Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
com
FinQuiz.com
CFA Level II Item-set – Solution
Study Session 1
June 2018
By using his observations of Y.T. Automobiles’ production site to produce his conclusion,
Webber has not violated this standard (with the information obtained from the observations
constituting items of material, public information as well as non-material non-public
information). This holds true despite the fact that Webber used the information to conclude
that the manufacturer could be at risk of being acquired in a takeover or could file for
bankruptcy (which itself can be considered material nonpublic information that investors
would like to know). Furthermore the discussions with industry experts and representatives
from different manufactures as well as the industry information used as part of the analysis do
not violate this standard. In short, Webber has used mosaic theory to arrive at his conclusion
and has thus not violated this standard.
Standard V (A) Diligence and Reasonable Basis requires members and candidates to exercise
thoroughness, independence, and diligence when conducting investment analysis, making
investment recommendations and taking investment action. Additionally the standards
require members to have a reasonable and adequate basis supported by an appropriate level of
research and thorough investigation. Webber’s conclusion is backed by thorough research
and investigation and is thus in compliance with this standard.
By transferring stocks, possessing a low level of liquidity, from the distressed fund to the
developed equity fund, Bridges has violated this standard. This is because he has transferred
stocks to the latter fund to artificially increase the demand for these stocks. Although this
action has been done to improve the value of stocks which may benefit potential investors,
such an activity deceives potential investors into believing the stocks they are buying are
highly liquid and attractively priced.
Standard III (C) Suitability requires members and candidates, in advisory roles, to make a
reasonable inquiry into the client’s investment experience, risk and return objectives, and
financial constraints and must reassess and update this information regularly. The standard
also requires recommending investments and taking investment actions which are consistent
with the client’s financial constraints, risk and return objectives, constraints, and written
mandates. Additionally members/candidates must judge the suitability of the investment in
the context of the client’s total portfolio.
The process of transferring securities from the former to the latter fund does not violate this
standard as these stocks are not owned by any clients nor recommended at the time of the
transfer.
Based on standard III (C) Suitability’s requirements, recommending these stocks to client
categories A, B and E violate this standard. This is because:
• client category A has a short-term time horizon, significant liquidity requirements, and a
low risk tolerance level;
• client category B has significant liquidity requirements;
• client category E has a below average risk tolerance; making such an investment highly
unsuitable for all three categories.
Standard V (C) Record Retention requires members and candidate to “develop and maintain
appropriate records to support their investment analysis, recommendations actions and other
investment related communications with clients and prospects.” This standard is not relevant
in the context of the advertisement.
Standard VII (B) Reference to CFA Institute, the CFA Designation, and the CFA Program
requires members and candidates to avoid misrepresenting or exaggerating the “meaning or
implications of membership in CFA institute, holding the CFA designation or candidacy in
the CFA Program.” Additionally, there is no such thing as a partial designation.
Forecasting that Emerson will successfully complete and pass the Level III examinations
violates this standard. Additionally indicating that Emerson will achieve the completion
status following the upcoming June examinations violates this standard as there is no such
designation.
Based on the investment policy of Grace Incorporated’s pension plan, Peltier will need to
assure he does not make allocations to growth stocks, and chooses securities which bring
industry diversification (belongs to industries distinct from Grace Incorporated) and are
securities of stable companies.
Based on the data provided, Peltier should ignore stock B altogether as it belongs to the same
industry as the surgical manufacturer.
Peltier cannot choose stock A as its high P/E and P/B ratio (11.2 and 13.4, respectively)
indicate it is a growth stock. Similarly the high projected EPS growth further confirm that it is
a growth stock. Thus Peltier should not consider stock B for inclusion to the plan’s
investment account.
Peltier may select stock C for inclusion into the plan’s investment account. The low P/E ratio
and high P/B ratios (3.8 and 13.6, respectively) indicate the stock is a balanced stock.
