The ethics item set in the morning session (asia pac version) gave me a bit of grief. I chose that: The analyst should publish the report immediately Prop trading should be restricted to further enhance the compliance Are these correct…
Initially i went with Original Report but then choose to Delay the report.
I know that the analyst should publish the report and document the difference in opinion. The question didn’t cover the ‘document the difference’ bit and thats why I am not sure. But delaying for no reason doesn’t make any sense either…
I chose Delay and personal trading. I also had a hardship on this ethic questions. any other questions?
Wouldn’t prop trading have a bigger impact then personal trading. ^4@# two more potential wrong answers. I am gonna throw up.
I also chose delay and personal trading. Could be +2 or -2 to me with equal probability. That’s the beauty of Ethics!
Carson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also chose delay and personal trading. > > Could be +2 or -2 to me with equal probability. > That’s the beauty of Ethics! As a guess or have you read something in the material?
More or less a guess. The guidelines are there in the material but they are open to interpretation. For some of these questions there is no hard and fast right answer. It’s whichever the CFA decides is ‘most correct’. Can be frustrating at times.
Carson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also chose delay and personal trading. > > Could be +2 or -2 to me with equal probability. > That’s the beauty of Ethics! +1
delay and personal trading
What about the first one of all A? Nothing wrong with the researh policy?
I think there was a problem with the policy as they had no written procedures in places. Is that the question you mean? Man I should really try to get some work done this morning! Gotta get off this site. Not healthy.
I don’t think it was delay… Rod is big on not delaying… Agree with personal trading… Some post are saying arb but I think arb should keep going simply because stopping that activity could be a Market issue
I too think it should not be delay… He should have sent it immediately with the original recommendation
guilleku1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t think it was delay… Rod is big on not > delaying… > > Agree with personal trading… Some post are > saying arb but I think arb should keep going > simply because stopping that activity could be a > Market issue This may be true (and was my initial thought) but the particular circumstances they presented meant that publishing the report immediately didnt seem right. (after the analyst had potentially just overhead material np info from investment banking) who knows if i was right.
What about the oter one Should get avg. Execution on ipo?
What were the other Qs? I think I put you should allocate IPO by client not asset manager. What was the best execution Q again?
zero Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > guilleku1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don’t think it was delay… Rod is big on not > > delaying… > > > > Agree with personal trading… Some post are > > saying arb but I think arb should keep going > > simply because stopping that activity could be > a > > Market issue > > > This may be true (and was my initial thought) but > the particular circumstances they presented meant > that publishing the report immediately didnt seem > right. (after the analyst had potentially just > overhead material np info from investment banking) > > > who knows if i was right. Yes, you could be right. But if the question is from the point of view of the analyst who albeit could be in violation of MNPI, still should follow the standard when it comes to issuing the report.
Analyst should have disclosed Inv. Banking relationship in presentation?
i said publish immediately + personal trading + violation because password protected + allocate by client.