum of Korea)

Bronze Ritual Object with Farming Scenes (detail), Early Iron Age, 12.8 cm wide, Treasure 1823 (National Museum of Korea)

Bronze Ritual Object with Farming Scenes (reverse), Early Iron Age, 12.8 cm wide, Treasure 1823 (National Museum of Korea)

Reverse side of bronze object, with designs of a bird perched in a tree. Birds were considered to be sacred mediators that linked the heavens and earth, and brought peace and bounty to a village. Bronze Ritual Object with Farming Scenes (detail of reverse), Early Iron Age, 12.8 cm wide, Treasure 1823 (National Museum of Korea)

Based on the scenes of people using farming tools and the images of birds, this bronze artifact is believed to be a ritual object that was likely used in ceremonial rites to pray for a bountiful harvest. Since the object was not found through excavation, the details of its discovery cannot be confirmed. But based on similarities with other shield-shaped bronze artifacts excavated from Gwejeong-dong, Daejeon, and from Namseong- ri, Asan, the object is estimated to date to the fifth or fourth century B.C.E.

Notably, this is around the time that the “Korean-type Bronze Dagger Culture” began to develop in regions south of the Cheongcheon River. Contemporaneous artifacts that demonstrate the emergence of powerful leaders have been found concentrated in southwest Korea, including at the

aforementioned burials of Gwejeong-dong and Namseong-ri, as well as in Dongseo-ri, Yesan. These burials, which consist of wooden coffins covered with stone mounds, have yielded a wide array of bronze ritual objects, including bamboo-shaped, shield-shaped, and disc-shaped ritual objects, in addition to bronze weapons and tools.

The production of bronze objects was a complex and difficult process that involved smelting copper ores, adding alloys (such as tin, zinc, and lead), and casting from molds. As such, bronze items were either symbols of authority or sacred ritual objects, which were only possessed by the most elite members of society. Therefore, the presence of numerous bronze artifacts in a single burial is solid evidence that the deceased was a powerful leader. The presence and nature of bronze artifacts is also indicative of a theocratic society, in which the political leader hosted ceremonial rites. The fact that this bronze object with farming scenes was likely worn or used by the supreme regional leader during rites to pray for the annual harvest demonstrates how important farming was to the society and the subsistence economy of the time.

Shield-Shaped Artifact, Early Iron Age, bronze, excavated at the archaeological site in Goejeong-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, 15.9 cm long (National Museum of Korea)

The importance of farming during the Korean Bronze Age has been confirmed by archaeological materials associated with agriculture, including plant remains, traces of ancient field systems, and farming tools made from stone, wood, and bone. Excavations of some Neolithic sites have uncovered tools that are believed to have been used to harvest foxtail, broomcorn, and barnyard millets, indicating that agriculture began on the Korean peninsula in the Neolithic Age. However, farming only began to be practiced at a wide scale during the Bronze Age. This is evidenced by

the discovery of numerous stone farming tools (including semi-lunar stone knives) at Bronze Age sites, along with an increased quantity and variety of crop remains (such as rice, barley, foxtail millet, broomcorn millet, sorghum, soybean, red bean, and wheat). The recent discovery of wooden hoes and pestles at waterlogged sites provides further evidence, as does research showing that large Bronze Age villages often included crop fields, rice paddies, and irrigation channels.

Notably, some Bronze Age sites have yielded pottery and the remains of field systems that resemble the images depicted on this ritual object. The rendering of the field also recalls the ridges and furrows of an actual Bronze Age field that was discovered in Daepyeong-ri, Jinju.

In addition, large storage vessels found at various sites (such as Sangchon-ri, Jinju; Cheonjeon-ri, Chuncheon; and Yeonha-ri, Gapyeong) show traces of crosshatch patterns, suggesting that they may have been transported or affixed with some type of mesh or net. These vessels have a narrow mouth and round body, reminiscent of the jar depicted in the left panel on the bronze ritual object.

