Timothy Hooper, CFA, is a security analyst at an investment firm. In his spare time, Hooper serves as a volunteer for City Pride, which collects clothes for the homeless. Hooper has occasionally given some of the clothes to his friends or sold the clothes instead of returning all of the clothing to City Pride. City Pride discovers what he has been doing and dismisses him. Later, City Pride learns that other volunteer organizations have dismissed Hooper for similar actions. Has Hooper violated Standard I(D) on professional misconduct
A) No, because Hooper's conduct is unrelated to his professional activities as a security analyst.
B) No, because Hooper volunteers his services to City Pride.
C) Yes.
Your answer: A was incorrect. The correct answer was C) Yes.
Hooper violated Standard I(D) because he repeatedly engaged in conduct that involves dishonest conduct. This violation occurred despite the fact that his offenses do not relate directly to his professional activities. However, Hooper’s conduct reflects poorly on his professional reputation and integrity.
Why REPEATEDLY engaged in these activities is a violation although it is unrelated with professional activities?? I didn't remember reading this exception in the book..作者: Daniel1985 时间: 2011-7-11 18:22
Volunteer work is still work. It's considered a professional activity. If you're doing things with an association/group/hobby, that is not considered work and it doesn't follow the same rules. Just because you're not getting paid does not mean it is not work, remember that.作者: siavosh 时间: 2011-7-11 18:22
i don't think the problem is he REPEATEDLY did those things.
even if he did this once, he would've violated misconduct standard.
the problem is that he was dishonest.作者: agulani 时间: 2011-7-11 18:22
double dupe. He is dishonest and his actions reflect poorly on the entire investment profession.作者: Matori 时间: 2011-7-11 18:22
lol what is dupe作者: JGovender 时间: 2011-7-11 18:22
pg 36 example 3...cfa book作者: kamara5 时间: 2011-7-11 18:22
There you go, even in Pg 36 the dishonest, fraudulent conduct that reflects poorly on the entire profession was only committed once, still a violation.
