makes sense, crap!
I concede
I put delay but was back and forth on issue original report. i can see both.
bannisja Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i am pretty confident that if you go back to your > ethics book, it is huge on NOT delaying… you get > that report out quickly and accurately. the 2nd > report was garbage, he should publish the 1st. > don’t make me grab the handbook, but i could > almost swear there’s an example q in the handbook > almost exactly like this. i will not concede this > point. That makes no sense. The second report was garbage based on the supervisors opinion. And the analyst who wrote the report did not think the first report was accurate, so why on earth would he issue the original report.
The second report was garbage > based on the supervisors opinion. And the analyst > who wrote the report did not think the first > report was accurate, so why on earth would he > issue the original report. That is not at all true. The way it was worded was basically that even the analyst thought his new report was garbage. Also, nowhere did it say he did not think his first report was accurate. The deal was he changed with no support other than what was overheard at lunch.
what was the 3rd choice on this one?
king_kong Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what was the 3rd choice on this one? Contact compliance to make sure what to do. If they aren’t sure call your Legal department. That was option four and the correct one for every Ethics question.
Example 6. Elizabeth Levenson is based in Taipei and covers the Taiwanese market for her firm, which is based in Singapore. She is invited to meet the finance director of a manufacturing company along with the other 10 largest shareholders of the company. During the meeting, the finance director states that the company expects its workforce to strike next Friday, which will cripple productivity and distribution. Can Levenson use this information as a basis to change her rating on the company from “buy” to “sell”? Comment: Levenson must first determine whether the material information is public. If the company has not made this information public (a small-group forum does not qualify as a method of public dissemination), she cannot use the information according to Standard II(A).
Does this mean anything?
That doesn’t mean the original report has to be distributed TheAliMan. You can’t force an analyst to distribute against his will. He improved the report so why would he agree to distribute the old report? Since the rating is opposed to his current view (believe originally it was sell now it was buy).
TheAliMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Example 6. Elizabeth Levenson is based in Taipei > and covers the Taiwanese > market for her firm, which is based in Singapore. > She is invited to meet the finance > director of a manufacturing company along with the > other 10 largest shareholders > of the company. During the meeting, the finance > director states that the company > expects its workforce to strike next Friday, which > will cripple productivity and > distribution. Can Levenson use this information as > a basis to change her rating > on the company from “buy” to “sell”? > Comment: Levenson must first determine whether the > material information > is public. If the company has not made this > information public (a small-group > forum does not qualify as a method of public > dissemination), she cannot use > the information according to Standard II(A). The way I interpret that is, you delay the issue until next week (short delay) when it becomes public. It would be silly, and very silly for anyone who thinks logically the answer would be issue the report even though you know its wrong. Some people are lacking common sense here…
But was his opinion changed because of discovering material information?
TheAliMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But was his opinion changed because of discovering > material information? that’s actually the key. In the question, Jo claimed he didn’t change his opinion from material nonpublic information but the supervisor of his find his conclucion doesn’t have reasonable basis. Besides, from morning a sell report to an afternoon buy report, if he doesn’t have a reasonable basis, why he could change his opinion so soon. No one could approve that he is not using material nonpublic information and if this case goes to SEC, hard to say that his option change is not due to non public information
nyccfa2010 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheAliMan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Example 6. Elizabeth Levenson is based in > Taipei > > and covers the Taiwanese > > market for her firm, which is based in > Singapore. > > She is invited to meet the finance > > director of a manufacturing company along with > the > > other 10 largest shareholders > > of the company. During the meeting, the finance > > director states that the company > > expects its workforce to strike next Friday, > which > > will cripple productivity and > > distribution. Can Levenson use this information > as > > a basis to change her rating > > on the company from “buy” to “sell”? > > Comment: Levenson must first determine whether > the > > material information > > is public. If the company has not made this > > information public (a small-group > > forum does not qualify as a method of public > > dissemination), she cannot use > > the information according to Standard II(A). > > > The way I interpret that is, you delay the issue > until next week (short delay) when it becomes > public. It would be silly, and very silly for > anyone who thinks logically the answer would be > issue the report even though you know its wrong. > Some people are lacking common sense here… That’s not the point, the point is whether his opinion changed because of discovering material information. Then that would mean we should all pretend to be Gordon Gekko and if we happen to “stumble” on insider info, then we can delay reports that had reasonable basis. Common sense, do you have it?
i said release the original immediately otherwise you’re acting on material nonpublic information
Of course it was changed, that is a huge issue at hand. “Cripple” the industry, your ass better be changing it to sell or forced to look liked a fool a few days later when it becomes public.
let’s try to simplify it for a minute… imagine the revised report didn’t exist. you wrote up a report with a sell recommendation to be disseminated to everyone the next day, that night you come across some material nonpublic info regarding a tender offer. what would the standards dictate you do? i think the answer to both this question and the original is to release the original report immediately as originally planned. otherwise you’re acting on material nonpublic info.
It was material information and it was not his fault that he over heard it. Will it change is opinion, yes of course it will. Can he use it, of course not. Issue a report that you know is wrong and is going to screw alot of your clients over, go right on ahead, but not expect to last long in the industry. That makes a lot of sense to you guys Im sure 
agree with SSS
i’m 100% with you on this one SSS.