Bird’s-eye view of a Bronze Age field discovered in Daepyeong-ri, Jinju. The ridges and furrows of the field resemble the field depicted on the bronze ritual object.

Jar, Early Iron Age, clay, Chuncheon-si (National Museum of Korea)

For years, the nude man plowing the field in the right panel of the bronze ritual object with farming scenes was the subject of great curiosity among scholars. But new light was shed on this mystery in 2004, while Yi Kun Moo was the Director of the National Museum of Korea. That year, the National Folk Museum published Collection of Materials about Korean Seasonal Customs: Early Joseon Writings. This compilation featured an article by the Joseon scholar Yoo Hee Choon (1513–77) entitled “Discussion of Nude Plowing on Ipchoon,” originally found in Collected Writing of Miam Seonsaeng (Volume 3). In the article, Yoo Hee Choon discusses “ nagyeong, ” a seasonal tradition that took place on “ipchoon” (⽴春), the first morning of spring, in which a nude person with a wooden cow simulated planting, sowing, and harvesting the field, in order to predict and pray for a bountiful harvest. Yoo notes that this ritual was still taking place in

northern regions, such as Hamgyeongdo and Pyeongando Provinces, and calls for it to be banned.

Of course, there is a gap of around 2000 years (or more) between the bronze ritual object and the writing of Yoo Hee Choon. But it still seems reasonable to infer that the image of the nude man on the bronze ritual object is meant to depict a shaman conducting a farming ritual, rather than an actual farmer.

The bronze ritual object with farming scenes is an invaluable artifact for our understanding of the Korean prehistoric period, demonstrating the advancement of bronze production technology, the development of farming, the practice of rituals, and the nature of society at the time.

Nude man plowing a field. Bronze Ritual Object with Farming Scenes, Early Iron Age, 12.8 cm wide, Treasure 1823 (National Museum of Korea)

Artwork details

Bibliography

Cite this page

Related works of art

Sasanian plate 4th century C.E. Iran

Handheld Prayer Wheel early 20th century Tibet

Icon of the Archangel Michael late 10th–first half of 11th century Turkey

Mobility and reuse: the Romanos chalices and the chalice with hares 10th century (with antique sardonyx bowl) Egypt

Your donations help make art history free and accessible to everyone!

Donate

Smarthistory® believes art has the power to transform lives and to build understanding across cultures. The brilliant histories of art belong to everyone, no matter their background. Smarthistory’s free, award- winning digital content unlocks the expertise of hundreds of leading scholars, making the history of art accessible and engaging to more people, in more places, than any other publisher.

About Smarthistory

Smarthistory's blog

Contribute an essay

Content editors and contributors

Contact Us

Donate

Download free images Subscribe to our channel Connect with us

Subscribe to our newsletter

[email protected] Subscribe

© 2026 Smarthistory

JU M

P TO ART HISTORIES BOOKS CURATED GUIDES ABOUT SUPPORT SEARCH

1/21/26, 9:40 PM Page 1 of 1

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Table 7.2 Multifactor Models and CAPM

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.5 Arbitrage Pricing Theory

Arbitrage

Relative mispricing creates riskless profit

Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT)

Risk-return relationships from no-arbitrage considerations in large capital markets

Well-diversified portfolio

Nonsystematic risk is negligible

Arbitrage portfolio

Positive return

zero-net-investment

Chapter 06 – Efficient Diversification

Chapter six

efficient diversification

Chapter Overview

In this chapter

Discussion Thread: Parable of the Talents

Homework Answsers / Business & Finance

Efficient Diversification

Bodie, Kane, and Marcus

Essentials of Investments Eleventh Edition

6

Chapter

6.1 Diversification and Portfolio Risk

Market/Systematic/Nondiversifiable Risk

Risk factors common to whole economy

Unique/Firm-Specific/Nonsystematic/ Diversifiable Risk

Risk that can be eliminated by diversification

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.1 Risk as Function of Number of Stocks in Portfolio

