Group 3 peer review on Group 4

Jonatan Knutsson
Nicolas Kuiper

December 29, 2022

 We found Group 4’s presentation and slides to be well done, and for the
most part, they managed to summarise and present their topic in a consis-
tent and progressive manner. However, we have identified some areas for
improvement that could enhance the quality of their work. For example,
we found the “formalia” slides to be somewhat confusing and hard to fol-
low. Although, the use of colour coding and thorough examples later in the
presentation, were useful to clear up some confusion regarding these slides.
Though, it should be noted that considering the dark background of the pre-
sentation slides, it would be preferable to use lighter colours in the “APT
Example(2)” slide; since some information was hard or not readable at all.
Again, this issue was cleared up by the spokesperson during the presentation
and did not negatively affect the end result after all.
Furthermore, we identified a minor typo in equation (3), although this
could be due to the correct character not existing in Google slides, the tool
used by the group members to generate their presentation. For this reason,
they chose to use “i” as a replacement, but “i” was never declared for what
it represented, and caused some confusion when revisiting their slides.
Globally, we found the examples and applications shown by Martin and
Henrik to be very well explained and executed during their presentation.
These managed to tie back to previous slides in such manner that Arbitrage
pricing theory (APT) was easy and clear to understand from a theoretical
and practical standpoint. Consequently, we think that Group 4 did a great
job when explaining the APT.
We believe that, based on their slides quality, oral presententing skills,
and their knowlege of the subject (therefore a remarkable ability to answer
questions), an overall score of 18/20 is a reasonable grade for their work.
And, although these minor issues mentioned above impede them from obtain-
ing a perfect score, these comments should be taken as constructive critisism
for improving the quality of future projects, and not as negative reviews.