Additionally, stock C belongs to the automobile manufacturing industry which indicates it
will bring industry diversification to the plan’s account. By allocating stock C to the
investment account, Peltier does not violate the standards.
Thus by selecting stock B for the plan’s investment account, Peltier has violated standard
III(C) Suitability as he has not followed the plan’s mandate pertaining to industry
diversification.
Standard III (C) Suitability requires members and candidates to make a reasonable inquiry
into the client’s circumstances, risk and return objectives and financial constraints prior to
making any investment recommendation or taking investment action, determining whether
the investment is suitable to the client’s financial situation and consistent with the client’s
written objectives, and judging the suitability of investments in the context of the client’s
total portfolio. There is nothing in the case which indicates Lawson has violated the standard.
There is nothing to indicate that standard III (A) Loyalty, Prudence and Care has been
violated.
their independence and objectivity.” The condition (to allocate 40% of the shares to
Schmidt’s account in exchange for a reward) attached the cruise trip will itself impair
Lawson’s independence and objectivity since, after accepting the offer, she will favor
Schmidt and allocate a portion of the corporation’s shares to his account only rather to the
accounts of other individuals who have expressed an interest in the shares.
The allocation of the 40% shares solely to Schmidt’s account additionally suggests that
Lawson has violated the standard, III (B) Fair Dealing. Schmidt should have allocated the
shares proportionally to those accounts expressing an interest, for which the investment is
suitable, as well as distribute amongst suitable accounts on a pro-rata basis.
A problem with the source code of a software development corporation’s major product line
is a piece of material information. However it is not necessary that the problem may lead to
the discontinuation of the corporation’s major product line and result in a drop in forecasted
product revenues. The two retirees are merely speculating and sharing this information with
others (either with his friend or fellow portfolio manager) does not result in Brewer violating
this standard.
The chief investment officer's claims are not valid. This is because the officer has not
prohibited the portfolio manager from avoiding emerging market stocks. Additionally, the
chosen stocks meet the socially responsible criteria. Thus by including such stocks, Brewer
has not violated this standard.
As the portfolio manager of The Senior Citizen Endowment’s portfolio, Brewer has not
violated any standards (See the solution to Part 5). Thus there are no violations which Peltier
need to prevent and/or detect. Thus as supervisor he has not violated this standard.
Standard III (C) Suitability is not relevant in this context.
Standard III (E) Preservation of Confidentiality requires members and candidates to keep
information about current, former, and/or prospective clients confidential unless the client
permits disclosure; disclosure is required by law; or the information concerns illegal activities
on part of the client. As the investment banker of G&J, Sutton has the obligation to preserve
the confidentiality of any information received on his client’s expansion plans, which he has
exclusively received. Thus by sharing these plans with Mullins, he has violated this standard.
The best action for Mullins to undertake would be to develop a research report and conclude
it with a recommendation solely based on his analysis of G&J’s future prospects. Since
Mullins believes G&J’s expansion plans may not succeed, he will probably produce a
different recommendation to the buy recommendation instructed by Herrera.
Although Mace Brokerage charges fees higher than the existing broker, the access to global
and local research as well as higher execution speed (relative to the current broker) justify the
fees. Thus by appointing Mace Brokerage, Delgado will not be violating this standard but
instead will be providing Mighty-You Inc. with greater benefits (i.e. execution).
Although Harold and Haroon Associates charges fees lower than the existing broker the
execution speeds are relatively slower. Additionally the firm provides access to local research
only. Thus the relatively slow execution speed makes this broker unsuitable for Mighty-You
Inc. Thus the appointment of this broker-candidate will violate the standard in question as
Delgado will not be providing its client with best execution.
There is a lack of sufficient evidence which may suggest that the firm may have conducted a
suitability analysis prior to implementing the derivative strategy on a portion of the client
portfolios. It is possible that such a strategy may not be suitable for or may be expressly
prohibited by some clients. Thus by implementing a derivative strategy, the firm has violated
this standard.
