It’s likely I missed something, but after reading the questions a few times I wanted to ask the group.
Both cases a PM managed a large-cap equity fund that was historically large value and change to large growth. In one case the PM decided to change from value to growth, in another, it was because a new manager took over the fund and wanted to manage it as large growth.
PM Mock 2 Q8 - says “while the fund’s mandate hasn’t changed, its style has”
PM Mock 3 Q12 - says “There is no indication that Fellaini intends to change the style of the fund, so there is no reason that CIA needed to mention that his style differs from his predecessor.”
The supporting rationale seems to contradict each other. Any help is appreciated!
I hate to split hairs on this, but Ethics can make or break you if you’re on the edge of passing so I want to get this straight.