bigwilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dont think it would as long as he allocates > first to his clients then any remainder he can > have… As mentioned, there is no further information so we don’t know whether he allocates to his clients first or not. But then I’ve got another question. Is he NOT violating priority of trading even if he allocates to his clients before to himself — but on the same day? I think I’ve seen some “suggested requirement” like waiting for 7 days before you trade for yourself. - sticky
I think since it was a block trade he was trading for ALL his clients together so he didnt have to wait for his clients to order…
What about the fact that he placed block order to be allocated among his clients without first consulting clients IPS? Maybe it’s not an appropriate purchase for his clients? Or should we assume that he knows what his clients need?
tanyusha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What about the fact that he placed block order to > be allocated among his clients without first > consulting clients IPS? Maybe it’s not an > appropriate purchase for his clients? Or should > we assume that he knows what his clients need? yes that’s bad too but it doesn’t really matter, since it is already violation in the first step ---- lack of reasonable basis. - sticky
Except that Boyle’s supervisor did that too… (last question in that item set, I believe). I got some enormous number of questions wrong in the first two item sets of that exam. I am ashamed.
Tanyusha, when you are answering these questions you should assume if something is not stated that means it was done according to the standards. Otherwise you can come up with gazillion of fictitious violations
tanyusha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Except that Boyle’s supervisor did that too… > (last question in that item set, I believe). I > got some enormous number of questions wrong in the > first two item sets of that exam. I am ashamed. supervisor’s case is different. he has the report to support his “reasonable basis”. so he is alright. - sticky
Yeah, i know, i know. For some reason, I came up with explanation that if he purchased shares for individual accounts (one of the answer choices) that means he consulted client’s IPS.
sticky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > tanyusha Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Except that Boyle’s supervisor did that too… > > (last question in that item set, I believe). I > > got some enormous number of questions wrong in > the > > first two item sets of that exam. I am > ashamed. > > supervisor’s case is different. he has the report > to support his “reasonable basis”. so he is > alright. > > - sticky That is questionable. If he would get report and just follow recommendation of the report - he would be in violation, if he would read it and agree to it (apply some thought process) then he is not in violation