An analyst prepares a report on stock ABC. In this report he includes a stock chart from a Standards and Poors, a well known financial information service provider. He does not acknowledge the source of this info. Is this a violation? I think it is… anyone else? reasons?
Nope that’s not a form of Plagiarism!! gimme a sec I’ll paste you the references… - Dinesh S
i don’t think it is either because it’s a well known source of information
it’s not. If the analyst is using info from known sources the info is considered market info, and there is no need to acknowledge the source. Or if the info is factual and well-known. For example, you want to include a little blurb in your report on what std. dev is. You can open up wikipedia and get the gist from there. You don’t need to mention wikipedia in the report, since std dev is well-known factual information. stock prices are considered market info as well, and you don’t need to state the source there either. If there is no value added (i.e. the info is not construed/interpreted in any way) then it’s market and it doesn’t matter where you got it from edit: I guess a good way to look at this is whether someone can claim ownership of the info/analysis. that’s the rule of thumb I generally use. Here S&P cannot monopolize the use of this info since they don’t own it, so no need to cite them as a reference I guess that’s a bit of an abstract tangent and I’m rambling at this point, but does it make sense?
Answer this Bluey 1.8T, and the concept will be hardwired… Lisa Taylor, CFA, a research analyst for a large investment counseling firm, was in a panic. She had recently been preparing a research report on Seatainer Corporation. Although she had completed much of her analysis, she had intended to complete the work that day. However, that morning she left many of her notes and working papers for Seatainer on the subway. The lost material included her notes from management interviews, conversations with suppliers and competitors, dates of company visits and a computer diskette containing much of her quantitative analysis. Realizing that her supervisor needed her report for an important meeting in two days, Taylor called Seatainer’s vice president of finance and obtained the financial projections of Seatainer’s management. Taylor remembered that her earlier analysis showed that the management estimates were too high. She did not remember the size of the adjustment needed, but she revised the management estimates downward slightly. She also incorporated some charts and graphs on Seatainer from a research report by a brokerage firm and used some information from a Standard & Poor’s reference work. She then incorporated the new quantitative material into the report, finished the text, and turned in the report. Later, Taylor became concerned that she may have violated the Standards of Professional Conduct. Answer the following question with regard to possible violations of the Standards. a. No, there was no violation since the material was not considered material to the recommendation. b. No, the material was derived from a recognized financial reporting service and therefore does not have to be acknowledged. c. Yes, a violation occurred if Taylor did not acknowledge Standard & Poor’s Corporation as the source of the material. d. Yes, permission should have been obtained from Standard & Poor’s Corporation before using the material. - Dinesh S
or answer e) she did not violate the standards by not disclosing that the material was derived from a recognized financial reporting service, but did violate the standards by failing to acknowledge the value-added contributions of the brokerage firm
sorry this is off topic lola are you taking the Stalla mock exam?
thanks everyone for the quick responses, but i’d argue otherwise… using lola’s reasoning… if it was stock PRICES that he was using, then theres no need to reference, since they are well-known publically availanle information… BUT, the analyst is using a stock CHART, which is a value-added source of information that was made by S&P… so, while S&P cant claim ownership on the stock price information, they DO claim ownership on the chart itself (layout of the chart, colours, etc)… thats why i think its a violation to not acknowledge the chart, otherwise, isn’t he misrepresenting the fact that he made the chart, when he didn’t? How your answers change if the chart was NOT from a well-known source? OR, if the analyst used stock PRICES from a not-well-known source??
hmm also, with Dinesh’s question… what about the fact that “her earlier analysis showed that the management estimates were too high. She did not remember the size of the adjustment needed, but she revised the management estimates downward slightly” For one, her adjustments are based on her previous analysis, for which she no longer has the records for. Is this a violation or record-keeping? Also, by arbitrarily revising the estimates, without knowing/remembering the actual size of the adjustment needed, is this a violation of diligence?
florinpop, no I’m not. Are you? you’re in TO, right?
Bluey 1.8T Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hmm also, with Dinesh’s question… > > what about the fact that “her earlier analysis > showed that the management estimates were too > high. She did not remember the size of the > adjustment needed, but she revised the management > estimates downward slightly” > > For one, her adjustments are based on her previous > analysis, for which she no longer has the records > for. Is this a violation or record-keeping? > Also, by arbitrarily revising the estimates, > without knowing/remembering the actual size of the > adjustment needed, is this a violation of > diligence? I think you can claim violation of a bunch of standards, but the question makes no reference to those. It’s only asking about plagiarism and that’s what you should be sticking to. regarding your other post, judging from what I’ve seen so far, value added work trumps how well-known a company is. When we start defining what constitutes a ‘well-known publication’, the whole argument becomes a bit arbitrary, and I don’t think this sort of fine distinction will be of paramount significance on the exam, unless the definition is completely devoid of any ambiguity. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I’m sticking to: if the info is value added, it should be referenced, if it’s not, then it shouldn’t be.
Thank lola… so, would you constitute a stock chart as being value-added? The main reason i argue this point is because of my job as a data analyst, i realise how much work goes into preparing charts/graphs of different types, and wouldn’t be happy if someone used it without acknowledgement… =)
LOL, Bluey I know, I’m the same way. I wouldn’t be too happy if someone plagiarized my value-added charts either ;)) Again, I haven’t seen the original question, but it depends on the charts really. It could be that the analyst used for example only charts tracking the historical performance of a stock, in which case no citation is required. Like I said, I don’t think that would be an issue on the exam, I’m sure they’ll be explicit as to what info was used.
Yes I am in Toronto actually Thornhill I’m not doing it it’s way too expensive for me
well dinesh, whats the answer to the above…to me no one option seems good. How does the option address to this issue…“She also incorporated some charts and graphs on Seatainer from a research report by a brokerage firm and …” Is this not plagiarism?
Answer to my question is B, reema Choice “b” is correct. There was no violation, as the material was derived from a recognized financial reporting service and therefore does not have to be acknowledged. Choice “a” is incorrect. The reason there was no violation was not due to the nature of the information. Choice “c” is incorrect. One does not need to acknowledge use of Standard & Poors’ information, whether the information is material or not. Choice “d” is incorrect. One does not need to obtain permission for standard & Poors information, whether the information is material or not.
Probably a dumb question - but I just don’t get it >She also incorporated some charts and graphs on Seatainer from a research report by a >brokerage firm and used some information from a Standard & Poor’s reference work So they imply that brokerage firm is S&P? How do we know if it’s not another entity?
Dinesh, this is a good question, and I know I’ve seen it somewhere else. No, she did not violate the Standards in regard to using Standards and Poor’s reverence work. However, she clearly violated SOPC by: a. “incorporated some charts and graphs on Seatainer from a research report by a brokerage firm” - that’s plagarism b. She did not remember the size of the adjustment needed, but she revised the management estimates downward slightly - misconduct, not actually computing the changes. c. furthermore, Taylor called Seatainer’s vice president of finance and obtained the financial projections…it is in the vice presiden’t best interest to make the company appear as strong as possible, it is her responsibility to confirm these numbers, not just accept them as the truth, and that is a misrepresentation