开发者:上海品职教育科技有限公司 隐私政策详情

应用版本:4.2.11(IOS)|3.2.5(安卓)APP下载

yan · 2024年11月01日

三段标识部分,能否用中文解释一遍,没看懂

NO.PZ2024102501000003

问题如下:

Mason Dixon, CFA, a portfolio manager with Langhorne Advisors (“Lang horne”), has just completed the RFP for the Academe Foundation’s (“the Founda tion”) USD20 million fixed-income mandate. In the performance section of the RFP, Dixon indicated that Langhorne is a member firm of CFA Institute and has prepared and presented this performance report in compliance with the Glob al Investment Performance Standards (the GIPS® standards). The performance report presented Langhorne’s fixed-income composite returns on the actual net-of-fees basis and benchmark returns, net of Langhorne’s highest scheduled fee (1.00% on the first USD5 million; 0.60% thereafter). The report also indicated that as of the most recent quarter, the composite comprised 10 portfolios totaling USD600 million of assets under management.

Upon returning the completed RFP, Dixon thanked the Foundation’s CIO, who is also a charterholder, for considering Langhorne. Dixon also indicated that regardless of the outcome of the manager search, he would like to have the CIO and the Foundation’s president join him on Langhorne’s corporate jet to spend a day at an exclusive California golf club where the firm maintains a corporate membership.

Identify the ethical concerns posed by Dixon’s actions and conduct.

选项:

解释:

Dixon’s actions and conduct pose multiple ethical concerns.

Dixon’s claim of compliance statement and cover letter, along with Langhorne’s performance report, violate both the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct (Code and Standards) and the GIPS standards. Regard ing the Code and Standards, Dixon’s statement improperly asserts that CFA Institute has designated Langhorne as a “member firm.” Membership is held by practitioners as individuals, with no related rights extended to the firms at which they work. With this assertion, Dixon has misrepresented Langhorne’s claim of compliance, Standard I(C): Misrepresentation; engaged in conduct that compro mised the reputation or integrity of CFA Institute, Standard VII(A): Conduct as Participants in CFA Institute Programs; and misrepresented or exaggerated the meaning or implications of membership in CFA Institute, Standard VII(B): Refer ence to CFA Institute, the CFA Designation, and the CFA Program.

Regarding the GIPS standards and the performance report, presenting composite returns on a net-of-fees basis is acceptable under the GIPS standards. However, adjusting benchmark returns with a hypothetical fee for comparative purposes (i.e., composite gross-of-fees returns should be compared to unadjusted bench mark returns) is not appropriate. This adjustment of Langhorne’s performance report is invalid under the GIPS standards under Section 4.a.1: Disclosure— Requirements. The 1.00% hypothetical fee deducted from benchmark returns is surely greater than the average fee deducted in arriving at composite net-of-fees returns. An average portfolio size of USD60 million implies a composite fee percentage of roughly 0.63%, or: {(0.0100 × USD5 million) + [0.0060 × (USD60 million – USD5 million)]}/USD60 million = 0.0063 or 0.63%. So, on a relative basis, deducting a larger cost against the benchmark will show Langhorne with a phantom outperformance.

In terms of the Code and Standards, at a minimum, Dixon has presented an inac curate performance comparison—Standard III(D): Performance Presentation— and might have engaged in misrepresentation to the point of misconduct— Standard I(D): Misconduct—casting a more favorable light on the Langhorne composite net-of-fees returns could be deceitful (Section 0.A.7 under Fundamen tals of Compliance—Requirements of the GIPS standards).

Dixon’s cover letter invitation for an all-expenses-paid outing to an exclusive golf destination can be construed as an attempt to influence the independence and objectivity of the Foundation’s CIO and president—Standard I(B): Independence and Objectivity. While Dixon’s invitation was extended “regardless of the out come of the manager search,” the offer could be interpreted as a quid pro quo, with future attractive personal benefits available to the Foundation’s executives if a continuing relationship was established by their hiring of Langhorne as a manager.

