Guys,
I know investopedia is mostly regarded as lower grade review material vs Kaplan, etc. Nevertheless, their Ethic review section looks promising. Has anyone reviewed it? Please share your thoughts. Is it worth going over it once or should I re-read the original.
Thanks!作者: liquidity 时间: 2013-3-30 20:31
Seriously? No. Re-read the material. The examples go over everything you’ll need to know.作者: cjs238 时间: 2013-3-30 20:31
@mmoreda: I was reading it the other day and liked it. But am definitely reading the original (CFAI Text)作者: Andreas42 时间: 2013-3-30 20:31
I’ve given up on ethics. I’ve feel like I’ve done 1,000 questions and I keep getting answers that conflict with each other. One answer on a question says you don’t have to cite sources for commonly used financial data and the next question will say they are in breach of the misrepresentation part because they don’t source the commonly used financial data. I feel like I’ve seen 25 questions like that. Other toss ups involve if you break the law. I originally thought it was only a breach of the code if it involved your professional activities, but a lot of questions I’m seeing recently say different.作者: fishmarket 时间: 2013-3-30 20:31
@souljive99
I agree..Especially the cops giving you a ticket for speeding question….I mean it just looks so stupid in that scenario! If the guy had done something illegal like managing funds of a terrorist, i would have agreed with it, but avoiding speeding tickets!! ??
Even the one where you abuse your co-worker…As njlevel had posted it, its a common scenario on the floor…
I am seriously hoping for some good luck on 6th for Ethics Section作者: tango_gs 时间: 2013-3-30 20:31
Just because its a common scenario for traders to knock eachother out on the floor doesn’t make it acceptable by CFAI standards dude. Lots of people do alot of stupid shit everyday, and if those people were CFA Charterholders or CFA Candidates they would be violating the code, plain and simple!!
Intentionally dodge state enforced law (even insignificant ones like paying traffic tickets) – violation black and white
Punch a trader in the face on the floor of the NYSE? – violation black and white
Don’t cite sources from the World Bank or other Government websites used in your report – violation (even though its in the public domain, you still have to give credit where credit is due. When you don’t, you are saying “this is my work and my ideas” – this is the violation.
Where you can get away with the non-citation is claiming a fact thats expected to be common knowledge or easily verified by anyone reading your report off a reputable website (like the Census Bureau or S&P). For example if you claimed that by your models calculation, company XYZ’s new product will be marketable to 10% of the US population of 307,000,000, you would not have to source that population statistic because its probably 1) general knowledge somebody reading your report and 2) it can easily verify it from many reputable public sources.
If you had detailed statistics used in model that you compiled from various government websites, even if they are in the public space they are 1) not perceived to be general knowledge and most investors would have difficult finding & verifying ALL the various statistics. To reiterate again, when you use all these statistics throughout your report, you are sending the message to the reader that it’s your work, when in fact its not. In this case you should give credit where its due, and DISCLOSE.
There is some degree of common sense you have to apply to ethics questions, the answers aren’t all black and white – this is definitely one of those.作者: random_walker47 时间: 2013-3-30 20:31
@mbolzicco
It makes sense when you think that way..
Someone rightly said, “Common sense is the most uncommon thing in the world”…
Does anyone mind lending some? (possibly at RFR.. )
But am definitely reading the original (CFAI Text)
)