Standard V (A) Diligence and Reasonable Basis requires members and candidates to “have a
reasonable and adequate basis, supported by appropriate research and investigation, for any
investment analysis, recommendation or action.” The volatility of the national market, which
in turn has substantially increased the risk of several securities in client portfolios, justifies
the use of derivative to offset these risks. Thus this standard has not been violated.
Under Standard V (B) Communication with Clients and Prospective Clients, member and
candidates must disclose to clients the basic format and general principles used to analyze
investments, select securities and construct portfolios and promptly disclose any material
changes to the processes. By delaying the notification to clients (regarding the inclusion of
derivatives in their portfolios) for a period of one month, this standard has been violated.
Policy 2:
Standard III (A) Loyalty, Prudence and Care requires members and candidates to vote proxies
in the best interests of clients and their ultimate beneficiaries as well as to vote proxies in an
informed and responsible manner. A fiduciary who votes blindly with management on non-
routine governance issues violates this standard. Due to cost and benefits, it is not necessary
to vote all proxies. Policy 2 is not consistent with this standard as it does not call for voting
in the best interests of clients and ultimate beneficiaries. This is because the policy calls for
taking into account any benefits to the firm, in addition to clients’ benefits, and ignores the
benefits to beneficiaries (accruing to them as a result of the votes cast). In addition, the policy
requires votes to be cast in line the firm’s management which hampers the
member/candidate’s ability to cast his or her vote in the best interests of its clients and
ultimate beneficiaries.
Policy 3:
Under Standard V (C) Record Retention members and candidates are required to develop and
maintain appropriate records to support their investment analysis, recommendation, actions
and other investment related communications with clients and prospective clients. In the
absence of any regulatory requirements, the CFA Institute recommends a holding period of at
least seven years. By complying with local record retention regulations, policy 3 is consistent
with this standard.
Additionally, Strickland’s statement does not justify the addition of these securities to the
portfolios. The expected decrease in market and securities’ volatility is merely a prediction
which may not materialize after the quoted six-month period. Thus by basing the purchase
decision on a mere prediction of a market factor, Strickland has violated the standard V (A)
Diligence and Reasonable Basis.
There is nothing which may suggest Strickland has been dishonest or engaged in fraudulent
practices adversely affected his professional reputation, integrity or competence. Thus
Strickland has not violated standard I (D) Misconduct.
Strickland has not violated Standard I (C) Misrepresentation nor has he violated standard III
(A) Loyalty, Prudence and Care. The justification statement does not guarantee the volatility
will fall from its current levels, but instead uses the term ‘projected’ which implies Strickland
has not guaranteed any expected performance and thus has not violated standard III (D)
Performance Presentation.
Ideally, to avoid the appearance of any conflicts, Howell should not be asked to cover a
company with which he may be affiliated. Howell’s family relationship with H.O. Zone’s
executive director must be disclosed in his research report as well as to his employer, Trinity
Associates. Without taking any steps to minimize this potential conflict and failing to make
the relevant disclosures to clients, prospective client and to his employer, Howell has violated
this standard.
Standard II (A) Material Nonpublic Information requires members and candidates who
possess material nonpublic information, which has the potential to affect the value of a
security, from acting or causing others to act on the information. There is lack of evidence to
suggest that Howell may have not independently arrived at a buy recommendation or used
insider information to arrive at the recommendation. A mere speculation by Thackeray does
not necessarily mean Howell has used insider information. Additionally by using the
recommendation, Thackeray has not violated this standard (due to the uncertainty of the
information being acquired from insider resources or not).
Standard V (A) Diligence and Reasonable Basis requires members and candidates to “have a
reasonable and adequate basis, supported by appropriate research and investigation, for any
investment analysis, recommendation or action.” Additionally when using secondary
research it is necessary to make reasonable and diligent efforts in evaluating the objectivity
and independence of the recommendations; reviewing the assumptions used, the rigor of
analysis performed, and the date/timeliness of the research.