三段标识部分,能否用中文解释一遍,没看懂


1 个答案

Lucky_品职助教 · 2024年11月03日

嗨,努力学习的PZer你好:


同学你好:


这三段话的解释都是关于职业道德和GIPS的相关内容。


第一段的意思是,我们在衡量投资业绩的时候,是需要将真实的收益和一个基准收益来进行比较得出的。GIPS的要求是,它允许按照扣除费用后的净额来呈现综合回报率,但是这些费用,一定是要真实发生的,并且在真实收益和基准收益中同时体现,这样才具有可比性。如果费用是假设的,不真实的,那就需要将扣除费用前的综合回报率与未经调整的基准回报率进行比较,才是合理的。Langhorne的业绩报告中,从基准回报率中扣除的 1.00% 的假设费用肯定大于为得出扣除费用后的综合回报率而扣除的平均费用,这就导致基准收益变低了,因此,从相对角度来看,针对基准扣除更大的成本将会使Langhorne的实际业绩呈现出一种虚假的超额表现。


第二段的意思是,Dixon 的业绩呈现方式也违反了Code and Standards中的III (D)Performance Presentation,以及 I(D)中Misconduct 这两条规则。同时也违反了GIPS中的Section 0.A.7,具体愿意可以参考上面的解释。


第三段的意思是:Dixon 邀请对方前往一处高档高尔夫度假胜地进行一次费用全免的出游活动,影响基金会首席信息官和总裁的独立性与客观性,违反了Code and Standards中的I (B) Independence and Objectivity。虽然Dixon表示,这种要求与基金经理的竞选没有关系,但是职业道德的根本观念就是,不要你以为,而是要看别人怎么看,只要你的行为,在大众眼中是有问题的,是可能会被理解为利益交换,那就是错误的。

----------------------------------------------
虽然现在很辛苦,但努力过的感觉真的很好,加油!

  • 1

    回答
  • 0

    关注
  • 30

    浏览
相关问题

NO.PZ2024102501000003 问题如下 Mason xon, CFa portfolio manager with Langhorne Aisors (“Langhorne”), hjust completethe RFP for the Acame Fountion’s (“the Fountion”) US0 million fixeincome mante. In the performansection of the RFP, xon incatethLanghorne is a member firm of CFA Institute anhprepareanpresentethis performanreport in complianwith the GlobInvestment PerformanStanr (the GIPS® stanr). The performanreport presenteLanghorne’s fixeincome composite returns on the actunet-of-fees basis anbenchmark returns, net of Langhorne’s highest schelefee (1.00% on the first US million; 0.60% thereafter). The report also incatethof the most recent quarter, the composite comprise10 portfolios totaling US00 million of assets unr management.Upon returning the completeRFP, xon thankethe Fountion’s CIO, who is also a charterholr, for consiring Langhorne. xon also incatethregaress of the outcome of the manager search, he woullike to have the CIO anthe Fountion’s presint join him on Langhorne’s corporate jet to spena y exclusive California golf club where the firm maintains a corporate membership.Intify the ethicconcerns posexon’s actions anconct. xon’s actions anconpose multiple ethicconcerns. xon’s claim of complianstatement ancover letter, along with Langhorne’s performanreport, violate both the CFA Institute Co of EthianStanr of ProfessionCon(Co anStanr) anthe GIPS stanr. Regarng the Co anStanr, xon’s statement improperly asserts thCFA Institute hsignateLanghorne a “member firm.” Membership is helpractitioners invials, with no relaterights extento the firms whithey work. With this assertion, xon hmisrepresenteLanghorne’s claim of compliance, StanrI(C): Misrepresentation; engagein conthcompromisethe reputation or integrity of CFA Institute, StanrVII(A): ConParticipants in CFA Institute Programs; anmisrepresenteor exaggeratethe meaning or implications of membership in CFA Institute, StanrVII(B): Referento CFA Institute, the CFA signation, anthe CFA Program.Regarng the GIPS stanr anthe performanreport, presenting composite returns on a net-of-fees basis is acceptable unr the GIPS stanr. However, austing benchmark returns with a hypotheticfee for comparative purposes (i.e., composite gross-of-fees returns shoulcompareto unaustebenchmark returns) is not appropriate. This austment of Langhorne’s performanreport is invaliunr the GIPS stanr unr Section 4.a.1: sclosure— Requirements. The 1.00% hypotheticfee ctefrom benchmark returns is surely greater ththe average fee ctein arriving composite net-of-fees returns. average portfolio size of US0 million implies a composite fee percentage of roughly 0.63%, or: {(0.0100 × US million) + [0.0060 × (US0 million – US million)]}/US0 million = 0.0063 or 0.63%. So, on a relative basis, cting a larger cost against the benchmark will show Langhorne with a phantom outperformance. In terms of the Co anStanr, a minimum, xon hpresenteinaccurate performancomparison—StanrIII(: PerformanPresentation— anmight have engagein misrepresentation to the point of misconct— StanrI(: Misconct—casting a more favorable light on the Langhorne composite net-of-fees returns coulceitful (Section 0.A.7 unr Funmentals of Compliance—Requirements of the GIPS stanr). xon’s cover letter invitation for all-expenses-paiouting to exclusive golf stination cconstrueattempt to influenthe inpennanobjectivity of the Fountion’s CIO anpresint—StanrI(B): InpennanObjectivity. While xon’s invitation wexten“regaress of the outcome of the manager search,” the offer coulinterpretea quipro quo, with future attractive personbenefits available to the Fountion’s executives if a continuing relationship westablishetheir hiring of Langhorne a manager. GIPS业绩计算披露那里,哪里写了基准减去的是假设的1%,报告的是平均的0.63%呢?看了前面同学提问老师的翻译,在文中没有找到。

