I have a few questions in relation to the answer explanations provided:
32. B is correct, which is understandable. But it also says the CFA logo may not be incorporated into a company’s name or logo. If you read the case, the materials have the firm name printed on them. It doesn’t specify where the logo is printed in relation to the firm name, so it seems pretty hard to pass judgment. Nevertheless, I chose answer C.
34/35. The correct answers are A and A. The case mentions that Grohl reviewed the financial statements of the competitors and Breckson’s old reports. Nowhere in the case does it mention Grohl prepared the report using a fundamental top down analysis, but apparently we are presumed to make this assumption. However, it does mention Grohl “conducts a detailed multi-factor analysis.” Without additional information, one would assume this would be the basis for his recommendation. Obviously, the CFAI disagrees with this viewpoint.
46. Correct answer is A. I don’t agree with the explanation since there was no clear indication Greenhornfood was a potential target. Sure, you can argue that the “may be potential takeover targets” covers all the bases, but that sure looks like some BS blanket statement to me. If that is the case, they should just restrict trades in the entire sector altogether.
I’d like to hear someone else’s take on this. It actually humors me to see some of the extraordinary assumptions we are required to make when reading these case studies.作者: jcole21 时间: 2013-4-14 19:11
I’ve noticed that too, but figure that it’s always better to err on the more conservative side and go for those more blanket “safer” statements.
