designation background, remember, question, manager, someone

sharksfan

Does someone remember the question in which the manager of an analyst who had a CFA charter was presenting the analyst's background and we were suppose to answer if that presentation was proper and if the code of ethics was violated which meant the guy had to react and stop the presentation?

RobertA

I think there should be a difference between high ethical standards and the highest ethical standards...is there anywhere in the curriculum stated that CFAI imposes the highest ethical standards? as far as I know its "high" not the highest! wouldn't be too sure about no violation here though...might be wrong as well.

thisisbrianly

The questions asked/said "passed all three CFA exams in three consecutive years"

No violation here as this is a common industry practice in presenting CFA designation (I've seen it in the book too).

So, no violation. Im almost 100% sure

soddy1979

I said no violation as well. This question definitely threw me for a minute.

Mechanic

went with no violation as well...

kasinkei

Good memory, lmb. This was a trap and I am glad we avoided it.

ishfaque

Think the wording was something like "he passed all three levels on his first attempt. CFA charterholders are committed to the highest ethical standards". Think I went for no violation. Obviously the trap (if I'm right) is to object in a knee-jerk fashion to the implied superiority, which explicitly stated is certainly a violation.

I hesitated, because I know that either statement alone is fine, but wondered whether putting them together in this way nudged it into the unacceptable - i.e. one can say he passed first time (that's a fact), and one can say the programme represents committment to high ethical standards (another fact), but does combining these facts suggest that said analyst, breezing through the levels, is therefore some kind of ethical superman?

In the end, I felt this was too vague at best, so could not declare a violation - innocent until proven guilty sort of thing! Don't remember the word "superior".

koba

it WAS a kind of violation becuase he was implying superior ability, there was a second part to it that said superior in it.

the part about highest ethical standards was NOT a violation because its true. read the questions CAREFULLY.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 04:03PM by billbelemy22.

btcapital

Thanks. I picked the same, but had a discussion with a colleague. Neither of us could really remember the actual content of the presentation, so i thought to run it here and see how others replied.

Yeah, I believe as long as we don't cite the questions we are fine.

leadcfa

I remember that it wasn't any kind of violation. Neither is discussing CFA curriculum as long as specific questions are not posted