Legal Counsel or Disassociate? security, although, actually, following, standards

Zesty

Analyst A works in Country B who has lax security laws less strict than the code and standards. The company he works for in Country B although following laws of the country is violating the code and standards.

Does the analyst have to disassociate or seek legal counsel? Schweser says seek legal counsel however, the analyst already knows they are violating the Code and Standards but the company is not actually violating the law. Wouldn't disassociation be enough?

strikethree

From my understanding disassociate is always the last resort. Thats probably why they didn't have it as the answer. If they already saught legal counsel , then that probably would have been the answer.

nannan66

And the answer said he must seek legal counsel as disassociation was not enough. He must ascertain if an illegal act is being committed.

Schweser Ethics questions are terrible. I ran all the questions in the book and got >90% this weekend and get <50% on Schweser.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Tuesday, May 31, 2011 at 09:47AM by Paraguay.

PalacioHill

Yeah I don't put much weight on Schweser ethics...... On the two samples and so far CFA 2009 and 2010 mock I have gotten 90%+, but schweser I am bout 60-70%.

Just make sure you know the classic stuff which I am sure you know 110% and know the little rules with ASSMAN.

Hope that helps!

Valores

A related GIPS reminder- sometimes GIPS and local regulations will differ. If a firm has to comply with a local law, this does not preclude them from claiming GIPS compliance. They only have to disclose the "manner in which the local laws and regulations conflict with GIPS standards."
Standard 4. A. 22

This is allowed in GIPS because otherwise these firms may not be able to compete locally-