I got question 6 wrong concerning the part-time consulting position. I was on the fence about this. But the person agrees to do consulting work that 1) will not interfere with his regular work (3 hours on Monday and Wednesday) and is for someone his company doesn’t do business with. Wasn’t there a question where a covered person doesn’t have to disclose that they moonlight as a waitress during off-hours. Is this really different as the consulting work like being a waitress has no conflict of interest with the person’s regular job. BTW CFAI loves to questions where there is NO violation at all. So you can’t just say “be conservative and say its a violation.”
agree with you and got that one wrong as well. and i also thought of the waitress question and said it wasnt a violation. maybe because consulting is finance related, where obviously waitressing isnt?
yeah, it’s because consulting is finance related… the ethics one i got wrong was probably the dumbest one to get wrong… about not being able to use a valuation technique once he leaves the firm? wasn’t happy about that.
agreed, I got this one right as I remembered the waitress 
So if the 2nd job doesn’t interfere and there’s no conflict of interest it is still in violation if its not approved as its finance related. Wow.
yep. have to get permission. i actually got the waitress question wrong… i thought, because of loyalty to your employers, even if it’s not finance related, you would have to get permission. what if someone works as a bartender all night and is dead tired when she gets to her job as an analyst in the morning? well, at least i know what the answer should be going forward.
Don’t you always need to get consent from your employer if your taking up a 2nd job/part time job, no matter what type of job it is? The answer was he’s in violation because he didnt get consent from employer.
yeah its frustrating, i got the waitress one wrong cause of loyalty/hangover, then i got the consultant one wrong cause i thought “if the waitress wasnt violating because it was only a few hours on the weekends, then this guy isnt violating because its 3 hours a week late nights” oh well, 0-2…
.
i forget where the waitress question came from, schweser or cfai, but it was ok to take a waitress job, because it wasn’t related to finance or in competition.
so here is the rule i think… you can have an outside job and NOT get permission if… 1) its not that many hours (i.e. not 20+ hours a week) 2) it doesnt interfere with work hours 3) it is NOT finance/business related (i.e. consulting isnt allowed) unless it meets all 3, u need permission
but if it affects your work, its not ok. So if you work late nights you might not be able to give 100% to your employer. Basically, If I in doubt i go with the institute ie most restrictive.
pvt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but if it affects your work, its not ok. So if you > work late nights you might not be able to give > 100% to your employer. > Basically, If I in doubt i go with the institute > ie most restrictive. That’s dangerous. Like I said CFAI loves “not a violation” questions.
pvt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but if it affects your work, its not ok. So if you > work late nights you might not be able to give > 100% to your employer. > Basically, If I in doubt i go with the institute > ie most restrictive. there was one practice question where the analyst was a waitress only fri and sat nights, late nights, and that was NOT a violation… i guess cause its the weekends… but i know if i have a rough fri/sat night im not always 100% on monday
it has to do with whether or not you are giving advice as an analyst, compensation is only part of it… the waitress one: she’s not giving advice, unless it’s on the blue plate special. there was another one (can’t recall if it’s STalla or Schweser) where the person agreed to do some consulting for the board of the local symphony or opera and was paid in tickets (but didn’t disclose)…because s/he is giving advice and receiving compensation (tickets count) s/he has to get permission in mock #1, he’s giving advice, he has to have permission b4 accepting