Bill.S.Preston,Esq Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They better not grade that ethics question > incorrect because it didn’t have the trademark > symbol after CFA. That would be pretty low if > they did. com’on man, you care enough about the Esq to put it in your handle, why should they be denied their ® glory? 
Disclosing the information would be criminal (not joking), internal projected earnings are secret information, specially regarding competition. Ponpon
btw, i don’t buy the ® argument. ® is only used by the copyright owner to assert their right. the general population is not expected to remember all the copyrighted terms in existence. otherwise everytime you write this sentence you’d have to say: “IBM ® makes Tivoli ® software and is listed on NYSE ®.”
CFAI is on my sh*t list right now after Saturday - guess I’m holding a grudge then…Im no JD either…Haven’t you ever seen Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure??? Funny thing with the ethics session is we can debate all day long as to what the correct answer was not be any closer to reaching a consensus…Have to love the objectivity of these types of questions…I know I do
what does Esq stand for ?
rohufish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > btw, i don’t buy the ® argument. > > ® is only used by the copyright owner to assert > their right. the general population is not > expected to remember all the copyrighted terms in > existence. > > otherwise everytime you write this sentence you’d > have to say: > > “IBM ® makes Tivoli ® software and is listed > on NYSE ®.” I 100% agree and choose the answer that both statements were correct, but all the time in the back of my head I was thinking do they expect the ® to be included. We know for a fact that is the presentation statement excludes the ®, it is incorrect. But I agree (and hope) that the missing ®’s wasn’t one of CFAI’s way of being cute.
rohufish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > btw, i don’t buy the ® argument. > > ® is only used by the copyright owner to assert > their right. the general population is not > expected to remember all the copyrighted terms in > existence. > > otherwise everytime you write this sentence you’d > have to say: > > “IBM ® makes Tivoli ® software and is listed > on NYSE ®.” I only remember the ® being required for the GIPS compliance statement. Never seen if for a CFA claim & 99% sure it’s not required.
What about the one with the broker with research reports that couldn’t be distributed…??
I said violation becuase you have to be able to show your clients research and recomendations that you may be trading on in their account Anyone else?
i believe i said a voilation based on reasonable basis (or was that another question)
Marketing Material. Are you allowed to advertise in marketing? I don’t think so?
what is the material interest you guys are talking about? I thought you always treat family member accounts fairly just like other clients.
Bill.S.Preston,Esq Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I said violation becuase you have to be able to > show your clients research and recomendations that > you may be trading on in their account > > Anyone else? no i think it said you have to show them first, if you had to do that you’d never get a trade done before its too late
I agree with Etienne’s answers and confidence levels, except I am nearly 100% confident where he is 90% confident.
WHat about oversubscribed IPO’s: Just give it to your “normal” clients or spread pro rata amongst all similar discretionary accounts. I chose the latter.
thetank Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bill.S.Preston,Esq Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I said violation becuase you have to be able to > > show your clients research and recomendations > that > > you may be trading on in their account > > > > Anyone else? > > > no i think it said you have to show them first, if > you had to do that you’d never get a trade done > before its too late agreed, no need to show research to clients for which you have discretionary authority. if they ask for it, sure, but not required before trading.
Decision ‘not to fire’ because it was politically incorrect was violation?
Reasonable basis.
My opinions after “–>” MOPAHT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My biggest fear in PM is ethics… > > could you guys comment my answers? > > Duty to all beneficiary --> Agree > wife treat as regular (IPO) --> Agree > Correction method is OK, but give back %% not --> Correct, should credit interest, clients should not bear financial loss for errors by firm (see one of the Ethics case) > %% from debtor - not correct --> Don’t remember > CFA both incorrect because not used ® sign (not > sure about it --> Don’t remember > we should not fire but reduce assets (as far as i > see - should fire…) --> Should terminate relationship for not following IPS, inappropriate trade allocation, letting clients shoulder financial loss for their errors, reviewing the IPS a month or more after a trade, manager need to preview IPS for suitability prior to trade > we should review quaterly from random employees --> Disagree, the question asked most consistent with CFA standards, employees should not front-run client trades > move trades to broker - is OK --> Agree > when receive non public - keep confidential and > dont use --> Should terminate relationship, need to uphold the integrity of market and disassociate from unethical behaviour > and we should suspend guy until evaluation --> Don’t remember > finished > > > forgot other 2… > > thanks
jimmylegs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > WHat about oversubscribed IPO’s: > > Just give it to your “normal” clients or spread > pro rata amongst all similar discretionary > accounts. I chose the latter. I said give it to client that normally purchase these and not pro rata to other accts. It did not say similar so I figured that the IPOs are appropriate for the normal accts (that is why they have been allocated there in the past) and not appropraite for the other accts