|
- UID
- 223286
- 帖子
- 212
- 主题
- 93
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-11
- 最后登录
- 2016-4-21
|
12#
发表于 2011-7-11 15:12
| 只看该作者
NeerajDBA
Well, your are touching on a general topic: the grey overlapping area of employee's freedom to act vs employer's responsibility.
In this area, the CFAI is somewhat vague, and does not have a clear, consistent, explicit framework for candidates to reason, at least in my opinion.
It does touch upon it in many areas: responsibility of the supervisors, group research expressing an opinion different from individual team member's, employee's action when aware of illegal or at least unethical activities within the firm and outside, conflict of interest,...
The following is purely my own conjecture put together.
- CFAI seems to acknowledge the limited freedom of action an individual employee has, so it has at many points guides: one should ENCOURAGE firms to (develop procedure, retain dok,whatever..)..., not insisting that one's firm HAS to have such and such so that the individual can be in conformance with the standard.
- It seems to indicate that you try your best to avoid, help others to be aware, do within your power to dissassociate. If forced, make sure to keep your own integrity. Worst case, resign if you don't think you can keep your integrity.
- I have seen examples/cases where the following actions are recommended on the top of my head (not necessary in escalating scale)
+ get compliance/legal advice.
+ inform your supervisor.
+ inform your management
+ document your own actions and thinking.
+ inform CFA
+ inform SEC
+ disassociate yourself from the acts, ask to be reassigned.
If if is serious enough, consider resign.
One last word, the standard is an ETHICAL guideline, not hard and fast rules.
Just my two cents. |
|
