Imagine you are an analyst working at a financial consulting firm. Your organization has been hired by UBS to provide advice following a major legal and ethical crisis. You have been asked to draft an initial analysis of the incident for your supervisor's review. He has requested that you gear the analysis toward the company's executive committee and board of directors, reviewing the company's legal and ethical frameworkboth in terms of internal self-governance and external compliance with industry and regulatory standardsand assessing how and why existing processes failed. He has also asked that you conclude by suggesting ways to mitigate the impacts of the crisis and ensure that it does not happen again. (Note that if the company in the case study is no longer in business, you should imagine that it is for the purposes of this assessment and respond to questions relative to today's financial regulatory framework unless otherwise directed in the prompt.) Use the Wealth Management Crisis at UBS case study to complete this ethics case study analysis. Your analysis should include the following sections:

• Executive Summary
• Background
• Analysis
• System Flaws
• Repercussions
• Conclusion

For additional details, please refer to the Final Project Guidelines and Rubric PDF document.

Rubric Name: FIN 341 Final Project Rubric (SA)

Print Rubric

Criteria	Exemplary	Proficient	Needs Improvement	Not Evident	Criterion Score
Executive Summary	4.5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and summary is expertly aligned with the needs and interests of audience	3.825 points Briefly highlights principal findings and recommendations, using language appropriate for busy executives	2.475 points Highlights principal findings and recommendations, but response is lengthy, does not use audience-appropriate language, omits key details, or contains inaccuracies	0 points Does not highlight principal findings and recommendations	Score of Executive Summary, / 4.5
Background: Broader Context	5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria and demonstrates keen insight into connections between case and larger context in which it occurred	4.25 points Analyzes how case fits within broader business ethics context, referencing major cases where tensions between profit and ethics led to illegal or unethical behavior	2.75 points Analyzes how case fits within the broader context of business ethics, referencing major cases, but response contains inaccuracies or omits critical details or seminal cases	0 points Does not analyze how case fits within the broader context of business ethics, referencing major cases where tensions between profit and ethics led to illegal or unethical behavior	Score of Background: Broader Context, / 5
Background: Frameworks	5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and response is especially nuanced or comprehensive	4.25 points Determines what major industry and statutory frameworks apply to company in case, including role of domestic and international oversight bodies in ensuring compliance, citing specific examples	2.75 points Determines applicable frameworks, including role of oversight bodies in ensuring compliance, citing examples, but response contains inaccuracies or omits key details, or examples are not relevant	0 points Does not determine applicable industry and statutory frameworks, including role of oversight bodies in ensuring compliance	Score of Background: Frameworks, / 5
Analysis: Specific Laws	5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and response is particularly nuanced or comprehensive	4.25 points Determines specific laws, regulations, and/or ethical principles violated, distinguishing between statutory and non-statutory violations and citing relevant rules and regulations	2.75 points Determines laws, regulations, and/or ethical principles violated, distinguishing between statutory and non-statutory, but does not cite relevant rules and regulations or omits key details, or response contains inaccuracies	0 points Does not determine specific laws, regulations, and/or ethical principles violated	Score of Analysis: Specific Laws, / 5
Analysis: Controls: Type	5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and response demonstrates particularly keen insight into the tradeoffs and tensions involved in promoting ethical financial decisions in a business environment	4.25 points Analyzes internal and external controls in place prior to crisis, including how these did or did not work to balance profit-ethics tensions, supported by examples from case	2.75 points Analyzes internal and external controls, including how these did or did not work to balance profit-ethics tensions, supported by examples from case, but response contains inaccuracies or omits key details, or examples are not relevant	0 points Does not analyze internal and external controls prior to crisis	Score of Analysis: Controls: Type, / 5
Analysis: Controls: Compliant	5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and response is particularly nuanced, comprehensive, or well-supported	4.25 points Assesses whether controls were compliant with current regulations, justifying response by citing relevant regulations and reporting differences	2.75 points Assesses whether controls were compliant with current regulations, justifying response by citing relevant regulations and reporting differences, but response contains inaccuracies or omits key details	0 points Does not assess whether controls were compliant with current regulations	Score of Analysis: Controls: Compliant, / 5