The question of whether Howell may have arrived at his buy recommendation using insider
sources remains. Without thoroughly evaluating the independence and/or objectivity of the
recommendations and relying on the recommendation Thackeray has violated this standard.
Although Byrd’s model has been considerably modified from the model developed by the
pharmaceutical chief industry executive, Byrd should acknowledge the fact that his model’s
structure was inspired by the latter model and continues to use the same factors as those
employed by the latter model. By not doing so and marketing the model as his own, he has
violated the standard.
According to this standard, Byrd must cite the annual industry forecasts obtained from
discussions with industry experts but not the industry reports published by the local
government agency in his research report.
The newsletter has accurately referred to Terry and Sosa as CFA Level III candidates.
However by stating that Terry will attain a ‘Passed Finalist’ status, the newsletter has
incorrectly referenced Terry’s candidacy in the CFA Program and this reflects a violation of
this standard. This is because there is no such status.
Standard II (B) Market Manipulation prohibits members and candidates from engaging in
practices that distort the prices or artificially inflate trading volume with the intent to mislead
market participants. However the standard does not prohibit transactions done for tax
purposes. Thus the tax-loss harvesting strategy recommended by Terry (selling securities
which have fallen in value to offset the gains on securities which have risen in value) does not
violate this standard.
Standard III (A) Loyalty, Prudence and Care requires members and candidates to act in the
best interests of clients, place client interest before their own, use reasonable care, and
exercise prudent judgment when managing the accounts of their clients. As McFadden’s
financial consultant, Terry has acted in his client’s best interests. Thus she has not violated
this standard.
Standard I (C) Misrepresentation requires members and candidates to have knowledge of all
the services the firm provides and should recommend where a client can obtain the requisite
service should the firm not be able to provide it. By assuring her client that the firm is able to
address her taxation concerns and is able to provide the necessary consultancy services, Terry
has violated his standard. This is because the firm outsources tax consultancy rather than
providing it internally. Additionally, Terry has misrepresented the tax-loss harvesting strategy
by incorrectly stating that it will help to reduce the portfolio’s taxable base in both the current
and future years. In reality, tax-loss harvesting reduces the portfolio’s taxable basis in the
current year to increase it in the future.
A buyout of the firm’s financial consultancy department by the firm managers does not
constitute a violation of this standard. This is because the firm may choose how to respond to
such an action. Thus practice 1 does not reflect a violation of this standard.
Based on standard VI (A) Disclosure of Conflict’s requirements (see the solution to Part 1), a
meeting between some of the firm’s managers after office hours does not constitute a
violation of this standard.
Thus practice 1 does not reflect any violations of the CFA Institute Standards of Professional
Conduct.
Practice 2:
The portfolio managers have complied with standard III (A) Loyalty, Prudence and Care by
using the brokerage arrangement to obtain high quality research to directly assist the
managers in managing the client portfolio.
Standard VI (C) Referral Fees requires members and candidates to disclose to their
employers, current clients, and prospective clients “any compensation, consideration, or
benefit received from, or paid to, others for the recommendation of products or services.” The
firm’s portfolio managers have referred their clients to their respective broker and have
received research in return. This arrangement must be disclosed to their existing clients
and/or any prospects who wish to employ any of these portfolio managers to manage his/her
investment portfolio. By not disclosing the arrangements to their clients, the portfolio
managers have violated this standard.
By incorrectly stated his years of experience, Byrd has not violated standard III (D)
Performance Presentation, which requires members and candidates to make reasonable efforts
to ensure that the performance they present is fair, complete, and accurate. Since the error
pertains to his industry experience as opposed to performance information, Byrd has not
violated this standard.
Standard V (C) Record Retention is not relevant in this context and there is a lack of
sufficient evidence to conclude that Byrd has not retained records used to develop research
reports and make recommendations.
Standard I (D) Misconduct requires members and candidates to avoid any professional
misconduct that may reflect adversely on their professional reputation, integrity, or
competence and encourages employers to conduct reference checks on potential employees
for any past infractions of laws.
