is it a violation

  1. for a L3er to say “i will be a CFA soon” ? 2. to provide free consultation service on 401K investment to community without telling employer? 3. to claim in a job interview that “i can carry at least 60% of my current clients over”? 4. to have only a generic firm-wide compliance procedure instead of product-by-product, or department-by-department? 5. to accept a client who doesn’t reveal details of his source of income? 6. to tell client that “we wont let a person without a CFA to manage your money”?
  1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. No 5. Yes 6. Yes how did i do? #5 is tricky because its kinda against AML.

can you elaborate a bit? i am fuzzy on all of them that i collected. i dont have answers to be honest. i’ve seen these mentioned in various tests, but not in question set. for example, the #3 is from sample test 3

NO NO YES YES NO NO Sooo? :smiley:

1 - you cant say a CFA 2 - it is a disclose of conflicts not additional compensation 3 - misrepresentation 4 - compliance procedures can be firmwide (for instance if you adopt Ethics as your compliance procedure) 5 - tricky, against money laundry for sure, dunno if it applies to AMC 6 - again a CFA

so CSK you agree with me?

#3 is tricky, but judging by Sample #3 and CFAI explanation that “You are not liable as long as you dont make any promises” - it is a violation

Same as you willy except I said no to #2. Why would that be a conflict of interest CSK??

b/c you could be interferring with regular work or may be taking away clients from company.

it depends on what you are currently doing i guess. if you are managing assets, and you decided to provide free consultation, i think it requires a disclosures as you are providing same services as you are providing to current employer…

#3 is tricky like CSK said. If in fact, you can take 60% of your previous client, given you solicit them using only public record (or from memory) after you have left your previous employer. I say that is perfectly OK.

But you can’t guarantee, that your taking 60% of clients with you… You can probably say that I have a feeling that a good amount of my clients will most likely leave when I leave, but you can’t say 60% of my clients are guaranteed to come over.

comp_sci_kid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1 - you cant say a CFA (what if i drop “a”) > 2 - it is a disclose of conflicts not additional > compensation (agree) > 3 - misrepresentation (what he’s telling the truth) > 4 - compliance procedures can be firmwide (for > instance if you adopt Ethics as your compliance > procedure) (well, in sample 3, compliance procedure for non-tax-advantaged investment can not apply to tax-advantaged investment) > 5 - tricky, against money laundry for sure, dunno > if it applies to AMC (dont know either) > 6 - again a CFA (what if i drop “a”)

^agree. We don’t want to play with words here. “Claim” is not guarantee in my book. I don’t think the original statement says anything about guaranteeing.

You’re using CFA as a noun each time, which it can’t be. You can say that our PM that will be managing your account is a CFA charterholder. Or you can say I’m enrolled in the CFA program. Or I’m a CFA candidate.

ws Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^agree. We don’t want to play with words here. > “Claim” is not guarantee in my book. I don’t > think the original statement says anything about > guaranteeing. hmm you got a point but what if he wont?

So for #2, I implicitly assumed the guy would be doing it on his own time. So on that assumption, is it a violation??

i dont know BB, i might be wrong, it might not be in violation :frowning:

5 is no. it was a question somewhere (Schweser practice test I think).

comp_sci_kid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ws Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ^agree. We don’t want to play with words here. > > > “Claim” is not guarantee in my book. I don’t > > think the original statement says anything > about > > guaranteeing. > > > hmm you got a point but what if he wont? If he is not guaranteeing that he will bring over 60% of his client, I don’t see anything wrong with that statement (given he solicit those client after his termination of previous employer and he didn’t use any client-list to call them)