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.2 Risk versus Diversification

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.2 Asset Allocation with Two Risky Assets

Covariance and Correlation

Portfolio risk depends on covariance between returns of assets

Expected return on two-security portfolio

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.2 Asset Allocation with Two Risky Assets

Covariance Calculations

Correlation Coefficient

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Spreadsheet 6.1 Capital Market Expectations

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Spreadsheet 6.2 Variance of Returns

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Spreadsheet 6.3 Portfolio Performance

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Spreadsheet 6.4 Return Covariance

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.2 Asset Allocation with Two Risky Assets

Using Historical Data

Variability/covariability change slowly over time

Use realized returns to estimate

Cannot estimate averages precisely

Focus for risk on deviations of returns from average value

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.2 Asset Allocation with Two Risky Assets

RoR: Weighted average of returns on components, with investment proportions as weights

ERR: Weighted average of expected returns on components, with portfolio proportions as weights

Variance of RoR:

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.2 Asset Allocation with Two Risky Assets

Risk-Return Trade-Off

Investment opportunity set

Available portfolio risk-return combinations

Mean-Variance Criterion

If E(rA) ≥ E(rB) and σA ≤ σB

Portfolio A dominates portfolio B

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Spreadsheet 6.5 Investment Opportunity Set

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.3 Investment Opportunity Set

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.4 Opportunity Sets: Various Correlation Coefficients

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Spreadsheet 6.6 Opportunity Set -Various Correlation Coefficients

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.3 The Optimal Risky Portfolio with a Risk-Free Asset

Slope of CAL is Sharpe Ratio of Risky Portfolio

Optimal Risky Portfolio

Best combination of risky and safe assets to form portfolio

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.3 The Optimal Risky Portfolio with a Risk-Free Asset

Calculating Optimal Risky Portfolio

Two risky assets

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.5 Two Capital Allocation Lines

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.6 Bond, Stock and T-Bill Optimal Allocation

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.7 The Complete Portfolio

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.8 Portfolio Composition: Asset Allocation Solution

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.4 Efficient Diversification with Many Risky Assets

Efficient Frontier of Risky Assets

Graph representing set of portfolios that maximizes expected return at each level of portfolio risk

Three methods

Maximize risk premium for any level standard deviation

Minimize standard deviation for any level risk premium

Maximize Sharpe ratio for any standard deviation or risk premium

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.9 Portfolios Constructed with Three Stocks

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.10 Efficient Frontier: Risky and Individual Assets

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.4 Efficient Diversification with Many Risky Assets

Choosing Optimal Risky Portfolio

Optimal portfolio CAL tangent to efficient frontier

Separation Property implies portfolio choice, separated into two tasks

Determination of optimal risky portfolio

Personal choice of best mix of risky portfolio and risk-free asset

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.4 Efficient Diversification with Many Risky Assets

Optimal Risky Portfolio: Illustration

Efficiently diversified global portfolio using stock market indices of six countries

Standard deviation and correlation estimated from historical data

Risk premium forecast generated from fundamental analysis

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.11 Efficient Frontiers/CAL: Table 6.1

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.5 A Single-Index Stock Market

Index model

Relates stock returns to returns on broad market index & firm-specific factors

Excess return

RoR in excess of risk-free rate

Beta

Sensitivity of security’s returns to market factor

Firm-specific or residual risk

Component of return variance independent of market factor

Alpha

Stock’s expected return beyond that induced by market index

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.5 A Single-Index Stock Market

Excess Return

Where:

: component of return due to movements in overall market

: security’s responsiveness to market

: stock’s expected excess return if market factor is neutral, i.e. market-index excess return is zero

: Component attributable to unexpected events relevant only to this security (firm-specific)

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.5 A Single-Index Stock Market

