Listen, the CFAI lives in its own little fairy tail land. On Sat, blow some smoke up their ass that yes, you will disclose a bankruptcy to every employer with or without question. The ONLY time bankruptcy has come up for employment in my experience is with registered rep’s/brokers who need sponsorship for the Series 7/63 exams. FINRA has clamped down on those they want working in financial services. For example, filling out a U4 has the following questions. Misdemeanors - Almost 80% of incoming employees had a minor consumption/DWI/Open Bottle, etc. from the good ol University years. Financial Service Incidents - Charges, allegations, investigations, complaints etc. will need to go on the U4. Bankruptcies/Public Liens - If you have tax issues or a bankruptcy, FINRA needs to know. Felonies - In most cases, one cannot get a Series 7 License if they are a convicted felon. This is the short and sweet, but perhaps CFAI is branching off the qualifications needed and required by FINRA for licensing. I know this because at the firm I worked at in operations involved a lot of compliance assistance.
How did you find that out? I’ve seen someone else make reference to the mock answers. I did Mock1 today, where do I find explainations to the answers? Thanks
At the end of the exam, there’s a link to a pdf file that has all the explanations. I’m sure you can access it. If not, I don’t mind e-mailing it to you.
No, I found it - excellent. Thanks anyways though bpdulog. Guess I’ll spend the remainder of the evening reading this haha.
f2d Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so would you have to report the fact you’re going > thru a divorce too? That’s also a huge > distraction. > > You’d have practically report everything in your > life then. don’t you confess all your sins to your priest?
Well, I also said it wasn’t a violation. It really IS a huge leap of faith. If it truly isn’t a mistake then the only way I see it as a violation is if he engages in some sort of high risk/high return activity against the client/employer to benefit himself financially. God I hope ethics is nice to us on saturday
Hmm… I recall something about how you are not supposed to be knowingly breaking any laws. That would suggest that using controlled substances would be a violation, even if it wasn’t with any clients or on work hours. Presumably it reflects badly on the profession too. I would think drunk driving and murder fall into that category too. It’s definitely a violation if you are murdering the client… or your employer…
Yeah… I think they should keep questions realistic… If you’re murdering someone, I don’t think you really give a damn if you’re going to lose the CFA Designation.
Just to add a bit more to that bankruptcy question, if the bankruptcy was a result of an act or fraud or deceit, then it would be considered a violation.
yeah, it’s not an ethics violation to be incompetant, just don’t be corrupt.
Example Watson’s excessive drinking is unfortunate but we have no evidence that it has impacted his work, professional integrity, judgment, or reputation. His arrest for public intoxication occurred while he was away from work. If he is convicted of a felony or of a crime involving fraud or dishonesty he would be subject to sanctions
bump
Chicago_Bull Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Crandall Temasek, CFA, filed for personal > bankruptcy two years ago after incurring large > medical expenses. He was hired recently as a > portfolio manager. According to the CFA Institute > Standards, must Temasek disclose his bankruptcy > filing to his new employer? > > A) No > B) Yes, because he has a duty of loyalty to his > employer. > C) Yes, because bankruptcy represents a potential > conflict of interest. > D) Yes, because bankruptcy reflects poorly on his > conduct and character. > > The answer explanation that came with it: > > C, Standard VI(A) Disclosure of Conflicts. The > bankruptcy may impair Temasek’s independence or > conflict with the employer’s interests. > (This is B*llSh!+) > > > Members who are involved in a personal bankruptcy > filing are not automatically assumed to be in > violation of the standards because bankruptcy may > not reflect poorly on the > integrity or trustworthiness of the person > involved. I think the mentality behind this is that, if your in debt you will be more likely to promote the securities/services/investing styles…etc, that will give you the highest return. Hence, according to CFA if you owe money, your more likely to be unethical. So cut up your credit cards or you may be in a potential ethical violation.
Bump, great thread.
That bankruptcy question is total bull****. I’ll be mad as hell if I get one of those wrong because I was *gasp* following what it says in the book!
Following the book doesn’t always help because there aren’t examples of every possible situation. Most of the time it’s judgement call, and well, my judgement isn’t always the same as the CFAI.