Nancy Hall, a candidate in the CFA program, is an analyst for a mutual fund. As part of her job she makes company visits to interview executives. On a recent trip she stayed with her sister instead of at a hotel. In her expenses Hall included a hotel charge of $100, which was less than the amount allowed by her employer. After receiving a check for her expenses, Hall disclosed to her supervisor that she had stayed with her sister instead of at a hotel. She also returned the $100 to her employer. According to CFA Institute Standards of Professional Conduct, which of the following statements best describes Hall’s professional conduct? A) Hall did not engage in professional misconduct because she did not meet all of the requirements to use the CFA designation. B) Hall did not engage in professional misconduct because she eventually disclosed this information and returned the $100 to her employer. C) Hall did not engage in professional misconduct because the amount that she submitted for the hotel was less than that allowed by her employer. D) Hall engaged in professional misconduct.
d. doesnt matter if she returned she reflected badly
D
this is tricky though, cause depends what your company policy is. I previously worked for a firm that allowed you to charge a certain amount to expenses if you stayed with friends/relatives instead, cause overall it was cheaper to them than a hotel. So I would have said C, but I expect the answer is D.
Is is best to just be the most conservative with ethics questions?..like the question above…seems ok since she might have let the expense slip through but realize it later and she did refund it and tell her mgr…but the fact that is went through is where she violated??.. so i guess being as conservative as possible on ethics questions is the way to go??
My take is that she completed the claim after the fact so at the time the claim was submitted she knew that she did not go to the hotel and as such was lying. This meets my understanding of professional misconduct. The fact that she later returned the money and admitted guilt is good, it might help her keep her job, but the fact remains - she still is guilty of professional misconduct.
any element of dishonest is professional misconduct, D should be the answer
B
D. would love to say otherwise but i imagine its D.
Obviously D. Nowhere in CFA Ethics does it say stating “mia culpa” absolves one from professional misconduct.
BUMP and +1 for aussie_jaco’s explanation, to the tee. aussie_jaco Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My take is that she completed the claim after the > fact so at the time the claim was submitted she > knew that she did not go to the hotel and as such > was lying. This meets my understanding of > professional misconduct. > > The fact that she later returned the money and > admitted guilt is good, it might help her keep her > job, but the fact remains - she still is guilty of > professional misconduct.