Case briefing video coming soon
Apply Introduction to Investing
Read the full narration
You have now built the tools in Introduction to Investing. The next task is to apply them to the supplied fictional case. Start with the objective and constraints. Record your first decision and the evidence supporting it. Work the numbers using consistent definitions and units. Invite the strongest reasonable challenge. When new information arrives, keep your first record and explain what changes. Finish with a conditional conclusion: what you would do, why, what remains uncertain and what evidence would trigger a review. This is a teaching exercise with fictional information. The quality of your reasoning matters more than whether a simulated outcome later looks favourable.
Module review and final assessment
Choose your answers on the page and use the explanatory feedback to review them. The learning target is 16 out of 20. Review mistakes, revisit the relevant lessons and try again. This is practice with feedback, rather than a recorded school assessment.
The scholarship committee
A fictional charity has £500,000 invested for current and future scholarships. It must make a £75,000 payment in nine months and expects a donation of £40,000, but the timing and certainty of the donation are not established. A proposed fund holds listed shares in one industry, charges a disclosed fee, and uses a sustainability label. A second proposal is described only as “stable private assets”. No complete mandate or portfolio information is supplied.
- Identify the owner, manager and beneficiaries in the proposed arrangement.
- Write five questions needed before recommending an allocation.
- Explain why the expected donation, the fund label and smooth private-asset valuations do not settle the decision.
- Explain what a meaningful performance comparison would require.
- Draft a 200–300 word committee note stating what is known, what is missing and what should happen next.
Assessment criteria
- Purpose and parties (2 marks): Correctly identifies owner/manager/beneficiaries and payment objective.
- Risks and missing information (3 marks): Prioritises liquidity, timing, loss capacity and underlying exposures.
- Evidence and claims (2 marks): Interprets label, donation uncertainty and valuation smoothness carefully.
- Performance and costs (1 marks): Specifies comparable return/risk/cost basis.
- Conclusion and communication (2 marks): Clear next step linked to evidence; no unsupported allocation.
Ask your teacher to review your committee note. A strong response connects a conclusion to evidence and acknowledges what is missing.
Compare your completed case with a model response
The charity is the asset owner; any appointed investment team is the manager; current and future scholarship recipients are beneficiaries. Ask about payment timing and flexibility, other cash resources, donation certainty, capacity for loss, existing exposures, liquidity terms, fees, mandate constraints and governance. A listed-share fund concentrated in one industry has shared economic risks despite multiple holdings. A sustainability label needs interpretation against the objective and holdings. Infrequent private valuations do not establish stable economic value or ready liquidity. Compare returns using relevant periods, risk, currency, benchmark and consistent costs. A strong note identifies missing information and proposes further investigation or cash-flow planning before choosing an allocation; it does not invent a personal recommendation from incomplete data.