If there is a hot issue coming up and I allocate to my spouse’s account ahead of other clients, I would violate priority of transactions. But if I don’t allocate to my parent’s just like other clients, I would be in violation also.
The standard says “personal transactions” include those made for immediate family members. But that family accounts should be treated like any other firm account and shouldn’t receive a disadvantage. But if I have a beneficial interest in my parents’ accounts, how do we square all of this? Is it the case that parents are not immediate family?
In the Research Ojectivity section, it defines immediate family as “Individuals whose principal residence is the same as the principal residence of the subject person”. I’m not sure if this definition applies. But by this definition parents aren’t immediate family if you don’t live with them.
Depends as well if they are fee-paying clients.
Your parents have a separate financial situation from you (think 20 years later when you have your own thing going on in life). They can be a client of yours, and you must treat them equally.
Immediate family, basically your spouse, or dependants, share financial situations. So they say not your immediate family because you can mask transactions for yourself under the guise you’re doing it for your spouse. At the end of the day, you’re still gaining from it.
So basically understand your parents can be a fee-paying client, and your spouse can be playing animal farm while you allocate hot IPO shares to his/her account because they ‘wanted’ some.
I’d like to think I have my own thing going on in life now, but I’ve been holed up in my home office for the last 5 months going gray from this stress!
Thanks for your perspective 
in addition, please note that parents’ portfolios, property etc is inherited by children … so it does not matter as long as they r regular fee paying accounts