Statistical and Graphical Representation of Single-Index Model

Security Characteristic Line (SCL)

Plot of security’s predicted excess return from excess return of market

Algebraic representation of regression line

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.5 A Single-Index Stock Market

Statistical and Graphical Representation of Single-Index Model

Ratio of systematic variance to total variance

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.12 Scatter Diagram for Ford

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 6.13 Various Scatter Diagrams

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.5 A Single-Index Stock Market

Diversification in Single-Index Security Market

In portfolio of n securities with weights

In securities with nonsystematic risk

Nonsystematic portion of portfolio return

Portfolio nonsystematic variance

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

6.5 A Single-Index Stock Market

Using Security Analysis with Index Model

In

,

CAPM and APT

Bodie, Kane, and Marcus

Essentials of Investments Eleventh Edition

7

Chapter

7.1 The Capital Asset Pricing Model

Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)

Security’s required rate of return relates to systematic risk measured by beta

Market Portfolio (M)

Each security held in proportion to market value

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.1 The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Assumptions

Market Assumptions Investor Assumptions
All investors are price takers Investors plan for the same (single-period) horizon
All information relevant to security analysis is free and publicly available. Investors are efficient users of analytical methods  investors have homogeneous expectations.
All securities are publicly owned and traded. Investors are rational, mean-variance optimizers.
No taxes on investment returns.
No transaction costs.
Lending and borrowing at the same risk-free rate are unlimited.

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.1 The Capital Asset Pricing Model

Hypothetical Equilibrium

All investors choose to hold market portfolio

Market portfolio is on efficient frontier, optimal risky portfolio

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.1 The Capital Asset Pricing Model

Hypothetical Equilibrium

Risk premium on market portfolio is proportional to variance of market portfolio and investor’s risk aversion

Risk premium on individual assets

Proportional to risk premium on market portfolio

Proportional to beta coefficient of security on market portfolio

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 7.1 Efficient Frontier and Capital Market Line

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.1 The Capital Asset Pricing Model

Passive Strategy is Efficient

Mutual fund theorem: All investors desire same portfolio of risky assets, can be satisfied by single mutual fund composed of that portfolio

If passive strategy is costless and efficient, why follow active strategy?

If no one does security analysis, what brings about efficiency of market portfolio?

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.1 The Capital Asset Pricing Model

Risk Premium of Market Portfolio

Demand drives prices, lowers expected rate of return/risk premiums

When premiums fall, investors move funds into risk-free asset

Equilibrium risk premium of market portfolio proportional to

Risk of market

Risk aversion of average investor

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.1 The Capital Asset Pricing Model

Expected Returns on Individual Securities

Expected return-beta relationship

Implication of CAPM that security risk premiums (expected excess returns) will be proportional to beta

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.1 The Capital Asset Pricing Model

The Security Market Line (SML)

Represents expected return-beta relationship of CAPM

Graphs individual asset risk premiums as function of asset risk

Alpha

Abnormal rate of return on security in excess of that predicted by equilibrium model (CAPM)

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Figure 7.2 The SML and a Positive-Alpha Stock

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.1 The Capital Asset Pricing Model

Applications of CAPM

Use SML as benchmark for fair return on risky asset

SML provides “hurdle rate” for internal projects

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.2 CAPM and Index Models

Index Model, Realized Returns, Mean-Beta Equation

: HPR

i: Asset

t: Period

: Intercept of security characteristic line

: Slope of security characteristic line

: Index return

: Firm-specific effects

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.2 CAPM and Index Models

Estimating Index Model

, excess return

Residual = Actual return Predicted return for Google

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.2 CAPM and Index Models: SCL

Security Characteristic Line (SCL)

Plot of security’s expected excess return over risk-free rate as function of excess return on market

Required rate = Risk-free rate + β x Expected excess return of index

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.2 CAPM and Index Models

Predicting Betas

Mean reversion

Betas move towards mean over time

To predict future betas, adjust estimates from historical data to account for regression towards 1.0

