- Alan George completed both the CFA Examination Program and his Bachelor’s degree when he was 22 years old. Last Friday night on the Interstate, as Alan approached his exit, a red car cut in front of him and caused him to brake so hard that his tires screeched. Before he knew why, Alan sped up and got within a foot of the red car, honking his horn and yelling out the window. At the stop light, both drivers got out of their cars and argued vehemently. Alan’s conduct: A. violates Standard II(B)-Professional Misconduct. B. because Alan is not yet a CFA charterholder, he need not comply with Standard II(B). C. does not violate Standards II(B) because the conduct, in the end, is inconsequential. D. does not violate Standard II(B) because the conduct does not relate to Alan’s professional activities. Answer: A (D) Incorrect LOS: Study Session 1-3-b Standard II(B.2) prohibits a member from engaging in any conduct or commit any act that compromises the integrity of the CFA designation, whether or not the offense relates to the member’s professional activities. Any act, no matter how inconsequential, that indicates a disrespect for the law may also fall within the scope of Standard II(B). Reference: Standards of Practice Handbook, 8th ed., p. 25. I don’t get it. This isn’t even a misdemeanor and has nothing to do with his job or anything at all.
didn’t you know? in order to receive your CFA Charter you need to become a Zen Master… you can never again have an argument with anyone…in fact you may be restricted from killing house flies as well.
Yeah, ethics is really getting annoying! Actually misconduct is I(D), not II(B). In their decription of misconduct, CFAI concludes with this: (could anyone interpret?): Individuals may attempt to abuse the CFA Institute Professional Conduct Program by actively seeking CFA Institute enforcement of the Code and Standards, and Standard I(D) in particular, as a method to settle personal, political, or other disputes unrelated to professional ethics. CFA Institute is aware of this issue, and appropriate disciplinary policies, procedures, and enforcement mechanisms are in place to address misuse of the Code and Standards and the Professional Conduct Program in this way.
"You know what MR.X, CFA charterholder/member of the institute? We know and understand you might have something personally against MR. Y, but unless he truly breached the code and standards, you will be held accountable for ratting on people you dislike!” Plus, if you are a CFA candidate, and you witness me, having a vehement argument, honking an yielling with/to some other driver, eventually one that endangered mine and my car occupants lives, you can rat on me to CFAI, and I will be punished! A-MEN!
Are you sure about this? I had understood that one of the changes in the latest edition of the SOPH was that the Misconduct guidelines now only apply to your professional activities. In fact, I’m even pretty sure that’s what the Scweser video on Ethics said. Where did you see this question? I think it’s important to have this cleared up…
map1, but of course anyone (non CFAI people) can rat on you (the CFAI member) to CFAI, and so, how does CFAI manage that? They are saying disciplinary policies will be in place, etc. They are going to discipline non CFAI people? That’ll be fun.
Yeah i tried being OVERZEALOUS on this thing and declared a “fight on the rugby field” as professional misconduct. But Schweser considers sporting activities to NOT be related to Professional activities… hence its NOT a violation of the standards And so is a single arrest on misdemeanor charges for possession of illegal narcotics… So its pretty much cool that way… the question in the first post did disturb me though
Page 35: Although CFA Institute discourages any sort of unethical behavior by members and candidates, the Code and Standards are aimed at conduct related to a member or candidate’s professional life. Any act that involves lying, cheating, stealing, or other dishonest conduct that reflects adversely on a member or candidate’s professional activities, would violate this standard.
My original post was from BSAS in 2005. It must have been revised since.