Analysis: Controls: Insufficient	5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and response demonstrates keen insight into the importance of internal, as well as external, controls to ensure ethical behavior	4.25 points Analyzes why external regulations were insufficient to ensure legal and ethical behavior in this case, justifying response	2.75 points Analyzes why external regulations were insufficient, justifying response, but justification is cursory, illogical, or irrelevant, or response contains inaccuracies	0 points Does not analyze why external regulations were insufficient to ensure legal and ethical behavior in this case	Score of Analysis: Controls: Insufficient, / 5
Analysis: System Flaws: Pressures	5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and response is particularly insightful, nuanced, or comprehensive	4.25 points Analyzes personal or professional pressures that might have contributed to ethics breakdown, supporting response with case evidence and relevant research	2.75 points Analyzes pressures that might have contributed to ethics breakdown, supporting response with case evidence and relevant research, but analysis is cursory or illogical or contains inaccuracies	0 points Does not analyze personal or professional pressures that might have contributed to ethics breakdown	Score of Analysis: System Flaws: Pressures, / 5
Analysis: System Flaws: Opportunities	5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and response is particularly insightful, nuanced, and/or comprehensive	4.25 points Analyzes opportunities that allowed for illegal/unethical behavior with little risk of detection or consequences, supporting response with case evidence and relevant research	2.75 points Analyzes opportunities that allowed for illegal/unethical behavior with little risk of detection or consequences, supporting response with case evidence and relevant research, but analysis is cursory or illogical or contains inaccuracies	0 points Does not analyze opportunities that allowed for illegal/unethical behavior with little risk of detection or significant consequences	Score of Analysis: System Flaws: Opportunities, / 5
Analysis: System Flaws: Rationalizations	5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and response is particularly insightful, nuanced, and/or comprehensive	4.25 points Analyzes rationalizations that might have led those behaving improperly to believe actions were justified, supporting response with case evidence and relevant research	2.75 points Analyzes rationalizations that might have led those behaving improperly to believe actions were justified, supporting response with case evidence and relevant research, but analysis is cursory or illogical or contains inaccuracies	0 points Does not analyze rationalizations that might have led those behaving improperly to believe actions were justified	Score of Analysis: System Flaws: Rationalizations, / 5
Analysis: Repercussions: Firm	6 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and response is especially insightful and well supported in making connections between types of losses and their overall financial impact on the company	5.1 points Assesses dollar and qualitative financial impact of crisis on the company, supporting response with evidence from case study	3.3 points Assesses dollar and qualitative financial impact of crisis on company, supporting response with case evidence, but response is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or evidence is inconsistent with claims	0 points Does not assess dollar and qualitative financial impact of crisis on company	Score of Analysis: Repercussions: Firm, / 6
Analysis: Repercussions: Sustainability	6 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and response demonstrates keen insight into multiple aspects of corporate social responsibility and how it impacts a company financially over the long term	5.1 points Evaluates company's compliance with implicit expectations of corporate social responsibility and impact on business sustainability, supporting response with case details and relevant research	3.3 points Evaluates company's compliance with implicit expectations of corporate social responsibility and impact on business sustainability, supporting response with case details and research, but response is cursory or illogical or contains inaccuracies	0 points Does not evaluate company's compliance with corporate social responsibility obligations and the consequent impact on business sustainability	Score of Analysis: Repercussions: Sustainability, / 6
Analysis: Repercussions: Society	6 points Meets "Proficient" criteria and demonstrates keen insight into the multiple ramifications of firm-level behaviors for the broader community in which it operates	5.1 points Evaluates social costs of firm's improper actions and effect on public support for explicit corporate social responsibility policies, supporting response with concrete examples from case and relevant research	3.3 points Evaluates social costs of firm's improper actions and effect on public support for explicit corporate social responsibility policies, supported by examples and relevant research, but response is cursory or illogical or contains inaccuracies	0 points Does not evaluate social costs of firm's improper actions and effect on public support for companies that adopt explicit corporate social responsibility policies	Score of Analysis: Repercussions: Society, / 6
