CFA论坛 - Powered by Discuz! Board

Don Wilson and Nadine Chavis, both CFA charterholders, are investment advisors at Uptown Securities. Wilson recommends that one of his clients buy Alpha Company based on research conducted by Uptown. Chavis recommends that one of her clients sell Alpha Company based on research conducted by another brokerage firm for general distribution. Both recommendations are consistent with each client's investment objectives and within the context of their entire portfolios. Neither Wilson nor Chavis has reason to suspect that any information contained in the research reports from these two sources is inaccurate or inadequately supported. According to Standard V(A) Diligence and Reasonable Basis, do Wilson and Chavis have a reasonable basis for making their investment recommendations?

A)	Both of these advisors have a reasonable basis for their recommendations.

B)	Only one of these advisors has a reasonable basis for his or her recommendation.

C)	Neither of these advisors has a reasonable basis for their recommendations.

Wilson and Chavis have a reasonable and adequate basis if they recommend an investment transaction based on sound research prepared by their firm or an independent third party.

A financial analyst and CFA Institute member sends a preliminary research report on a company to his supervisor. The supervisor approves the report, but then the analyst receives news that causes him to revise downward the earnings estimate of the company. The analyst resubmits the report to the supervisor with the new earnings estimate. The analyst soon finds out that the supervisor plans to release the first version of the report with the first earnings estimate without a reasonable and adequate basis. In response to this the analyst must:

A)	insist that the supervisor change the earnings forecast or remove his (the analyst's) name from the report.

B)	both insist that a follow up report be issued and take up the issue with regulatory authorities.

C)	only insist that the first report be followed up by a revision.

According to Standard V(A), Diligence and Reasonable Basis, the analyst must exercise diligence, independence, and thoroughness when performing investment analysis, making a recommendation, or taking investment action. The analyst should document the difference in opinion including any request to remove his or her name from the report.

According to CFA Institute Standards of Professional Conduct, did King and Capelli have a reasonable and adequate basis for making their recommendations?

A)	Both King and Capelli have a reasonable basis for their recommendations.

B)	King has a reasonable basis for his recommendation, but Capelli does not.

C)	Capelli has a reasonable basis for his recommendation, but King does not.

Capelli appears to have exercised diligence and thoroughness in making his recommendation. King's recommendation is not based on thorough quantitative work because the period used in her study is only one year. Also, her recommendation does not consider the client's specific needs and circumstances.

A client calls his money manager and asks the manager to liquidate a large portion of his assets under management for an emergency. The manager warns the client of the risk of selling many assets quickly but says that he will try to get the client the best possible price. This is a violation of:

A)	none of the Standards listed here.

B)	Standard V(A), Diligence and Reasonable Basis.

C)	Standard III(C), Suitability.

The money manager has done his duty. He has warned the client of the risk and made no explicit promises concerning what he can and cannot do.

An analyst has found an investment with what appears to be a great return-to-risk ratio. The analyst double-checks the data for accuracy, keeps careful records, and is careful to not make any misrepresentations as he simultaneously sends an e-mail to all his clients with a “buy” recommendation. According to Standard V(A), Diligence and Reasonable Basis, the analyst has:

A)	violated the Standard if he does not verify whether the investment is appropriate for all the clients.

B)	fulfilled all obligations.

C)	violated the Standard by communicating the recommendation via e-mail.

If the analyst had been an investment manager, it would have been inappropriate for him to make a blanket recommendation for all of his clients without considering the unique needs of each. However, the analyst is merely stating that given the qualities of the investment, it is an attractive buy. He has kept adequate records, and made fair disclosure of his rating decision.

An analyst receives a report from his research department that summarizes and interprets a recent speech from the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve. The summary says that the chairman thinks inflation is under control. Based upon this summary, the analyst says in his next newsletter that inflation is under control. This is a violation of:

A)	Standard V(A), Diligence and Reasonable Basis, only.

B)	none of the Standards listed here.

C)	Standard V(A), Diligence and Reasonable Basis, and Standard V(B), Communication with Clients and Prospective Clients.

The analyst should verify that the research department has interpreted the chairman’s speech correctly. The analyst must make it clear that the statement concerning inflation is only an opinion. No one knows if that is true or not at any point in time. Based upon the given information, we cannot say that the analyst is violating only one standard. The analyst may also be violating plagiarism in accordance with Standard I(C), Misrepresentation. Hence, the answer citing the two standards and not limiting violations to just those two standards is the best answer.

