Exam 3 PM ethics (Q10)

Q10.4, the case about Olson and Han Chemical. (p.158, Vol 1) I said B but it should be D. I don’t quite understand this. Olson has explained her reason behind “low risk” and her supervisor has accepted it. Is it not alright? I think an analyst can always have different opinion, so long as he’s got his own reasonable basis. Also, for Q10.6, Hundt is from research department but is taking up compliance officer’s role as well. I thought this is a violation? (ie if what he doing is taken up by a separate compliance office it will be no violation) Thoughts? - sticky

Is this in regards to the Asset Manager Code? If not, then there’s no violation if Hundt is both in the research department and in the compliance officer’s role. I do believe, however, that AMC states that the compliance officer should be a separate position altogether and report directly to the CEO?