The law which is applicable to Riku Associates is the local Shimautanian law as opposed to
the Japanese law applicable to its parent organization. Because employees with past
infractions of securities and/or trading laws of two or more counts are likely to violate such
laws again, it is advisable to avoid hiring such employees. Thus the requirements of the
Institutes’ codes and standards govern [I (D) Misconduct]. Riku Associates must preferably
hire employees with a clean past record.
Standard III (C) Suitability requires members and candidates, who are in an advisory role, to
make a reasonable inquiry into the client’s investment experience, risk and return objectives,
investment constraints and must reassess and update this information regularly. Client
portfolios must be reviewed at least annually and whenever a change in client circumstances
and/or market circumstances occurs. By instructing Lowery to conduct reviews for a period
longer than the minimum 12-month required, for whatever reason, Sayuki has violated this
standard. Additionally, Lowery has also violated this standard as he has conducted the
reviews as instructed.
Standard III (A) Loyalty, Prudence and Care does not address client portfolio reviews has not
been violated.
Standard III (E) Preservation of Confidentiality requires members and candidates to keep all
information concerning former, current, and prospective clients confidential unless the client
permits disclosure; the disclosure is required by law; or the information pertains to illegal
activities on the part of clients. By sharing information regarding Smith’s portfolio holdings
with his family friend, Lowery has violated this confidentiality standard.
The fact that such information has not yet been disclosed and pertains to the discontinuation
of a product line provides sufficient evidence that this piece of information is material and
nonpublic. Although Conway may discuss this piece of information with his supervisor,
Sayuki, his first course of action should have been to make reasonable efforts to achieve
public dissemination of the information by encouraging Furniture Ltd to make the
information public. If Furniture Ltd had refused to release the information, his next course of
action should have been to disclose the information to his supervisor or compliance
department.
However Conway has not made any such efforts and thus has violated this standard.
Standard III (E) Preservation of Confidentiality is not relevant here as the standard covers
confidential client information received by portfolio managers as opposed to the information
received by research analysts on the companies they cover.
In Fukui’s case, participating in an online interview does not violate this standard as she is
not disrupting her duties to the firm as an employee. Additionally, since Fukui has not
undertaken the potential job opportunity at Howell S. Erwin Associates, there is no need to
disclose the opportunity to her employer. Thus Fukui has not violated this standard.
Although Gifu has complied with this standard by informing the employer of the job
opportunity before resigning, he has violated this standard with respect to the backups of past
firm information stored on his home computer. In order to avoid violating this standard, he
should have removed the information from his computer before departing Riku Associates or
should have received his employer’s consent to continue to store the information. Even if he
believes the information to be obsolete, Gifu has violated this standard.
Standard III (D) Performance Presentation requires members and candidates to make every
reasonable effort that the performance they present is fair, accurate and complete. By
intentionally increasing the portfolio return by 0.2% (10.0% – 9.8%) when the portfolio
actually achieved a return of 9.8%, Fukui has clearly violated this standard.
Standard V (B) Communication with Clients and Prospective Clients requires members and
candidates, amongst other things, to separate opinion from fact in their research reports and
recommendations. By using terms such as ‘will’, Youssef is implying that the political crisis
in Kenya will definitely intensify as opposed to stating the probabilities of such an event
happening. Thus he has violated this standard.
Standard III (B) Fair Dealing requires members and candidates to deal fairly with clients
when disseminating investment recommendations, taking investment actions or analyzing
investments. Youssef has discriminated between investors by providing free access to the
database to particular investor categories while charging other investors a nominal fee.
However, standard VII (B) Reference to the CFA Institute, the CFA designation, and the
CFA Program, requires members and candidates not to exaggerate or misrepresent the
meaning or implication of candidacy in the CFA Program, amongst other requirements. By
implying that individuals with a certain level of intellect (who are ‘apt’ enough) are likely to
succeed in the program, Hanson has violated this standard.
objectivity. Members and candidates should pay for their own commercial transportation and
residence and only use the corporate aircraft offered by a client when commercial
transportation is not available.