Peggy Green, CFA, is a research analyst following Brown Co. All the information she has gathered suggests the stock should be rated a weak "hold." During a recent lunch, Green overheard another analyst say that the stock should be rated a "buy." Green returns to her office and issues a "buy" recommendation. Green:

A)	has violated CFA Institute Standards of Professional of Conduct because she did not have a reasonable and adequate basis for making this recommendation.

B)	violated CFA Institute Standards of Professional Conduct because she did not seek approval of the change from her firm's compliance director.

C)	has violated CFA Institute Standards of Professional Conduct because she failed to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Analysts are required to have a reasonable and adequate basis, supported by appropriate research and investigation, for their recommendations.

Bill Fox, CFA, has been preparing a research report on New London Wire and Cable, one of his major investment clients. He had completed much of his analysis and had planned on having his report typed and bound today. Unfortunately, his briefcase was stolen while he ate breakfast, and he lost all his notes and working papers. The lost materials included his notes from management interviews, conversations with suppliers and competitors, dates of company visits, and his computer diskette containing much of his quantitative analysis. Fox's client needs this report tomorrow. In a panic, Fox called New London's vice president of finance and was faxed a copy of the company's most recent financial projections. Fox remembered that his own analysis showed that management's estimates were too high. He did not remember the exact amount, so he revised New London's figures downward 10%. Fox also incorporated some charts and graphs on New London from a research report he had received last week from a small regional research firm and used some information from a Standard & Poor's reference work. With the help of his secretary, a Xerox machine, and some creative word processing, Fox got the report done in time for the evening Fedex pick up. On the way home from the office that night, Fox wondered if he had violated any CFA Institute Standards of Professional Conduct. Fox has:

A)	violated the requirement to have a reasonable basis for a recommendation, the prohibition against plagiarism, and the requirement to maintain appropriate records.

B)	violated none of the Standards.

C)	violated the requirement to have a reasonable basis for a recommendation and the prohibition against plagiarism.

New London's report is potentially self serving, so Fox did not exercise diligence or have an adequate basis for his recommendation. In addition, Fox did not acknowledge his source of the charts and graphs. Finally, he did not maintain adequate records.

Todd Gable, CFA, was attending a noon luncheon when he overheard two software executives talking about a common vendor, Datagen, about how wonderful they thought the company was, and about a rumor that a major brokerage firm was preparing to issue a strong buy recommendation on the stock. Gable returned to the office, checked a couple of online sources, and then placed an order to purchase Datagen in all of his discretionary portfolios. The orders were filled within an hour. Three days later, a brokerage house issued a strong buy recommendation and Datagen’s share price went up 20%. Gable then proceeded to gather data on the stock and prepared a report that he dated the day before the stock purchase.

A)	violated the Standards by not having a reasonable basis for making the purchase of Datagen.

B)	violated the Standards by using the recommendation of another brokerage firm in his report.

C)	violated the Standards by improper use of inside information.

Standard V(A) requires members to have a reasonable and adequate basis for taking investment actions. Overhearing a conversation does not provide adequate basis. It is not improper to use overheard conversations that do not include inside information, nor is it improper to reference another firm's report to substantiate adequate basis, if the other report is justified.

In the process of recommending an investment, in order to comply with Standard V(A), Diligence and Reasonable Basis, a CFA Institute member must:

A)	have a reasonable and adequate basis for the recommendation.

B)	do both of these.

C)	support a recommendation with appropriate research and investigation.

Susan Plumb is the supervisor of her firm’s research department. Her firm has been seeking the mandate to underwrite Wings Industries’ proposed secondary stock offering. Without mentioning that the firm is seeking the mandate, she asks Jack Dawson to analyze Wings common stock and prepare a research report. After reasonable effort, Dawson produces a favorable report on Wings stock. Plumb then adds a footnote describing the underwriting relationship with Wings and disseminates the report to the firm’s clients. According to CFA Institute Standards of Professional Conduct, these actions are:

A)	a violation of Standard V(A), Diligence and Reasonable Basis.

B)	not a violation of any Standard.

C)	a violation of Standard VI(A), Disclosure of Conflicts.

