- UID
- 223226
- 帖子
- 538
- 主题
- 169
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-11
- 最后登录
- 2013-8-21
|
Ethical and Professional Standards 【Reading 3】
Sally Watson works as an equity portfolio manager for Brunswick Investment Advisers (BIA). Wally Jackson, President and Chief Investment Officer of the firm, is a CFA charterholder who supervises Watson and other investment professionals within the firm. Watson is a candidate in the CFA Program, and she has recently passed the Level II exam. BIA's clients include trusts, foundations, endowments, corporations, and high net worth individuals, including accounts for family and friends of its employees. Jackson and Watson manage client portfolios with a growth strategy and concentrate on holdings in the healthcare, technology, and communications sectors. About 10 percent of BIA accounts are actively managed.
Because BIA uses Accommodate Broker Dealer for executing transactions, Accommodate provides research to BIA regarding holdings in accounts that are actively managed. The fees Accommodate charges BIA are competitive, and BIA applies the same basic fee structure to all its clients. BIA’s clients do not know about BIA’s arrangement to get research information from Accommodate.
The clients do know that Accommodate routinely allocates shares in IPOs that it underwrites to BIA. Jackson is eagerly awaiting the IPO of a new technology company that he intends to allocate across all current portfolios, including the proprietary account and accounts of friends and family. Based upon his research, Jackson feels this IPO has good potential and has been working to get an unusually large number of shares of the IPO.
BIA has recently been awarded two new client accounts, totaling $100 million, which are in the process of completing transitions from other managers. Although an investment objective and guidelines have not been formalized for the accounts, Jackson allocates shares of the IPO across all client accounts on a pro rata basis, including an allocation for these new client accounts.
Watson serves on the board of directors for New Medical Developments, a biotech firm in which she maintains significant stock and options. BIA owns 4.5 percent of New Medical’s stock on behalf of its clients and in its proprietary account. At a special meeting of New Medical’s board, Watson learns that Remedy Inc. is preparing a confidential tender offer for all of New Medical’s shares outstanding. After the meeting, Watson sends an electronic mail message to Jackson detailing the offer.
Jackson immediately places New Medical Developments on BIA’s restricted list so representatives of BIA cannot recommend the stock. As rumors circulate in the investment community about the tender offer, some of Jackson’s clients call and ask him to look into the possibility of purchasing stock in New Medical Developments. Jackson is fearful of his situation and puts off such requests. As a result, one client, Craig Mills, files a complaint with CFA Institute that Jackson is not responding to his requests. Knowing the precarious situation he is in, Jackson decides to wait until the tender offer has been announced to address Mills’ complaint.
CFA Institute becomes suspicious of Mills, because he seems to have a history of trading stocks for which material information soon becomes public. As part of an investigation into possible insider trading activities, CFA Institute asks Jackson to furnish CFA Institute with Mills’ trading history.
Watson must notify BIA of all the following EXCEPT: A)
| her ownership of the stock in New Medical Developments. |
| B)
| her plans for taking the next CFA exam. |
| C)
| any independent consulting work she performs for third parties. |
|
Watson does not have to inform BIA about her plans to take a CFA exam. She should be careful, of course, not to misinform BIA of her plans, i.e., say she will when she knows she cannot. All of the other notifications are required. Standard VI(A) requires her to inform BIA about potential conflicts of interest. Standard IV(A) requires her to inform BIA about any consulting work she performs. (Study Session 2, LOS 4.a,b)
With respect to the arrangement that BIA has with Accommodate, based on the provided information: A)
| no violation has occurred as long as BIA informs CFA Institute that the firm receives research information from the brokerage firm. |
| B)
| no violation has occurred since BIA charges the fee structure to all of its clients. |
| C)
| a violation has occurred because BIA charges the same fee structure to all of its clients. |
|
Watson has violated the Soft Dollar Standard. For directing the trades through a given brokerage firm, BIA is getting research that only benefits about 10 percent of the clients. The remaining clients are paying the same fees, but they are not getting the same benefit. If BIA were to inform all of its clients of the arrangement, it might not be a violation, but the vignette says that information has not been disclosed. (Study Session 2, LOS 6.c)
With respect to how Jackson allocated the shares in the IPO of the technology company, has Jackson acted in accordance with the Code and Standards? A)
| Yes, Jackson allocated the shares of the offering fairly on a pro rata basis to all client accounts. |
| B)
| No, Jackson has violated Standard III(C) Suitability. |
| C)
| No, Jackson has violated Standard VI(B) Priority of Transactions. |
|
