So, who else thought PM was a lot harder than AM. I though AM was pretty straight forward. Ethics. Lots of ‘no violation’ options, I thought. Any rate… some questions. ETHICS Husband/wife… both working in finance jobs. They routinely discuss possilibility of clients entering mergers, etc. - I said violation of confidentiality but not MNPI. No concrete details are being shared, no one is acting or causing others to act on details… yet private information in being shared. Logo of cards and letterhead. I had the correct answer but changed it to “no for both”. GRrr ECON Black market with Rent Ceiling. I can’t remember if it said loose/strict enforcement. I put “charge the highest price anyone will pay”… but now I’m thinking it said loose in which case price = ceiling (or close to it).
> ETHICS > Husband/wife… both working in finance jobs. > They routinely discuss possilibility of clients > entering mergers, etc. > - I said violation of confidentiality but not > MNPI. No concrete details are being shared, no > one is acting or causing others to act on > details… yet private information in being > shared. > i put yes for both, but i think you might be right. > Logo of cards and letterhead. I had the correct > answer but changed it to “no for both”. GRrr i put no for both as well… > > ECON > Black market with Rent Ceiling. I can’t remember > if it said loose/strict enforcement. I put > “charge the highest price anyone will pay”… but > now I’m thinking it said loose in which case price > = ceiling (or close to it). i remembered a stalla question which talked about the price of the search which is why i went with that one. i don’t even think i read this question fully. -3 for me! 
i’m wondering about the 1st ethics one, too. i put yes for both thinking that passing along MNPI is enough to cause a violation
dspapo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i’m wondering about the 1st ethics one, too. i > put yes for both thinking that passing along MNPI > is enough to cause a violation that’s the same way i thought about it. i’m too depressed to check my books to see if you actually have to act on it.
but there was nothing that made it clear it was material
it was about potential acquisitions, how is that not material. i was more confused about the confidentiality than anything.
i thought potential acquisitions is automatically material?
The way the question was phrased, it sound like they were talking about “hey, i wonder if company a would buy company b…” and not about any concrete plans.
if it was phrased that way, then i believe you would be right. if they were talking about potential mergers actually occurring then it would be mnpi.
though i am still on the fence as to whether or not the information they are surmising about is mnpi so IDK.
I read it the way mcf did
i was hung up on how they said “possibilities” of the acquisitions happening. that led me to believe that it was mnpi. if it was meant to be read like mcf says, then there would be no violation, right? it would be no worse than if they were talking about any other topic
dspapo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i was hung up on how they said “possibilities” of > the acquisitions happening. that led me to > believe that it was mnpi. > > if it was meant to be read like mcf says, then > there would be no violation, right? it would be > no worse than if they were talking about any other > topic yep.
A potential question for them to throw out, if you ask me, based on the very unclear interpretation. We’ll see… in 51 days…
Husband/wife… Mergers are always material.
what was the answer to business card, letterhead, and logo, i thought there was no violation… what did i miss?
hotdawg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what was the answer to business card, letterhead, > and logo, i thought there was no violation… what > did i miss? no violation i believe. this was a hotly discussed topic on december’s exam as well.
whodey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Husband/wife… > > Mergers are always material. remember, if it is going to affect the price of the stock, it will ALWAYS be material
I think it is a violation because the wife will base her analysts on confidential information from her client.
I understood that question as pure speculations regarding potential M&As, like mcf wrote. So no valuation in my opinion. But again the wording is really confusing… Milos