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.3 CAPM and the Real World

CAPM is false based on validity of its assumptions

Useful predictor of expected returns

Untestable as a theory

Principles still valid

Investors should diversify

Systematic risk is the risk that matters

Well-diversified risky portfolio can be suitable for wide range of investors

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.4 Multifactor Models and CAPM

Multifactor models

Models of security returns that respond to several systematic factors

Two-index portfolio in realized returns

Two-factor SML

‹#›

Copyright © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

7.4 Multifactor Models and CAPM

Fama-French Three-Factor Model

Estimation results

Three aspects of successful specification

Higher adjusted R-square

Lower residual SD

Smaller value of alpha

DNP-IVA-EVIDENCE

Homework Answsers / Nursing

– Official Essay Rubric – Official Essay Rubric

Criteri a

Ratings Pt s

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Conten t Master y of the Inform ation

30 to >27.0 pts Excellent The essay content properly aligns with the information requested and reflects student exemplary mastery of the content by showing complete information, details, and examples. 27 to >24.0 pts Good The essay content aligns with the information requested and shows good mastery of the content. Provides sufficient information, however missed opportunities to demonstrate supporting details and/or examples. 24 to >21.0 pts Fair The essay content aligns with the information requested and shows fair mastery of the content. Provides sufficient information, but lacks supporting details and/or examples. 21 to >18.0 pts Poor The essay content does not align with the information requested. Does not demonstrate mastery of the

30 pt s

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Organi zation Structu re of the Essay

20 to >18.0 pts Excellent The essay has a clear format, an introduction, a body with clear transitions between evidence and supporting arguments, and a conclusion. The information is presented in an orderly manner. All elements facilitate the flow of the information in the document. 18 to >16.0 pts Good The essay has a clear format, an introduction, a body with evidence, supporting arguments, and a conclusion. All elements facilitate the flow of the information in the document, but the essay may miss transitions between sections or have other small organization issues. 16 to >14.0 pts Fair The essay structure is problematic, lacks logical flow, and has at least one of these issues: The essay does not have a clear introduction or conclusion, or the evidence and supporting arguments are not aligned with the requested requirements. 14 to >12.0 pts Poor

20 pt s

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Critical Thinkin g Develo pment of Ideas

15 to >14.0 pts Excellent Details are considered, and a point of view, thesis statement, or main idea is clear. Next, the essay presents excellent evidence, arguments, and examples to support the point. Finally, the student draws meaningful and high- level insightful conclusions based on the information presented and explained. 14 to >12.0 pts Good (12 -11 pts) Details are considered, and a point of view, thesis statement, or main idea is clear. Next, the essay presents sufficient evidence, arguments, or examples to support the point. Finally, it draws appropriate conclusions based on the information presented and explained. 12 to >11.0 pts Fair Details are considered, and a point of view, thesis statement, or main idea is identified. Next, the essay presents some evidence, arguments, or examples, but some are not relevant to support the point. Student draws fair conclusions, but not all are based on or supported by the presented information. 11 to >9.0 pts Poor Details are not considered, and a point of view, thesis

15 pt s

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Inform ation Literac y Quality of Resour ces

15 to >14.0 pts Excellent Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount. 14 to >12.0 pts Good Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. 12 to >11.0 pts Fair Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. 11 to >9.0 pts Poor The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from

15 pt s

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Writing Mecha nics and Gram

10 to >9.0 pts Excellent Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. 9 to >8.0 pts Good Minimal (1 – 3) typographical, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. 8 to >7.0 pts Fair Multiple (4 -7) typographical, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. 7 to >5.0 pts Poor Severe (8 – 10) typographical, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. 5 to >0 pts

10 pt s

Total Points: 100

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Format ting and APA Guideli nes

10 to >9.0 pts Excellent The essay reflects excellent execution and incorporation of APA guidelines. Correct formatting, setup, title page, perfect in-text citations, and reference formatting. 9 to >8.0 pts Good The essay offers correct formatting on the setup, and title page, with minimal formatting or punctuation errors within the in-text citations or references. 8 to >6.0 pts Fair The essay offers correct formatting, setup, and title page but has significant errors within in-text citations and references. 6 to >5.0 pts Poor The essay offers severe incorrect APA formatting, setup or missing title page, and/or problematic in-text citations and

10 pt s

DNP-Why evidence-based practices are still not the standard of care in many hospitals in the United States?