By accepting the residential and transportation arrangements offered by the client and not
disclosing these arrangements to his employer, Hanson is in violation of this standard. In the
course of allowing JTL to make these arrangements, Hanson may have compromised his
independence and objectivity. Despite his client’s headquarters being half an hour away,
Hanson did not make any attempts to explore the transportation alternatives available.
Additionally despite the residential accommodation being modest, Hanson should have used
the residential allowances provided by his employer to seek and pay for his own residence
and transportation.
Standard IV (A) Loyalty requires members and candidates, in matters related to their
employment, to act for the benefit of their employer and not deprive their employer of the
advantage of their skills and abilities, divulge confidential information or otherwise harm the
employer. During his stay in Malaysia, Hanson has not violated this standard.
By not disclosing the research opportunity offered by the steel manufacturer to Greenwich
Limited and seeking permission prior to beginning the assignment, Hanson has violated the
standard IV (A) Loyalty which requires members and candidates to disclose all aspects of
independent practice and receive employer permission prior to the start of the proposed
independence practice.
Standard VI (A) Disclosure of Conflicts requires members and candidates to make “full and
fair disclosure of all matters that could reasonably be expected to impair their independence
and objectivity or interfere with their respective duties to their clients, prospective clients, and
their employer.” By not disclosing the fact that he is an employed research analyst serving
Greenwich Limited and misleading the steel manufacturer’s executive to believe that he is an
independent research analyst, Hanson has violated this standard.
Standard III (A) Loyalty, Prudence and Care requires members and candidates to act in their
client’s best interest and exercise prudent judgment and use reasonable care. There is no
evidence that Russet has violated this standard.
The factors which Russet instructs her portfolio managers to analyze all are factors which
have been prescribed by the suitability standard. Thus her instructions are in compliance with
the standards.
Green did not intentionally manipulate the prices of the crude oil commodity futures traded.
The heavy futures volume being traded has forced the futures contract prices downward
resulting in a (larger than expected) positive roll return when rolling into new futures
contracts. Thus Green has not violated this standard.
Standard V (B) Communication with Clients and Prospective Clients requires members and
candidates to use reasonable judgment in identifying the factors important to investment
analysis, recommendations, or actions and include those factors in communications with
clients and prospects. Additionally members and candidates must disclose the basic principles
and general format of the investment process used to analyze investments, select securities,
and construct portfolios and disclose any changes materially affecting this process. There are
no changes to the investment process which require communication with clients and/or
prospects. Thus Green has not violated this standard.
Additionally, by not revising Sanchez’s IPS to reflect her changed risk tolerance and liquidity
requirements (which has decreased and increased, respectively following her bankruptcy),
Russet has violated the standard, III (C) Suitability, which calls for revising client
information whenever client circumstances change. Speculative investments in commodity
futures are no longer suitable for Sanchez and thus by not liquidating the holdings Russet has
violated the suitability standard.
Cooper is in violation of the fair dealing standard on two counts. Firstly, relative to other
accounts, he has allocated a larger proportion of the trade to his aunt's account. Secondly, by
delaying the allocation of the trade to a regular-fee paying client, he has treated his aunt's
account unfairly.
By allocating the pharmaceutical manufacturer’s stocks to his aunt’s account a day later
following the allocation of the issue to his clients’ accounts, Cooper has unfairly treated his
aunt’s account and has violated this standard.
As long as RIM describes the concepts in its own words, it does not need to cite the source.
However, for the concepts of price multiples, RIM quotes the words of another author, so it
needs to cite the source from which the descriptions are quoted (even though these are
general concepts).
Pettit is in violation of the standard relating to material nonpublic information because as the
firm's CEO she knew the information was both material and nonpublic and by disclosing the
information to her daughter, she is in violation.
are not his clients can either do the work themselves or become his client if they want access
to his expertise.
