Banking and Finance project defence questions & answers

Banking and Finance-specific questions

• Which financial theory supports your model?

  Efficient market hypothesis, agency theory, or the loanable funds theory — apply it, do not just name it.

• Why did you use that regression model and not another?

  Justify OLS vs panel data by your data structure and diagnostic tests.

• Did you test for multicollinearity and stationarity?

  Quote VIF values and the unit-root (ADF) test results.

• What period did your data cover and why?

  Justify the window against a policy change or economic cycle.

• How do your findings help a bank's management decision?

  Give one measurable action from one coefficient.

• What macroeconomic factors could confound your results?

  Inflation, exchange rate, policy rate — and how you controlled for them.

Opening questions (almost guaranteed)

The first five minutes decide the panel's mood. Rehearse these until they are automatic.

• In two minutes, what is your project about?

  Problem, method, finding, recommendation — one sentence each. Never read from the slides.

• Why did you choose this topic?

  Give an academic reason (a gap) and a practical reason (a real problem you observed). Avoid 'my supervisor gave it to me'.

• What is the problem statement of your study?

  State the gap, who it hurts, and the evidence that it exists. Cite one or two sources.

• What are your research objectives?

  List them in the same order and wording as Chapter One. Panels check consistency.

• What are your research questions and how do they map to your objectives?

  Show a one-to-one match: objective 1 → question 1 → hypothesis 1 → finding 1.

• What is the scope and delimitation of your study?

  Say clearly what you covered, the period, the location, and what you deliberately left out.

• Who will benefit from this study?

  Name specific groups — students, a named organisation, policy makers — and say exactly how.

• Define the key terms in your title.

  Give an operational definition (how you measured it), not just a dictionary definition.

Literature review

The panel is testing whether you actually read the works you cited.

• What gap in the literature does your study fill?

  Name two or three studies, say what each missed, then position yours.

• Which theory underpins your study and why?

  Name the theory, the proponent and year, its core assumption, and how it explains your variables.

• Which of your cited authors disagrees with your findings?

  Have one contrasting study ready and explain the difference by context, sample or method.

• Why are some of your references older than ten years?

  Justify seminal/foundational works; show you also used current sources from the last five years.

• What is the difference between your conceptual and theoretical framework?

  Theoretical = existing theory. Conceptual = your own diagram of variables and their relationships.

• How did you ensure your review was not just a summary of authors?

  Point to where you synthesised, compared and criticised rather than listing.

Methodology (where most marks are lost)

Expect the toughest grilling here. Know every number in Chapter Three.

• Why did you choose this research design?

  Link design to your questions: descriptive for 'what', experimental for 'cause', qualitative for 'why'.

• What is your population and how did you determine your sample size?

  Name the formula (Taro Yamane, Krejcie & Morgan, Cochran), show the substitution, state the result.

• Which sampling technique did you use and why?

  Name it precisely and defend it against the alternative you rejected.

• How did you validate your research instrument?

  Face/content validity by supervisor and experts; reliability by a pilot test and Cronbach's alpha value.

• What was your Cronbach's alpha and what does it mean?

  Quote your figure and say anything from 0.70 upward is acceptable reliability.

• What statistical tools did you use and why those?

  Match each tool to a hypothesis: chi-square for association, regression for prediction, ANOVA for group differences.

• What was your response rate and how did it affect your results?

  Give distributed vs returned figures and comment honestly on non-response bias.

• How did you handle ethical issues?

  Informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, permission letter from the organisation, no coercion.

• Could another researcher reproduce your work from Chapter Three?

  Walk through your steps in order to prove it is replicable.

Results, analysis and discussion

Know your tables. The panel will point at one and ask you to explain it.

• Explain Table 4.x in your own words.

  Read the value, say what it means for the variable, then link it to the hypothesis.

• Was your hypothesis accepted or rejected, and on what basis?

  Quote the test statistic, the p-value and the 0.05 decision rule.

• What does an R-squared of that value tell us?

  State the percentage of variation in the dependent variable explained by your model.

• Do your findings agree with previous studies?

  Name one study that agrees and one that differs, and explain the difference contextually.

• Any surprising or contradictory result?

  Never hide it. Present it and offer a reasoned explanation — panels reward honesty.

• How did you ensure your data is not fabricated?

  Bring raw questionnaires, interview logs, or the dataset/output files as evidence.

Contribution, limitations and further work

Closing questions that decide whether you get a 'minor correction' or a 're-defend'.

• What is your original contribution to knowledge?

  One sentence: new evidence, new context, new tool or new model. Be modest but specific.

• What are the limitations of your study?

  Give two or three genuine ones (sample size, geography, self-reported data) and say how you minimised them.

• What would you do differently if you started again?

  Show reflection, not regret: a wider sample, a mixed-method design, a longer data window.

• What do you recommend, and to whom?

  Every recommendation must trace back to a specific finding and name a responsible actor.

• What further research should follow this work?

  Suggest two clear next studies that your limitations naturally open up.

• How did you check your work for plagiarism?

  Name the tool, quote the similarity percentage, and explain how you paraphrased and cited.