Jackson violated Standard III(C) – Suitability by allocating shares of the public offering to the two new client accounts without establishing an investment objective or guidelines for the accounts. Standard III(C) requires a reasonable inquiry into the client’s financial situation, investment experience, and investment objectives prior to taking any investment actions. Such information must also be updated regularly. The Standard also requires that the appropriateness and suitability of investment recommendations or actions be considered for each client, including 1) client needs and circumstances; 2) basic characteristics of the investment involved; and 3) basic characteristics of the total portfolio. Although the shares were allocated pro rata across all client portfolios, no investment action should have been initiated for the new clients without appropriate consultation regarding investment objectives and guidelines. (Study Session 2, LOS 3.a)
Given Brunswick’s current ownership in New Medical, the Code and Standards require Jackson to: A)
| not initiate any investment action prior to the information being publicly disseminated. |
| B)
| trade the shares in client accounts before any accounts for himself, family or friends. |
| C)
| not take any investment action but communicate the information to other members of the proxy committee in preparation for consideration. |
|
Under the Code and Standards, Jackson should not initiate any investment action on the information provided by Watson in order to prevent a violation of Standard II(A) – Material Nonpublic Information. The information provided by Watson involved a proposed confidential tender offer for New Medical’s outstanding shares and, therefore, was material, nonpublic information. Information is “material” if its disclosure would have an impact on the stock value or if a reasonable investor would want to know the information prior to making an investment decision. Material is “nonpublic” until it has been generally disseminated to the marketplace and investors have had an opportunity to react to the information. Neither Jackson, nor Watson should take any investment action regarding New Medical. Upon receipt of the information, Jackson should inform his compliance officer of the information, but otherwise keep the information confidential. However, not responding to unsolicited requests from clients to purchase New Medical is a possible violation because it appears that he is not acting in the best interest of the clients. (Study Session 2, LOS 3.a)
Given Watson’s actions, which of the following statements is most accurate? A)
| Standard III(A) – Loyalty, Prudence, and Care was violated. |
| B)
| Standard III(E) – Preservation of Confidentiality was violated. |
| C)
| None of the Code and Standards were violated. |
|
Watson communicated the tender offer information to her supervisor which is not a violation of any standards because shares of the target firm, New Medical, are held in some of BIA's client's portfolios and in the firm's proprietary account thus trading in New Medical should be put on a restricted list. The information provided by Watson involved a proposed tender offer for New Medical’s outstanding shares and, therefore, was material, nonpublic information. Information is “material” if its disclosure would have an impact on the stock value or if a reasonable investor would want to know the information prior to making an investment decision. Material is “nonpublic” until it has been generally disseminated to the marketplace and investors have had an opportunity to react to the information. Neither Jackson, nor Watson should take any investment action regarding New Medical and it should be added to Brunswick’s restricted list to prevent a violation. Since Watson serves on the board of New Medical she has a duty to the firm but the communication of the tender offer (for New Medical) by Watson to Jackson is not a violation of Standard III(A) Loyalty, Prudence, and Care because neither New Medical nor the offering firm, Remedy, are clients of BIA the firm Watson works for. Standard III(E) – Preservation of Confidentiality does not appear to have been violated by Watson’s actions. She does not appear to communicate any confidential information provided by clients, prospects, or her employer concerning the scope of any client-member, prospect-member or employer-member relationship. (Study Session 2, LOS 3.a)
With respect to the complaint Mills filed against Jackson, and the subsequent investigation of Mills by CFA Institute, which of the following statements is least accurate? A)
| Jackson violated the Code and Standards by putting New Medical Developments on its restricted stock list. |
| B)
| Jackson violated the Code and Standards by not responding to Mills. |
| C)
| Jackson did not violate the Code and Standards if he provides Mills’ trading information to CFA Institute. |
|
Rules concerning the confidentiality of client information do not apply to investigations of CFA Institute, which will keep any information it receives confidential. Jackson does not violate a Standard by placing a stock on a restricted list when the firm is in possession of material nonpublic information, and this is a recommended move. However, unsolicited requests from clients deserve a response. Jackson is putting his self-interest above his own by trying to protect himself by not responding to client inquiries concerning New Medical. (Study Session 2, LOS 3.a) |
|