Kew has violated Standard 3(A), Loyalty, Prudence and Care, and 3(C), Suitability. The
private equity fund is an illiquid investment since it locks up the fund’s asset for three years.
The IPS clearly states investment in liquid assets. Therefore, private equity is not suitable for
the pension fund.
trading, the case for a trading prohibition is compelling. In such a case, the potential for
illegal profits is great so the most prudent course for firms is to suspend arbitrage activity
when a security is placed on the watch list.
Statement 2 is correct. Adequate compliance procedures are those designed to meet industry
standards, regulatory requirements, the requirements of the Code and Standards, and the
circumstances of the firm.
Standard I (A) Knowledge of the Law requires members and candidates to “understand and
comply with all the applicable laws, rules, and regulations of any government”, amongst
other institutions, “governing their professional activities”. In the event of a conflict, the most
strict law, rule, or regulation applies.
Based on this standard, the strictest law, amongst U.S., Trotia, and Horsha, is the Trotian law,
which requires undertaking local examinations to trade in local and international markets.
However, at the same time, Orswitz can not violate the trading laws of Horsha, which also
requires traders to undertake the local trading exam. Since Orswitz will be trading solely in
Horsha, he will be need to clear Horsha’s trading exam to be granted the country’s trading
license, in addition to Trotia’s, in order to avoid violating the professional conduct standards.
Standard I (B) Independence and Objectivity requires members and candidates to “use
reasonable care and judgment to achieve and maintain independence and objectivity in their
professional activities”. Research analysts frequently work closely with investment-banking
colleagues to help evaluate prospective investment-banking clients. This is appropriate
provided conflicts are adequately and effectively managed and disclosed. Given the close
relationship between Earl and Holly, which enables them to discuss shared clients, the
independence and/or objectivity of the two employees may have been compromised.
Additionally, by discussing his research with Holly, Earl may have compromised his own and
his sister’s independence and objectivity with respect to dealing with Woodline Inc.
However, Holly has not violated this standard.
Standard II (A) Material Nonpublic Information requires that members and candidates who
“possess material nonpublic information that could affect the value of an investment must not
act or cause others to act on the information”. Speculating on a potential takeover offer
involving Woodline Inc. by a larger floorboards manufacturer does not amount to material
nonpublic information. Thus this standard has not been violated.
Standard III (E) Preservation of Confidentiality requires members and candidates to keep all
information acquired on current, potential, or former clients confidential unless the client
permits disclosure; the information concerns illegal activity on the part of the client; or
disclosure is required by the law. Speculations on a potential takeover offer do not amount to
confidential information. Thus this standard has not been violated.
Standard VI (A) Disclosure of conflicts requires members and candidates to disclose any
actual and/or potential conflicts of interest which may hinder their duties to their clients and
their employer and impair their independence and objectivity. Her relationship with Earl may
impair her impartiality when serving clients and thus disclosure to a senior compliance officer
may be the optimal solution.
Although asking for a change in assignment is a potential solution, it may not help resolve the
problem in the event the new assignment pertains to a client which is also covered by Earl.
Standard II (B) Market Manipulation prohibits members and candidates from ‘engaging in
practices that distort prices or artificially inflate trading volume with the intent to mislead
market participants’. The standard, however, does not prohibit transactions that exploit a
difference in market power, information, or other market inefficiencies. Since OA’s trading
division has a significant presence in Horsha’s derivatives markets, any derivative contracts
entered into on behalf of clients may significantly influence contract prices and allow them to
move to the benefit of the firm. Thus this standard has not been violated.
Given the lack of information on clients’ requirements and/or circumstances, the suitability of
derivatives trades to client portfolios is not relevant in this context.