Homework Answsers / Nursing

– Official Essay Rubric – Official Essay Rubric

Criteri a

Ratings Pt s

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Conten t Master y of the Inform ation

30 to >27.0 pts Excellent The essay content properly aligns with the information requested and reflects student exemplary mastery of the content by showing complete information, details, and examples. 27 to >24.0 pts Good The essay content aligns with the information requested and shows good mastery of the content. Provides sufficient information, however missed opportunities to demonstrate supporting details and/or examples. 24 to >21.0 pts Fair The essay content aligns with the information requested and shows fair mastery of the content. Provides sufficient information, but lacks supporting details and/or examples. 21 to >18.0 pts Poor The essay content does not align with the information requested. Does not demonstrate mastery of the

30 pt s

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Organi zation Structu re of the Essay

20 to >18.0 pts Excellent The essay has a clear format, an introduction, a body with clear transitions between evidence and supporting arguments, and a conclusion. The information is presented in an orderly manner. All elements facilitate the flow of the information in the document. 18 to >16.0 pts Good The essay has a clear format, an introduction, a body with evidence, supporting arguments, and a conclusion. All elements facilitate the flow of the information in the document, but the essay may miss transitions between sections or have other small organization issues. 16 to >14.0 pts Fair The essay structure is problematic, lacks logical flow, and has at least one of these issues: The essay does not have a clear introduction or conclusion, or the evidence and supporting arguments are not aligned with the requested requirements. 14 to >12.0 pts Poor

20 pt s

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Critical Thinkin g Develo pment of Ideas

15 to >14.0 pts Excellent Details are considered, and a point of view, thesis statement, or main idea is clear. Next, the essay presents excellent evidence, arguments, and examples to support the point. Finally, the student draws meaningful and high- level insightful conclusions based on the information presented and explained. 14 to >12.0 pts Good (12 -11 pts) Details are considered, and a point of view, thesis statement, or main idea is clear. Next, the essay presents sufficient evidence, arguments, or examples to support the point. Finally, it draws appropriate conclusions based on the information presented and explained. 12 to >11.0 pts Fair Details are considered, and a point of view, thesis statement, or main idea is identified. Next, the essay presents some evidence, arguments, or examples, but some are not relevant to support the point. Student draws fair conclusions, but not all are based on or supported by the presented information. 11 to >9.0 pts Poor Details are not considered, and a point of view, thesis

15 pt s

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Inform ation Literac y Quality of Resour ces

15 to >14.0 pts Excellent Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount. 14 to >12.0 pts Good Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. 12 to >11.0 pts Fair Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. 11 to >9.0 pts Poor The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from

15 pt s

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Writing Mecha nics and Gram

10 to >9.0 pts Excellent Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. 9 to >8.0 pts Good Minimal (1 – 3) typographical, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. 8 to >7.0 pts Fair Multiple (4 -7) typographical, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. 7 to >5.0 pts Poor Severe (8 – 10) typographical, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. 5 to >0 pts

10 pt s

Total Points: 100

This criterio n is linked to a Learni ng Outco me Format ting and APA Guideli nes

