Don’t push me cause I’m close to the edge…
thats my day tomorrow. I’m finishing up SS17 today and SS18 is my task tomorrow (took the day off). then im 100% done with reading and will just bang out Qs and practice exams until the test…and oh yea, the 1000 stalla questions i still have to do to get their waiver
You are insane. I mean, honestly it’s probably good bang for the buck studying, but dang. I hit a home run in my softball game today. B7tch. That’s all I’ve got.
Imagine after 8 hours of GIPS someone asks you… Hey what does GIPS stand for?? And then you draw a blank… Omg I think I’d shoot myself if that happend haha. Good job on the focus!
And this is the question that made me call it a day. When presenting performance to a prosepctive wrap fee sponsor, an investment manager must. A. Disclose the names of the wrap fee sponsors when presenting sponsor specific composites. B. Present performance of all wrap fee accounts in the composite being presented. C. Not link non compliant performance that occurs before 1/1/06 with compliant performance.
A?
And the answer is … ?
The answer is B. But I’m not getting their explanation as to why A is wrong. “In standard 8.4.A sponsor specific composite results are presented to an existing sponsor, not a potential sponsor.”
yeah i don’t know anything about wrap fees but i’d guess A also. C yuck, B sounds so laborious.
who sucks more, schweser or the lakers? *deep thought of the night* i will now dedicate 30 minutes to GIPS and wrap fees, just for you pinky.
Haha. I am DONE for the night.
I guessed B on that one, nice.
sneaky but very good question. (I.8.A.4.b). The intent of the last-mentioned provision is to discourage sponsors from redistributing purportedly GIPS-compliant performance presentations to prospective wrap fee/SMA clients without reducing returns by the entire wrap fee. (V6, p. 334).
Sorry can I ask…why is C wrong? I thought that we are not supposed to link non-compliant performance data prior to Jan 1, 2006 with compliant data after that? Or does this apply to both prospective and existing wrap fee sponsors thats why it is not the correct answer?
Anyone can explain why C is wrong?
C could have been in play IF the date was 1/1/2000, and not 1/1/2006. I think.
Before/after.
2010CFACFA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone can explain why C is wrong? Firms may link non-compliant performance so long as only compliant returns are presented for periods beginning on or after 1 January 2000 (I.5.A.3) (Level III Volume 6 Portfolio: Execution, Evaluation and Attribution, and Global Investment Performance Standards , 4th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions 318).
bannisja Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > who sucks more, schweser or the lakers? > > *deep thought of the night* cant get worse than the Lakers. Horrific display of poor sportsmanship.
bpdulog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2010CFACFA Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Anyone can explain why C is wrong? > > > Firms may link non-compliant performance so long > as only compliant returns are presented for > periods beginning on or after 1 January 2000 > (I.5.A.3) > (Level III Volume 6 Portfolio: Execution, > Evaluation and Attribution, and Global Investment > Performance Standards , 4th Edition. Pearson > Learning Solutions 318). > Hey guys…sorry but I am confused…pg 334 of CFAI Book 6 for wrap fees/SMAs states that “for periods beginning on or after 1 January 2006, firms must not link no-GIPS compliant performance to their GIPS-compliant wrap fee/SMA performance” Doesn’t this mean that we cannot link non-compliant performances for wrap fees/SMAs prior to 2006 with compliant performance for wrap fees/SMAs after 2006? If so, doesn’t C qualify as an answer too?