Conclusions: Risk Factors	5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and analysis is particularly insightful, comprehensive, or well-aligned with client's needs in this area	4.25 points Analyzes what, if anything, you would do differently to mitigate fraud triangle risk factors identified, justifying response including specific recommendation(s), reason for suggesting, and expected outcome	2.75 points Analyzes what, if anything, you would do differently to mitigate fraud triangle risk factors identified, justifying response, but response is cursory, illogical, or contains inaccuracies	0 points Does not analyze what, if anything, you would do differently to mitigate the risk factors identified in fraud triangle analysis	Score of Conclusions: Risk Factors, / 5
Conclusions: Balance	5 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and suggestions are particularly insightful or well-aligned with analysis and client's needs in this area	4.25 points Suggests corrective actions for balancing business strategic and financial goals with legal and ethical requirements, justifying response, including specific recommendation(s), reason for suggesting, and expected outcome	2.75 points Suggests corrective actions for balancing business goals with legal and ethical requirements, justifying response, but suggestions and/or justification are cursory or illogical or contain inaccuracies	0 points Does not suggest corrective actions for balancing business goals with legal and ethical requirements	Score of Conclusions: Balance, / 5
Conclusions: Corporate Social Responsibility	6 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and suggestions are particularly insightful or well-aligned with analysis and client's needs in this area	5.1 points Suggests actions company might take to foster a culture of corporate social responsibility and regain public trust, justifying response, including specific recommendation(s), reason for suggesting, and expected outcome	3.3 points Suggests actions company might take to foster a culture of corporate social responsibility and regain public trust, justifying response, but suggestions and/or justification are cursory, illogical, or contain inaccuracies	0 points Does not suggest actions company might take to foster a culture of corporate social responsibility and regain public trust	Score of Conclusions: Corporate Social Responsibility, / 6
Conclusions: Costs and Benefits: Recommendations	6 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and assessment is especially well supported and realistic or demonstrates keen insight into financial implications of changing internal legal/ethical compliance mechanisms	5.1 points Assesses costs and challenges of implementing recommendations and whether benefits outweigh the costs in general terms, justifying response	3.3 points Assesses costs and challenges of implementing recommendations and whether benefits outweigh the costs in general terms, justifying response, but response is inconsistent with prior analysis or case, not well supported, or contains inaccuracies	0 points Does not assess costs and challenges of implementing recommendations and whether benefits outweigh the costs	Score of Conclusions: Costs and Benefits: Recommendations, / 6
Conclusions: Costs and Benefits: Regulatory Environments	6 points Meets "Proficient" criteria, and assessment is especially well supported and realistic or demonstrates keen insight into financial implications of changes to external regulatory environments	5.1 points Assesses how costs and benefits of new regulatory environments impact financial decision-making, even in companies behaving ethically, justifying response citing relevant industry research	3.3 points Assesses how costs and benefits of new regulatory environments impact financial decision-making, justifying response citing relevant research, but response is inconsistent with prior analysis or details of case or not well supported or contains inaccuracies	0 points Does not assess how costs and benefits of new regulatory environments impact financial decision-making	Score of Conclusions: Costs and Benefits: Regulatory Environments, / 6
Articulation of Response	4.5 points Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format	3.825 points Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization	2.475 points Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas	0 points Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas	Score of Articulation of Response, / 4.5

Total

Score of FIN 341 Final Project Rubric (SA),

/ 100

Overall Score

Exemplary

86 points minimum

Instructors should not modify this row (it will automate from the scores above). This score represents the average evaluation across all rubric criteria.

Proficient

56 points minimum

Instructors should not modify this row (it will automate from the scores above). This score represents the average evaluation across all rubric criteria.

Needs Improvement

1 point minimum

Instructors should not modify this row (it will automate from the scores above). This score represents the average evaluation across all rubric criteria.

Not Evident

0 points minimum

Instructors should not modify this row (it will automate from the scores above). This score represents the average evaluation across all rubric criteria.