Ethics misconduct

Timothy Hooper, CFA, is a security analyst at an investment firm. In his spare time, Hooper serves as a volunteer for City Pride, which collects clothes for the homeless. Hooper has occasionally given some of the clothes to his friends or sold the clothes instead of returning all of the clothing to City Pride. City Pride discovers what he has been doing and dismisses him. Later, City Pride learns that other volunteer organizations have dismissed Hooper for similar actions. Has Hooper violated Standard I(D) on professional misconduct A) No, because Hooper’s conduct is unrelated to his professional activities as a security analyst. B) No, because Hooper volunteers his services to City Pride. C) Yes. Your answer: A was incorrect. The correct answer was C) Yes. Hooper violated Standard I(D) because he repeatedly engaged in conduct that involves dishonest conduct. This violation occurred despite the fact that his offenses do not relate directly to his professional activities. However, Hooper’s conduct reflects poorly on his professional reputation and integrity. Why REPEATEDLY engaged in these activities is a violation although it is unrelated with professional activities?? I didn’t remember reading this exception in the book…

Volunteer work is still work. It’s considered a professional activity. If you’re doing things with an association/group/hobby, that is not considered work and it doesn’t follow the same rules. Just because you’re not getting paid does not mean it is not work, remember that.

i don’t think the problem is he REPEATEDLY did those things. even if he did this once, he would’ve violated misconduct standard. the problem is that he was dishonest.


double dupe. He is dishonest and his actions reflect poorly on the entire investment profession.

lol what is dupe

what if instead of being dishonest he’d, say, get into fights with some hobos and get arrested for that. Would that be considered Misconduct?

pg 36 example 3…cfa book

There you go, even in Pg 36 the dishonest, fraudulent conduct that reflects poorly on the entire profession was only committed once, still a violation.