catenin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My question is why non-fee paying accounts should > be treated any differently? Say if the firm > waives all fees for a charity. Does that mean the > firm can treat this charity account any > differently just because they’re not paying any > fees? How can you compare a non-fee paying charity account to your wife’s non-fee paying account? Come on, man… Transactions involving your wife’s non-fee paying account are clearly personal transactions.
This has taken a life on its own, can’t we tell that CFAI/Schweser do not present ethics very well since it is always the most debated questions on the exam usually, remember hedge fund for conservative investor last yr, which is ok by the way. They need to present it better and maybe we would not have a two page thread talking about simple ethics… Everytime I tell someone ethics is always hard everyone is like "o you must not be that ethical blah blah blah… I mean c’mon these people just don’t understand but in any case ethics should not be this debatable.
I don’t even remember what the exact question was. My point was just basically that the husband’s relation to the accout should be construed as a beneficial interest. Hopefully I read the question properly if it related to IPOs that were not oversubscribed, in which case an allocation would be ok.
s23, I agree, but they have to protect the exam by asking us to interpret ridiculous situations under the pressure of time. If they were still feeding us Level 1 type questions, we’d all be batting 100%.
Yes it should. If she gets hit by a truck the next day, unless the pool boy is her beneficiary, the money is going to the husband.
jimmylegs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t even remember what the exact question was. > My point was just basically that the husband’s > relation to the accout should be construed as a > beneficial interest. Hopefully I read the > question properly if it related to IPOs that were > not oversubscribed, in which case an allocation > would be ok. Yea I am a little worried about this as well, that is why I think it may have been the “determine if it was a hot issue” answer.
I’m very worried. Can I allocate shares to the pool boy, and must they be pro-rata. I’ve been paying his fees.
If wife’s account is not ok, why is parents’ account ok then? Under normal circumstances wouldn’t the guy be a beneficiary of his parent’s financial interest? This is why I hate these subjective questions which are open to any explanation. The exam doesn’t explain why the wife’s account is a non-fee paying account. I’m wondering why it’s a non-fee paying but discretionary account.
frisian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > s23, I agree, but they have to protect the exam by > asking us to interpret ridiculous situations under > the pressure of time. > > If they were still feeding us Level 1 type > questions, we’d all be batting 100%. I see where you are coming from but we should not be sitting here after the exam debating an ethics questions forever with no time presure and all our materials available and without a conclusion. They can still make them difficult but not so vague, etc… I think it was a shame they gave us two item sets on ethics I think I was much more prepared to answer legit questions rather then decipher ethics garbage. I was disappointed they went that route (two ethics item sets). I could have shown much more knowledge on a attribution question (and numerous other topics) for instance instead of CFAI pushing ethics on the exam. But in any case it is what it is…