Brigham-Houston Ch. 8 · Expected Return, Standard Deviation, Beta, CAPM & Portfolio Diversification · 2-Week Unit
| Criterion | Excellent (Full) | Proficient (Partial) | Developing (Minimal) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part (a) — Portfolio E(R) & Beta E(R_p) = .40×8% + .35×11% + .25×15% = 3.2+3.85+3.75 = 10.8% · β_p = .40×0.6+.35×1.1+.25×1.8 = 0.24+0.385+0.45 = 1.075 |
Both E(R_p) = 10.8% and β_p = 1.075 correct with weighted steps shown | One calculation correct; minor arithmetic error on other | Both wrong or no work shown | /5 |
| Part (b) — CAPM for Each Stock A: 4.5+6×0.6=8.1% (expected 8% ≈ fairly valued / slightly overvalued) · B: 4.5+6×1.1=11.1% (expected 11% ≈ fairly valued) · C: 4.5+6×1.8=15.3% (expected 15% → slightly overvalued) |
All 3 CAPM calculations correct; overvalued/undervalued/fair judgment made for each with comparison shown | 2 of 3 CAPM values correct; valuations partially stated | Fewer than 2 correct; no valuation comparison | /6 |
| Part (c) — Systematic vs. Unsystematic Risk | Clearly defines both risk types; correctly states beta measures systematic risk; explains diversification eliminates unsystematic risk but not systematic | Both types defined but diversification explanation incomplete | Only one type defined; no diversification connection | /5 |
| Part (d) — Portfolio Recommendation | References portfolio β ≈ 1.075 (slightly aggressive); thoughtful recommendation with risk-return tradeoff reasoning; appropriate for youth wealth-building with proper risk acknowledgment | Recommendation made; beta cited but tradeoff analysis thin | Recommendation with no beta or risk-return discussion | /4 |
Sections 1 & 2 auto-grade instantly. Use the rubric selectors for Sections 3 & 4.