标题: Now taking ethics questions [打印本页] 作者: smartpants 时间: 2013-3-31 12:35 标题: Now taking ethics questions
Bring them on….作者: Walex 时间: 2013-3-31 12:35
Trading blackout dates: required or recommended?作者: soverby 时间: 2013-3-31 12:35
30 days before and 5 days after is only a specific recommendation related to the requirement of no front running.
the requirement is not to front run clients or get pre IPO stocks of a subject company or industry作者: Swanand 时间: 2013-3-31 12:35
I serve on the board McRonald’s and get free meals. Is disclosure and/or written permission required?作者: profil 时间: 2013-3-31 12:35
disclosure at the very least.
if McRonald is just a burger chain, disclosure is enough
if McRonald is in competing business e.g. investment manager focusing on the fast food industry then written permission required and the free quarter pounders can be construed as additional compensation作者: DarienHacker 时间: 2013-3-31 12:35
I am downgrading Company A. I send an e-mail to all my clients notifying them of the downgrade and call my largest clients afterward in order to discuss the downgrade in more detail. What standard, if any, am I violating?作者: RepoToronto 时间: 2013-3-31 12:35
No violation. at least on the surface.
if the follow up call is an additional service you provide for an extra fee and is available to all willing clients no violation took place.作者: tango_gs 时间: 2013-3-31 12:35
Good job mate, you’re spot on when it comes to Ethics.作者: ayaz_mahmud369 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
A client has a stock that’s at a huge gain. It does not yet violate the terms of his IPS and you have discretion over your account. Your firm has a buy rating on the stock. Are you allowed to take gains on the position either partially or entirely? Would the answer change if it put him out of compliance with his target asset allocation?作者: ninja1024 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
I work as a portfolio manager and have been recently asked to sit on the board of a company unrelated to investment management. I receive no compensation, but must spend a considerable amount of time reviewing financials and corporate governance procedures. Since I receive no compensation, no disclosure is necessary. What standard, if any, am I violating?作者: brain_wash_your 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
If there’s no need to take gains, the sensible thing to do is not take any. But are you allowed to? Yes, if you can come up with some other reason that is justified for the client’s interest. Like your tactical allocation is out of wack, but remember that it can be out of line at an acceptable range. Also if it’s a huge gain, better check the tax consequences to your client b/c s/he calls you very upset.
————
Violating Duty to Employers from depriving them of your talent, skill & energy if you’re performance at work is suffering from your second “job”作者: OmarAdnan 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
Duties to employers, disclosure is neccessary if it can be reasonablity expected to interfere with your current job potentially depriving your employer of your skills/abilities…作者: smuggycfa 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
What’s with the notion that you are suppose to try your best to disseminate material nonpublic information??? What the heck? “Unless you are bound by duty or loyalty to preserve confidentiality…”
Thought you’re suppose to NOT spread it around? Q 44. p.125 CFAI Ethics作者: transferpricing 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
Lets see if you get this one…
In selecting a broker for client trades where soft dollars are involved, CFA Institute members are
A) required to consider trade execution capabilities well as an evaluation of the broker’s financial responsibility and the range of services provided.
B) prohibited from using soft dollars from client brokerage to purchase goods and services that do not benefit the client.
C) required to disclose soft dollar arrangements to the client prior to entering into any such arrangements.作者: cjs238 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
What does B have to do with selecting a broker? I’m going with A.作者: Iginla2010 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
A: process in selecting broker
b is to comply with the standard but is not the question作者: John10 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
Good one…was that a real q you saw somewhere?作者: noel 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
B is the correct answer.
RTFQ. You are just a member who may or may not be claiming compliance with soft dollars rules. You’ve got to comply with B regardless but A and C are mandatory only if you claim compliance with SD.作者: cfa10yrplan 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
B is the correct answer.
RTFQ. You are just a member who may or may not be claiming compliance with soft dollars rules. You’ve got to comply with B regardless but A and C are mandatory only if you claim compliance with SD.
This was on the first Schweser live mock in the am.作者: tango_gs 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
I think you will see this “CFAI trick” on listing types of questions, like they could do one in corporate governance, where they are asking for an “Objective” and you get tricked if you select the distractor under the “Core Attributes”作者: malbec 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
So, are we not supposed to assume they comply with Soft Dollar Standards if it is not mentioned?
Looks like my time should’ve been dedicated to learning esoteric formulas like Ibbotsen Chen.作者: Zestt 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
You are right. You’d be given in the vignette whether the manager in question claims compliance.
Remember, compliance with SD standards is optional for members or firms.作者: noel 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
CFASniper Wrote:
——————————————————-
You are right. You’d be given in the vignette
whether the manager in question claims
compliance.
Remember, compliance with SD standards is optional
for members or firms.
Thanks作者: rohitdoshi 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
I am a research at analyst at a big bank and my incentive comp is determined roughly based 60% on my research accuracy and 40% on the investment banking revenues the companies i cover generate for my firm. This compensation policy is disclosed by the firm and applied equally across all research analysts.
Is this is a violation of the ROS?作者: dvilayphet 时间: 2013-3-31 12:36
thems Wrote:
——————————————————-
I am a research at analyst at a big bank and my
incentive comp is determined roughly based 60% on
my research accuracy and 40% on the investment
banking revenues the companies i cover generate
for my firm. This compensation policy is disclosed
by the firm and applied equally across all
research analysts.
Is this is a violation of the ROS?
Yes. It would be permissible if it was based on general firm revenue as long as it is disclosed as the extent on which the analyst’s compensation is dependent upon.作者: pawn 时间: 2013-3-31 12:37
This applies for only a DIRECT link right? So analyst compensation is tied to accuracy and company profit. Most of a companies profit comes from IB. Still ok right?作者: cv4cfa 时间: 2013-3-31 12:37
But i think the issue is that its linked to the profits of the IB revenues generated from the company the analyst covers, not the firm overall.作者: cfa10yrplan 时间: 2013-3-31 12:37
yup, i think asif has nailed it.
kh.asif Wrote:
——————————————————-
Cannot be directly linked with investment banking
revenues. That looks like a violation to me.作者: ASSet_MANagemen 时间: 2013-3-31 12:37