The fact that the firm is seeking the mandate does not preclude the research department from performing analytical work on the security. As long as the final recommendation is based upon reasonable facts, not the desire to obtain the mandate, there is no violation.

An analyst receives a research report from a colleague. The colleague’s report has an elaborate table with performance data on publicly traded stocks. The colleague says the data in the table consists of measures provided by Standard & Poor’s. The analyst finds the table a useful reference for a report she is writing. She uses several pieces of data from the table. The analyst is potentially in violation of:

A)	Standard I(C), Misrepresentation, concerning the use of the work of others.

B)	no particular standard because this is appropriate activity.

C)	Standard V(A), Diligence and Reasonable Basis, if she does not first verify the data in the table is accurate.

Since the data in the table supposedly comes from Standard & Poor’s, a recognized data source, the analyst does not have to cite the source of the data. However, the analyst needs to use reasonable care and verify that the data is accurate by going back to the source. Had the analyst printed the table prepared by her colleague without acknowledgement, the analyst would have violated Standard I(C), Misrepresentation.

An analyst writes a report and includes the forecasts of an econometric model developed by the firm’s research department. The analyst identifies the source of the forecast and includes all the relevant statistics concerning the model and his opinion of the model’s accuracy. With respect to Standard V(A), Diligence and Reasonable Basis, the analyst has:

A)	violated the Standard by including quantitative details in a report.

B)	complied with the Standard.

C)	violated the Standard by not testing the model himself.

Including quantitative details in a report is not a violation of the Standard. The analyst has more of an obligation to give an opinion on the accuracy of the model than withhold such an opinion. Although the analyst should use reasonable care to verify information included in a report, retesting models developed by the research department of a firm is not explicitly required.

An analyst notices that for most years that a given class of assets has an abnormally high rate of return, the asset class often has an abnormally low rate of return the next year. Based upon this information, according to Standard V(A), Diligence and Reasonable Basis, the analyst can recommend:

A)	neither of these choices.

B)	short selling assets that have had a good previous year to all clients.

C)	an increased allocation of Treasury bills (T-bills) for all portfolios of assets that have increased dramatically in the previous year.

An analyst should not make a recommendation based only upon a statistical anomaly. Furthermore, none of the other choices would be appropriate. Clients with low risk tolerance should not short sell assets. The analyst cannot make a recommendation to all clients because each client has different characteristics and portfolios. The one answer that may have some merit is to increase the allocation of T-bills in portfolios that have had recent, dramatic increases. This would be for the purposes of maintaining a balanced portfolio. But the decision to rebalance must be made on a case-by-case basis and not for all portfolios.

Several years ago, Hilton and Ross, a full service investment firm, managed the initial public offering of eCom, Inc. Now, eCom wants Hilton and Ross to underwrite its secondary public offering. A senior manager at Hilton and Ross asks Brent Whitman, CFA, one of its equity analysts, to write a favorable research report on eCom to help make the underwriting a success. Whitman conducts a thorough analysis of eCom and concludes that the company has serious problems that do not suggest a favorable financial outlook. Nevertheless, Whitman writes a favorable report because he is fearful of losing his job. Hilton and Ross publicly distribute a report that only contains a buy recommendation and a brief description of the basic characteristics of eCom. Whitman has violated:

A)	Standard V(A) Diligence and Reasonable Basis only.

B)	Standard I(B) Independence and Objectivity, only.

C)	Both Standard I(B) Independence and Objectivity and Standard V(A) Diligence and Reasonable Basis.

Whitman violated Standard V(A) Diligence and Reasonable Basis because he did not have a reasonable and adequate basis for issuing a favorable recommendation. Whitman violated Standard I(B) Independence and Objectivity because he did not act independently in issuing his recommendation but instead was influenced by senior management at Hilton and Ross.

Wes Smith, CFA, works for Advisors, Inc. In order to remain in compliance with Standard V(A), Diligence and Reasonable Basis, Smith may recommend a security in which of the following situations?

A)	Smith reads a favorable review of the security in a widely read periodical.

B)	Advisors' research department recommends a stock.

C)	For either of the reasons listed here.

Smith will be in violation if he acts solely on the basis of what he read in the periodical. Use of information within the firm can be relied upon unless the Smith has reason to believe the source lacks a sound basis.