2024-11-12 16:21 3 · 回答

NO.PZ2024102501000003 问题如下 Mason xon, CFa portfolio manager with Langhorne Aisors (“Langhorne”), hjust completethe RFP for the Acame Fountion’s (“the Fountion”) US0 million fixeincome mante. In the performansection of the RFP, xon incatethLanghorne is a member firm of CFA Institute anhprepareanpresentethis performanreport in complianwith the GlobInvestment PerformanStanr (the GIPS® stanr). The performanreport presenteLanghorne’s fixeincome composite returns on the actunet-of-fees basis anbenchmark returns, net of Langhorne’s highest schelefee (1.00% on the first US million; 0.60% thereafter). The report also incatethof the most recent quarter, the composite comprise10 portfolios totaling US00 million of assets unr management.Upon returning the completeRFP, xon thankethe Fountion’s CIO, who is also a charterholr, for consiring Langhorne. xon also incatethregaress of the outcome of the manager search, he woullike to have the CIO anthe Fountion’s presint join him on Langhorne’s corporate jet to spena y exclusive California golf club where the firm maintains a corporate membership.Intify the ethicconcerns posexon’s actions anconct. xon’s actions anconpose multiple ethicconcerns. xon’s claim of complianstatement ancover letter, along with Langhorne’s performanreport, violate both the CFA Institute Co of EthianStanr of ProfessionCon(Co anStanr) anthe GIPS stanr. Regarng the Co anStanr, xon’s statement improperly asserts thCFA Institute hsignateLanghorne a “member firm.” Membership is helpractitioners invials, with no relaterights extento the firms whithey work. With this assertion, xon hmisrepresenteLanghorne’s claim of compliance, StanrI(C): Misrepresentation; engagein conthcompromisethe reputation or integrity of CFA Institute, StanrVII(A): ConParticipants in CFA Institute Programs; anmisrepresenteor exaggeratethe meaning or implications of membership in CFA Institute, StanrVII(B): Referento CFA Institute, the CFA signation, anthe CFA Program.Regarng the GIPS stanr anthe performanreport, presenting composite returns on a net-of-fees basis is acceptable unr the GIPS stanr. However, austing benchmark returns with a hypotheticfee for comparative purposes (i.e., composite gross-of-fees returns shoulcompareto unaustebenchmark returns) is not appropriate. This austment of Langhorne’s performanreport is invaliunr the GIPS stanr unr Section 4.a.1: sclosure— Requirements. The 1.00% hypotheticfee ctefrom benchmark returns is surely greater ththe average fee ctein arriving composite net-of-fees returns. average portfolio size of US0 million implies a composite fee percentage of roughly 0.63%, or: {(0.0100 × US million) + [0.0060 × (US0 million – US million)]}/US0 million = 0.0063 or 0.63%. So, on a relative basis, cting a larger cost against the benchmark will show Langhorne with a phantom outperformance. In terms of the Co anStanr, a minimum, xon hpresenteinaccurate performancomparison—StanrIII(: PerformanPresentation— anmight have engagein misrepresentation to the point of misconct— StanrI(: Misconct—casting a more favorable light on the Langhorne composite net-of-fees returns coulceitful (Section 0.A.7 unr Funmentals of Compliance—Requirements of the GIPS stanr). xon’s cover letter invitation for all-expenses-paiouting to exclusive golf stination cconstrueattempt to influenthe inpennanobjectivity of the Fountion’s CIO anpresint—StanrI(B): InpennanObjectivity. While xon’s invitation wexten“regaress of the outcome of the manager search,” the offer coulinterpretea quipro quo, with future attractive personbenefits available to the Fountion’s executives if a continuing relationship westablishetheir hiring of Langhorne a manager. 如题

2024-11-09 23:24 1 · 回答