Eight hours of GIPS today

2010CFACFA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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? You can NOT include non-complaint performance for SMA portfolio/composites on or after 1/1/2006. But before that period you can AS LONG AS you DISCLOSE it; its not prohibited.

The complete GIPS 8.A.7. 8.A.7 FIRMS MUST NOT LINK non-GIPS-compliant performance for periods beginning on or after 1 January 2006 to their GIPS-compliant performance. FIRMS may LINK non-GIPS-compliant performance to their GIPS-compliant performance provided that only GIPS-compliant performance is presented for periods beginning on or after 1 January 2006. ------------------------- I think the LINK here is more like linking within COMPOSITE instead of linking over time.

That must be a Schweser question.