# Summit APC Panel Marking Sheet - Property Finance and Investment Mock Interview > Printable self or peer marking sheet. Use it after Script A or Script B. One sheet per mock run. Mark honestly: a soft mock helps nobody. > > The real decision is holistic and on balance, taken across the presentation, the answers, and the submissions together. This sheet helps you structure that judgement; it does not replace it. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Post-interview assessment" and "Holistic Criteria". --- ## Candidate and run details | Field | Entry | |---|---| | Candidate (or "self") | | | Pathway | Property Finance and Investment | | Script used | A / B | | Date of mock | | | Marker (counsellor / peer / self) | | | Interview kept to 60 minutes? | Yes / No | --- ## How to score each competency Mark each competency on the band that best fits the answer **at the declared level**. Do not mark above the declared level. Always open the question by naming the competency and level, exactly as a real panel does. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Questioning at the competency levels". | Band | Score | Meaning | |---|---|---| | Strong | 3 | Clear, structured, reasoned at the required level. Cited the right standard. Used a real example. Would satisfy a panel. | | Satisfactory | 2 | Met the level but thin in places: a missing cite, a shallow example, or a slow start. Passable, not comfortable. | | Borderline | 1 | Touched the level but did not hold it: vague, generic, or one clear gap. Needs work before the real thing. | | Deficient | 0 | Did not demonstrate the level. Wrong standard, no example, a bluff, or an evasion. A referral risk if it stands. | A "Strong" answer at L3 must include all four: the **Rule or standard cited**, the **action recommended**, the **documentation created**, and the **escalation path** (for ethics scenarios); or, for technical L3, the **reasoned advice**, the **numbers or sensitivity behind it**, the **reconciliation or cross-check**, and the **recommendation**. Miss one and it is at best "Satisfactory". --- ## Section 1 - Presentation (10 minutes, weighted heavily) | Listened-for point | Band (0-3) | Notes | |---|---|---| | Clear structure: instruction, asset or fund, key issues, options, recommendation | | | | Kept to 10 minutes | | | | Own role isolated from the team or the model | | | | Key issues identified early (return reconciliation, target rate, funding) | | | | Options considered and rejected, with reasons | | | | Recommendation shows judgement and survives sensitivity testing | | | | Professional, confident communication (not read verbatim) | | | **Section weighting note:** the presentation sets the tone and is given considerable importance. A strong presentation can lift weaker submissions; a poor one is hard to recover from. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Weighting". --- ## Section 2 - Core technical competencies > The PF&I Core is "three to Level 3 and one to Level 2" from Financial modelling, Inspection, Investment management, and Property finance and funding, PLUS Valuation at L1. Mark each Core competency at the level the candidate declared it. The three declared at L3 carry the highest expectation. | Competency | Level (as declared) | Listened-for points | Band (0-3) | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | **Investment management** (incl. fund and portfolio management) | L3 / L2 | Mandate-to-strategy-to-asset-plan chain; performance framework splitting income and capital return; benchmark; quantified portfolio risk (sector, currency, expiry concentration); strategic hold-or-sell recommendation | | | | **Financial modelling** | L3 / L2 | DCF built correctly; discount rate built up and separated from exit yield; full sensitivity and scenario analysis; return segregated between income, growth, leverage; model integrity (inputs separated, peer-reviewed, sourced); output translated for a decision-maker | | | | **Property finance and funding** | L3 / L2 | Standalone financing from origination to drawdown; multi-tier cost illustrated numerically; true all-in cost of finance; gearing effect shown on upside and downside; covenant reading and headroom; facility-letter review; refinancing risk | | | | **Inspection** | L3 / L2 | Pre-inspection desktop and dynamic risk assessment; auditable record; defects and implications; findings fed into the financial model (capex, void, exit) | | | | **Valuation** | L1 | Market Value defined cleanly; assumption vs special assumption; appraisal vs residual valuation distinction; basis of value awareness | | | **Referral trigger:** a Deficient (0) on any **Core** competency at its required level is a serious concern. The Core is the primary technical skill of the pathway. A candidate who cannot demonstrate their three declared L3 Core competencies (or the L2 Core, or Valuation L1) is a referral risk on that ground alone. --- ## Section 3 - Optional technical competencies (as declared) List the candidate's declared optional competencies and mark each at the declared level (the PF&I rule is one to L3 and one to L2, plus one to L2 from the full list). | Competency | Declared level | Listened-for points | Band (0-3) | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Common PF&I optionals and what to listen for: - **Indirect investment vehicles (L2):** indirect route analysed against direct ownership on control, liquidity, cost, NAV discount and fee drag; recommendation fitted to the portfolio objective. - **Corporate finance (L2):** cost of capital calculated and modelled; gearing effect on equity returns; loan terms, LTV, amortisation and margin; regulatory awareness. - **Development appraisals (L2):** correctly structured residual; sourced inputs; sensitivity analysis; appraisal vs residual valuation distinction. - **Research methodologies and techniques (L2):** appropriate methodology matched to the question; quantitative and qualitative analysis; sourced data and records. - **Capital taxation / Local taxation (L2):** valuation and negotiation for the relevant tax; comparables; statute and case law applied. - **Landlord and tenant / Property management / Purchase and sale (L2):** as per the standard pathway descriptors; lease or transaction handled with a supported opinion and a recommendation. --- ## Section 4 - Mandatory competencies | Competency | Level | Listened-for points | Band (0-3) | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | **Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism** | L3 | Five Rules known; sub-rules cited (never "Rule 1" alone); L3 scenarios answered with Rule + action + documentation + escalation; conflicts handled (disclosure is not a cure); same-deal both-sides and personal-interest conflicts recognised; market-conduct / inside-information dimension on listed vehicles recognised; Rule 5.9 reporting recognised | | | | **Client care** | L2 | Complaints procedure, ADR route, complaints log; link back to clear terms of engagement and recorded return assumptions | | | | **Communication and negotiation** | L2 | Preparation; evidenced position; listening; clear written client communication | | | | **Health and safety** | L2 | Dynamic risk assessment with a real example; lone-working protocol; hierarchy of control (applies even in a desk-based finance role) | | | | **CPD** | n/a | 20 hours per year, at least 10 formal; real example with an outcome; linked to Rule 2 | | | | Other L1 mandatories tested (Sustainability, Data management, Accounting, etc.) | L1 | Knowledge and understanding demonstrated | | | **Referral trigger (Ethics):** failure to demonstrate the required competence on **Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism** is a referral in its own right, regardless of technical strength. This is the single competency a panel can refer on alone. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024 (a candidate must be referred if they fail to demonstrate the required competence on Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism). --- ## Section 5 - Communication (assessed across the whole interview) Communication is a mandatory competency and is marked across every answer, not just the negotiation question. In a finance and investment interview, watch especially for whether the candidate can translate model output and numbers into plain advice. | Listened-for point | Band (0-3) | Notes | |---|---|---| | Clear, concise, structured answers | | | | Answered the question asked (no evasion or padding) | | | | Translated numbers and model output into a decision a client could act on | | | | Professional manner and confidence | | | | Recovered well from a hard or unexpected question | | | --- ## Section 6 - Overall decision Add the bands for a feel, but decide on balance, not by the total. RICS does not pass or refer by counting ticks. | Decision | When to record it | |---|---| | **PASS standard** | Required competencies demonstrated at the correct levels. Ethics solid at L3. The three declared Core L3 technicals (from Financial modelling, Inspection, Investment management, Property finance and funding) demonstrated at L3, the L2 Core and Valuation L1 demonstrated. Communication satisfactory throughout. Any weakness is minor and in a single optional. | | **BORDERLINE - more practice** | Met most levels, but one or more competencies sat at Borderline, or the presentation was weak, or a Core answer was thin. Not a referral, but not ready. Re-run with the other script. | | **REFER standard** | Any of the referral triggers below is present. | ### Referral triggers (any one is enough to refer) - Failure to demonstrate the required competence on **Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism** (L3). - A **Deficient (0)** on a **Core** competency at its required level (any of the three declared L3 Core technicals, the L2 Core technical, or Valuation L1). - Deficiency across **more than one** optional competency, or a deficiency in a competency required to L2 or L3 (a deficiency in a single competency required only to L1, including Valuation L1, would not normally refer on its own, but a Core L1 deficiency must be weighed in the round). - Communication that is consistently unprofessional or unclear across the interview, including an inability to translate model output into usable advice. - A submission or presentation that contained significant technical or professional errors that the interview did not overcome (for example a DCF with the discount rate and exit yield conflated, or gearing shown only on the upside). Source for the referral logic: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Approach", "Weighting", and the mandatory referral note on Ethics. --- ## Section 7 - Feedback to the candidate (constructive, specific, actionable) Write the feedback the way a referral report should read: factual, accurate, linked to the competency, in short sentences, no jargon, addressed to the candidate ("you"). Focus on the deficiency and how to rectify it. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Referral reports". **Three things that went well:** 1. 2. 3. **Three things to fix before the real assessment (most important first):** 1. 2. 3. **Specific standards to re-read:** - (e.g. RICS Discounted Cash Flow for Commercial Property Investments, 1st edition; PF&I Pathway Guide December 2025, Financial modelling L3 and Property finance and funding L3; Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 5.9; Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 2) **Next mock:** Script ___ , target date ___ . --- ## Marker discipline reminders - Open every question by naming the competency and the level. - Do not question above the declared level. Remember Valuation is Core only at L1 in this pathway: do not push a candidate to L3 valuation reasoning unless they declared Valuation as an elevated optional. - Do not assume Measurement is a Core competency here. It is not in the PF&I Core list at all. - Ask open questions ("how did you", "why did you", "what if"). Use closed questions only to confirm a fact. - Probe the numbers. In this pathway, "what if the exit yield softens 50 basis points" or "show me the gearing on the downside" is a fair and expected follow-up. - Do not signal how the mock is going, even in a mock. Hold the result to the debrief. - Make notes as you go; you cannot mark fairly from memory alone. - Mark communication everywhere, not just on the communication question. --- *This marking sheet is a study aid only and is not the official RICS marksheet. It is built to mirror the principles in the RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, and the RICS Property Finance and Investment Pathway Guide, December 2025. Always verify the cited guidance against the source before relying on it in a formal setting.* *Summit APC Academy - Mentorship without borders.*