Goes back to the office and does a full investigation into the portfolio managers. Did he violate anything? I put loyalty to employers since he had no reason to be investigating them. I think youre only supposed to violate loyalty to empoyers if you catch them doing anythign illegal.
I put no violation. He’s doing his job. Don’t tell me I’m wrong again man.
I put no because it said did his “intended” action violate anything - he had the right intentions
i put no violation
it used very strong wording. it said he was gona go back do a full investigation, etc. so it seemeed lke he had no reason to be going behind his employers back like this
with bannis and topher on this… although i can’t remember exactly what i put 
ha looks like im wrong…what about the first Q…where they asked what was wrong about how the company conducted its standards sor something like that. it was A) no violation B) not sure C) violate becuase of the way they deciminate info (website, password protected, employees only) I put C
all goes back to the boss saying stay the %^&$ away from them cause they are growing the bus. NO violation
I put no violation. He’s doing his job. It would be a violation if he didn’t implement procedures to prevent any potential violations by the Port Mgrs. He is their supervisor. If anything, his employer’s request to leave the Port Mgrs be is a violation in itself.
i put no violation… he might have violated his supervisor’s trust, but not the COMPANY, who is his employer
Plus the dude was “semi-retired”
Isn’t that a violation of Responsibilty of Supervisors? The “semi-retired” founding partner says to stay away from anybody increasing firm assets to the new CFA manager…?
yeah it was definitely violation of responsibility of supervisors. You can’t say ignore whats happening if they are making money… thats like textbook bad supervisory policy
^ that was a different q, right? that was maybe the 1st q? i put that answer i think. also put prop risk arb.
bannisja Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^ that was a different q, right? that was maybe > the 1st q? i put that answer i think. > > also put prop risk arb. the prop risk arb wasa diff q. what did ppl put for that? it was the last Q in ethics AM i think. after a firm goes on watch list compliance dept does some things and Q says what sohuld they suspend A) dont remember B) risk arb C) personal trading
He didn’t do anything wrong, he went to his supervisor and “Suggested” that they begin an investigation
CFA.Rhythm Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn’t that a violation of Responsibilty of > Supervisors? The “semi-retired” founding partner > says to stay away from anybody increasing firm > assets to the new CFA manager…? Gonna sound like a dumbass here, but is responsibility to supervisors even a standard? There is duty to employer… which under cfai standards (which was the question) he did not violate. This is a duty of someone who is a supervisor to make sure no shenanigans goes on. So by checking up on his subordinates, he was actually filling his CFAI standard duty to employer…
CFAdreams Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFA.Rhythm Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Isn’t that a violation of Responsibilty of > > Supervisors? The “semi-retired” founding > partner > > says to stay away from anybody increasing firm > > assets to the new CFA manager…? > > > Gonna sound like a dumbass here, but is > responsibility to supervisors even a standard? > > There is duty to employer… which under cfai > standards (which was the question) he did not > violate. This is a duty of someone who is a > supervisor to make sure no shenanigans goes on. > So by checking up on his subordinates, he was > actually filling his CFAI standard duty to > employer… Yes it’s a standard.
CFADreams, you’re right. There is a duty OF supervisors, but no duty TO supervisors. I think the answer was no violation.
no violation, what can the poor guy do except going back to the office and request immediate change on the policy