Red’s second statement fails to comply with the standard, VII (B) Reference to CFA Institute,
the CFA Designation, and the CFA Program. The standard requires members and candidates,
amongst other requirements, not to misrepresent the meaning or implications of membership
in CFA Institute, holding the CFA designation, or candidacy of the CFA Program. There is
no violation in stating that he has passed the two levels of the CFA exam program in
consecutive attempts as he has done so. Additionally, there is no violation in stating his
intention to appear for the upcoming Level III examination as he has not cited an expected
completion date and is currently registered for the Level III exam. However by including a
statement pertaining to his educational achievements in the experience section of his CV, Red
has violated this standard. Red should have included this statement in the educational section
of his CV.
The disclosure of conflicts standard requires members and candidates to disclose any actual
and/or potential conflicts of interest which may hinder their duties to their clients and their
employer and impair their independence and objectivity. Earl ought to have disclosed the call
options purchased on Lazline’s stock to his clients. This is because he covers the
pharmaceutical manufacturer and purchasing call options on the manufacturer may impair his
independence and objectivity when preparing a research report. This is a matter which
requires disclosure to clients as well as the employer. Since he has disclosed the purchase to
OA, he has not violated this standard with respect to his employer only. However, by failing
to make appropriate disclosure to clients Earl has violated this standard as opposed to the
communications with clients and prospects standards.
By not sharing the results of his analysis with his employer, Earl has violated the Loyalty
standard. His employer has full rights over the research prepared by any employee and by
denying his employer these rights, he has violated this standard.
Ramirez may accept the opera tickets and cash bonus as long as he obtains written consent
from DHFM.
The assumptions underlying linear and multiple regression models as well as any regression
variables used are important and thus should be disclosed.
Ramirez has violated standard II (A) Material Nonpublic Information. This standard prohibits
members and candidates possessing material nonpublic from acting on the information.
Based on his special relation with the two corn producers, access to information on a
potential unannounced merger between Milanto and Sprout constitutes material nonpublic
information. In the case of risk-arbitrage propriety activity, the most prudent course of action
would be to suspend such activity while a firm possesses material nonpublic information. By
engaging in risk-arbitrage propriety trading based on his access to material nonpublic
information Ramirez has violated this standard.
Standard III (B) Fair Dealing requires members and candidates to deal fairly and objectively
with all their clients when providing investment analysis, making investment
recommendations and taking investment action. Since Ramirez has not taken action on any
client accounts, he has not violated this standard.
Standard III (D) Performance Presentation prohibits members and candidates from
misrepresenting past or reasonably expected future performance. This standard has not been
violated.
Cowbell will not violate the loyalty standard if she and the other hedge fund manager form
their hedge fund management firm as they plan to open the firm after leaving their present
employment.
However, contacting clients using client records stored on the employer’s system, without the
employer’s permission, is a violation of the standard. Even though the clients are former,
contacting them using DHFM’s database will constitute a violation of the loyalty standard.
This will hold true even if the managers contact former clients after resigning from their
current positions.
The standards recommend members and candidates consider the following procedures,
amongst others, when devising a written trade allocation policy:
The second statement is incorrect as Watts has relayed that he is professionally superior to
other candidates due to his current CFA Candidacy status.
Addison is no longer an active candidate because she did not appear for the Level I exam.
Therefore, she is correct in stating that she is not a Level I candidate. She may refer to herself
as a Level I candidate when she next enrolls for the Level I exam.
• Members and candidates should maintain a list of all clients and the securities of other
investments each client holds to facilitate notification of clients of a change in investment
recommendation.
• When the full amount of the block order is not executed, partially executed orders will be
allocated amongst the participating client accounts pro rate on the basis of order size.
When attending meetings at client’s headquarters, members and candidates should pay for
commercial transportation and hotel charges.
Standard I does not cover legal transgressions resulting from acts of civil disobedience in
support of personal beliefs because such conduct does not reflect poorly on the member’s or
candidate’s professional reputation, integrity or competence.
Park’s information would be considered material as it would influence the share price of
Jeutte Tech and probably influence the price of the entire exchange-traded fund.
Park shared information that was both material and non-public. Company employees
regularly have such information about their firms, which is not a violation. However, sharing
this information, even in a conversation with friends, constitutes a violation.