An analyst for a foreign branch of hb investments, which is based in Lagos, has just issue a recommendation on an IPO. Unknown to the analyst, who is a CFA charterholder, members of her team manipulated the valuation model to increase the newly public company’s stock price. She and all of the analyst on the team purchased shares of the oversubscribed IPO for their personal accounts and then purchased the remainder of the firm’s allocation of shares for appropriate clients accounts, a practice which is permitted by local securities laws. The analyst A. did not violate the Standard I(A) Knowledge of the Law B. Violated Standard I (A) knowledge of the Law by purchasing the shares of the IPO but not by allowing the report to be published I went for A, and answer is B. In my opinion, the analyst violated Priority of Transaction, not Knowledge of Law. Please provide your opinions. Thank you!
Sure, they violated priority of transactions but they also violated knowledge of the law. The law in that country, since it was less strict than CFAI means that the law they should abide by is CFAI. Since they ignored CFAI standards they violated knowledge of the law.
That makes sense. Thanks!
Yea I had a question about a similar situation last night. After looking closely at Standard I(A), anytime someone violates any professional law or CFAI Standard, they techinically also violate Standard I(A).