guilleku1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Analyst should have disclosed Inv. Banking > relationship in presentation? i think yes
These Research Objectivity questions are weird. It gave me a shock at 9am+ Chosen delay and personal trading too. Chose delay because the other 2 doesn’t seem right. Chose personal trading because I didn’t remember anything related to prop trading on the Research Objectivity Standard.
Was it a violation that he used valuation techniques he had learned in his previous employers? I said no because they were not proprietary models, just generic valuation techniques. It was worded quite vaguely however. Anybody else feel like this could as easily be a 2/6 vignette for them as a 5/6?
Carson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was it a violation that he used valuation > techniques he had learned in his previous > employers? I said no because they were not > proprietary models, just generic valuation > techniques. > > It was worded quite vaguely however. > > Anybody else feel like this could as easily be a > 2/6 vignette for them as a 5/6? i feel that too. but i dont remember about valuation techniques ??? you must have had a different paper to me.
Valuation technique was correct 100% sure she can use info
woah woah i’m worried now … i swear i dont remember a question about valuation techniques and previous employer ? guilleku, you’re in london too right? does this mean that even in london we had different papers ?
for #6161 takers, there were quite different ethic questions. 1) Can forward an analyst report to IB division with factual info only? 2) Is analyst report compliance with the Standard? The report includes the company mark to market but never exceeded 1%. A. Yes
Yes I was in london… I think that there were definitely different papers for other regions there were some questions I have seen here that were not in London exam. I got 5050/5151 model… There could be diff arranged questions in each location to avoid cheating
delay publishing and the other answer i got is fairness in dealing, it said it reallocated base on manager’s asset value to firm. but say if there was a high risk IPO and if a manager manages a huge retirement fund, then he should not be allocated a huge share of the IPO because they are not suitable for his client. Therefore If i was a small time investor with a big portfolio manager, i will have more chance of getting those IPOs because they are not suitable for his other clients… This doesn’t make sense to me. Therefore i choose fair dealing, they are not dealt fairly depending on who their manager is. I don’t remember the other questions.
#5151, choose: he should send the revised report out. a total guess… 
I feel you cannot delay publishing… you cannot act on a material non public information and delay a report based on sound fundamentals… If you delay you do the whole analysis again… so it has to be file the report as it is… Delaying expected report gives wrong signals and that is already an action based on non public info… so if you can justify delaying, you can justify changing as well…
delaying means you have more information than the public so you don’t want to act on it, seems reasonable…
tsttse Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > delaying means you have more information than the > public so you don’t want to act on it, seems > reasonable… But for the particular question, MNPI isn’t an issue. The analyst was most likely acting on MNPI which the supervisor suspected as well. But the analyst hasn’t admitted that to the supervisor and revised his report on the basis that he has relooked at some information. So from the analyst’s perspective, shouldn’t he publish the report and document the difference of opinion. It is the supervisor’s job to stop it on the basis that she feels that the analyst is acting on MNPI. The analyst is clearly in violation of MNPI but that shouldn’t stop him from following the other standard which states that the analyst should publish the report immediately and document the difference of opinion.
financial_novice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I feel you cannot delay publishing… you cannot > act on a material non public information and delay > a report based on sound fundamentals… If you > delay you do the whole analysis again… so it > has to be file the report as it is… Delaying > expected report gives wrong signals and that is > already an action based on non public info… so if > you can justify delaying, you can justify changing > as well… But it was the original report that was based on sound fundamentals. Then he changed it on account of overhearing the bid spec. Thus is is an insider. I don’t see how an insider can publish a research report on a company without at least disclosing the conflict in the report. If he published immediately there would be no disclosure that he is in possession of material nonpublic information which is wrong.
i thoguht there was a disclosure that the author holds shares of the said company…
Yes. But there is no disclosure that he is an insider which is a much bigger conflict of interest.
This question was discussed in detail. So far, the intelligent people have said delayed.