首页 | 学习中心 | 注册 登录
返回列表 发帖
sabre

UID
223198 
帖子
385 
主题
170 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2016-4-19 
1# 跳转到 » 倒序看帖
打印
tT
发表于 2011-7-11 19:21 | 只看该作者

simple GIPS question (hopefully)

another, handful, included, question, accounts
Standard 3.A.1 All actual, fee-paying, discretionary portfolios must be included in at least one composite.

Fair enough. Then:

Standard 3.A.9 If a firm sets a minimum asset level for portfolios in a composite, the minimum must be applied consistently.

So what happens if the firm has a handful of really small accounts which are fee-paying and discretionary, but unsuitable based on size for any of the composites? Must the firm establish another set of composites to accommodate the small accounts?
收藏 分享

justin88

Rank: 2

UID
222316 
帖子
403 
主题
7 
注册时间
2011-7-2 
最后登录
2016-8-2 
2#
发表于 2011-7-11 19:21 | 只看该作者
yes, don't be shy to establish any number of extra composites, these new composites should probably no set a minimum asset level to sweep up the tini-tiny ones.

TOP

Colum

Rank: 2

UID
222311 
帖子
394 
主题
19 
注册时间
2011-7-2 
最后登录
2016-8-1 
3#
发表于 2011-7-11 19:21 | 只看该作者
and this happens in practice. where i work there are tons of composites for gips purposes that are too small/customized to ever be readily marketed (with the proper format of course), but they still exist for the purpose of compliance.

TOP

返回列表