10 to >9.0 pts Excellent The essay reflects excellent execution and incorporation of APA guidelines. Correct formatting, setup, title page, perfect in-text citations, and reference formatting. 9 to >8.0 pts Good The essay offers correct formatting on the setup, and title page, with minimal formatting or punctuation errors within the in-text citations or references. 8 to >6.0 pts Fair The essay offers correct formatting, setup, and title page but has significant errors within in-text citations and references. 6 to >5.0 pts Poor The essay offers severe incorrect APA formatting, setup or missing title page, and/or problematic in-text citations and

10 pt s

Research Proposal ( Employee Motivation And Job Performance In Hybrid Work Environment

Individual Final Assignment

The Research Proposal will form the final grade of the Research Methods course and will also form the basis of your final project. It should have a maximum of 3000 words excluding the title, abstract, references and appendix and it should be single-spaced. Please, follow the recommended structure in Appendix 1 below for writing your research proposal.

Appendix 1: Recommended Structure of the Research Proposal

Introduction

Estimated # of pages

1.1

Rationale of the study

2.5

1.2

Problem statement

1.3

Research questions (RQs) (i.e., major and minor RQs)

1.3

Research approach

1.4

Brief overview of the paper (Report Outline)

2

Literature Review (based on a minimum of 10 academic papers)  

2.1

Introduction

5

2.2

2.2.1

2.2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

Conceptual model

3

Methods (drawing on minimum 2 methodological sources like text books)

3.1

Research context

2.5

3.2

Research design

Depending on your research design, the section headings may differ. Look up the methods section of top journal articles that use the same research design as you want to use as an example to draft a strong methods section! You are also advised to develop a methods review table using 5 core articles on your topic. This will greatly help you in drafting a solid methods section. 

3.3

Population and Sampling

3.4

Research Instruments

3.5

Data sources (i.e., primary data and secondary data)

3.6

Data collection methods

3.3.1 Questionnaires

3.3.2 Interviews

3.7

Data analysis

3.8

Validity & reliability

3.9

Research ethics

Total 

10

References

Annex A: Literature review table (with 10 papers reviewed)

Annex B: Timeline of Activities

The Research Proposal will be graded using the assessment criteria outlined in the assessment rubric in Appendix 2 below. Students will have to defend their research proposals on an agreed date and time.

Appendix 2: Assessment Rubric for the Research Proposal

DD

Assessment Criteria

DD1

Criterion 1: The student describes the problem / gap in the academic literature which will form the basis of the literature review.

DD3

Criterion 2: The student criticizes existing academic and applied literature relevant to the topic.

DD2

Criterion 3: The student designs an appropriate conceptual framework from the literature to investigate the research question.

DD2

Criterion 4: Research question(s) are logically derived from a gap in the literature reviewed.

DD2

Criterion 5: Research questions align with the relevant literature stream.

DD2

Criterion 6: The student describes the research design and data collection approach in relation to the research questions.

DD3

Criterion 7: The student justifies the chosen methodology in relation to the research questions.

DD5

Criterion 8: The student makes reference to correct methodological literature to support the choices made (e.g., use of methods textbooks and reference to relevant articles).

DD4

Criterion 9: The student uses correct grammar and vocabulary.

DD4

Criterion 10: The student correctly references the work of others.

DD4

Criterion 11: The student writes a well-structured and coherent paper.

DD4

Criterion 12: The student’s presentation presents a persuasive case for the proposed dissertation research (i.e. well-structured presentation, clear explanation, well-timed).

DD4

Criterion 13: The student carefully listens and understands the questions and arguments and provides clear and convincing answers. Student displays mastery of the subject.

DD4

Criterion 14: The student has made good use of media (slides, video) in his/her presentation.

DD5

Criterion 15: The Master’s thesis has a reasonable expectation of being completed on time.

Important to Note

  1. Each criterion will be graded as pass or fail.
  2. All criteria need to be graded with a pass in order to receive a final pass for the research proposal. If at least one criterion is graded with a fail, the Research Proposal is failed in total and the student needs to take a resit.
    • 15 hours ago
    • 40
    Platinum Essays