Let’s start a thread with things we’ve gotten wrong in ethics questions to help one another get some of these pesky details straight. I’ll start: The New Prudent Investor rule states that compliance is judged AS OF the time an investment decision is made, NOT with the benefit of hindsight or subsequent developments, or on the outcome of investment decisions.
I learned this useful fact: If a background check for a new hire reveals that a) she was busted for drugs at 16 and b) at her last job she was reprimanded for having another job as a waitress fo 30 hours per week, the reason not to hire her is because of: B). Working as a waitress 30 hours a week would no doubt make her too tired to do good job at work, so duty to employer would be violated. But apparantly being too tired due to smoking big fatties all night is ok.
NEW Prident Investor rule has following changes from Old Man Investor Rule: Consider risk & return together in portfolio context, even if you have to include options to hedge your strategies.