辅导 ECON5022 Student Assessment Brief辅导 C/C++程序

ECON5022 Student Assessment Brief

1. Question

The file exchangerates.csv contains the daily spot exchange rate of the U.S. Dollar against the Pound sterling1 for the period 24/03/2000 - 23/03/2021. The data analysis must be completed using EViews (the student version can be downloaded for free2).

1. Plot the series. Looking at the graph, would you say that the series is mean-reverting? Explain. Would the assumption of mean reversion around a constant mean be appropriate from an economic perspective? Explain (Hint: what are the potential implications in terms of forecast ability?).

2. Test for the presence of a unit root in the spot exchange rate series. Justify the model specified for the unit root test and comment on the outcome of the test. Why is it important to test for unit roots?

3. Select an appropriate ARIMA(p,d,q) model for the spot exchange rate series. Are the residuals autocorrelated? Are the square residuals autocorrelated? Comment on your findings.

4. Fit a suitable ARIMA(p,d,q)-GARCH(1,1) process to the spot exchange rate series. Obtain the autocorrelation function (correlogram) for the standardized residuals and the squared standardized residuals. What do you conclude about the goodness of fit of the model? Explain. Compare your results with the finding in question 3.

5. Split the sample in two parts. Use the sub-sample until 11/01/2021 to estimate the model, and the sub-sample between 12/01/2021 and 23/03/2021 for out-of-sample dynamic forecast of the daily spot exchange rate. Explain the output (e.g: Are the forecasts one-step or multi-step ahead forecasts? What are the bands around the forecast?...). Comment on your findings.

2. Further Details

Word limit	2000 words, excluding graphs and tables. There is no lower limit.
Action to be taken if word limit is exceeded	The marker will use academic judgment to adjust the grade to reflect failure to adhere to the word limit. The text beyond the word limit may be ignored.

3. Additional Information for Group Assignments

· Duration of the group work: 10/02/25 -- 10/3/25.

· Number of students per group: 3 or 4.

· Arrangements for forming groups students can self-enrol in groups.

· Group members should work collectively on each question, instead of individually working on assigned tasks.

· Peer evaluation will be used for monitoring purposes. Reports must be submitted on 17 February and 10 March 2025.

· Students should communicate using Microsoft Teams and are invited to keep track of the progress and participation for each meeting.

· Students must contact the course coordinator immediately if issues within the group arise (e.g. one group member is not equally contributing to the group assignment)

· If there is compelling evidence that the contribution to the group work from one or more members is insufficient, the final grade will be adjusted to reflect the students’ contribution.

Assessment Criteria
	Advanced Exceeds expectations Excellent	Competent Meets expectations Very good	Progressing Partially meets expectations Satisfactory	Beginning Does not meet expectations Needs Improvement
Content, topic, knowledge	Highly detailed knowledge and understanding of material, concepts and theories for this level of study.	Very good, consistent knowledge and understanding of the material, main concepts and key theories at this level.	Broadly accurate knowledge and understanding of the material, with some gaps. Some elements missing and flaws are evident.	Major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Significant inaccuracies.
Analysis	Organises and synthesises empirical evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.	Organises evidence to reveal important patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.	Organises evidence, but the organization is not effective in revealing important patterns, differences, or similarities.	Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/or is unrelated to focus.
Argument	Substantial, logical, and concrete development of ideas. Assumptions are made explicit. Details are germane, original, and convincingly interpreted.	Offers solid but less original reasoning. Assumptions are not always recognized or made explicit. Contains some appropriate details or examples.	Offers some support that may be dubious, too broad or obvious. Details are too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to the thesis, or inappropriately repetitive.	Offers simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic support for ideas; inappropriate or off-topic generalizations; faulty assumptions; and/or errors of fact.
Structure and formatting	All questions are answered to a high standard. The work is presented in a professional‐looking document, using informative headings and figures/tables where appropriate.	All questions are answered to a good standard. Attention to the presentation is given but may not be executed to the highest standard.	Some of the answers are incomplete, missing or contain mistakes. Little attention to the presentation is given.	Key answers are not provided and/or presented with errors evident. Overall presentation of the document is not to a professional standard.
Sources and evidence	Uses sources to support, extend, and inform, but not substitute for the writer’s development of ideas. Skilfully combines material from a variety of sources. Always conforms to style. manual.	Uses sources to support, extend, and inform. the writer’s development of ideas. Appropriately uses quotes but may not always conform. to the required style. manual.	Uses relevant sources but substitutes them for the writer’s ideas. Quotations and paraphrases may be too long and/or inconsistently referenced.	Fails to use sources and/or overuses quotations or paraphrasing and/or uses source material without acknowledgement.
Technical writing skills	Language is clear and precise. Technical jargon is used appropriately. Sentences display consistently strong, varied structure.	Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed with some errors. Few or no spelling errors. Errors do not distract from meaning.	The paper contains a few grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors. The language lacks clarity or includes the use of some jargon or conversational tone.	The paper contains many grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors. The language uses jargon or a conversational tone.