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

蜗牛也是牛Megan · 2025年03月18日

关于独立客观性

* 问题详情,请 查看题干

NO.PZ202403070100000101

问题如下:

In the first scenario Watson discusses, did the research analyst most likely violate any CFA Institute Standards of Professional Conduct?

选项:

A.No. B.Yes, with regard to the presentation. C.Yes, with regard to the discussion prior to the presentation.

解释:

Solution
  1. Correct. The first scenario Watson notes provides no evidence of any violation of the CFA Institute Standards of Professional Conduct. The discussion prior to the meeting is not a violation of Standard II(A): Material Nonpublic Information. Standard II(A) states Members and Candidates who possess material nonpublic information that could affect the value of an investment must not act or cause others to act on the information. While a merger would be considered material information, this merger had already been announced so the information is public. Additionally, no details were given about the merger and no company names were disclosed, so it is unclear which companies she is discussing. There is no evidence she violated Standard III(B): Fair Dealing or Standard V(B): Communication with Clients and Prospective Clients in her discussion of her research process and published investment recommendations or in the comments she made about the merger during an interview on a major television network. Standard III(B) states Members and Candidates must deal fairly and objectively with all clients when providing investment analysis, making investment recommendations, taking investment action, or engaging in other professional activities. Standard V(B) states Members and Candidates must disclose to clients and prospective clients the basic format and general principles of the investment processes they use to analyze investments, select securities, and construct portfolios and must promptly disclose any changes that might materially affect those processes. There is no evidence to indicate she treated the clients in the meeting differently than any other clients. She simply talked about the research process and her research recommendations and opinions that had already been published.

  2. Incorrect. The first scenario Watson notes provides no evidence of any violation of the Standards of Professional Conduct.

  3. Incorrect. The first scenario Watson notes provides no evidence of any violation of the Standards of Professional Conduct.

Guidance for Standards I–VII
  • demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct by applying the Code and Standards to specific situations

Prem, wanting to enhance the business relationship with Gupta, arranges for all of Mathew’s Sri Lankan expenses to be paid for by Ashoka. These costs include food, hotel, and transport.

经纪公司承担了这些费用,为什么不违法独立客观性?

1 个答案

王暄_品职助教 · 2025年03月19日

1、费用是由经纪公司Ashoka直接承担,而不是由客户Gupta或其他第三方支付。这意味着Mathew并未直接接受客户的利益,避免了利益冲突。

2、Prem安排这些费用的目的是为了加强与Gupta的业务关系,而不是为了影响Mathew的投资决策或研究报告。只要这些费用的支付不影响到Mathew的独立判断,就不构成对独立客观性的违反。

3、如果这些费用的支付是公开透明的,并且符合公司的政策和程序,那么就不会被视为不当行为。

费用的支付方是经纪公司,且目的是为了正当的业务发展,不涉及影响Mathew的独立判断,因此不违反独立客观性。

  • 1

    回答
  • 0

    关注
  • 6

    浏览
相关问题

NO.PZ202403070100000101问题如下In the first scenario Watson scusses, the researanalyst most likely violate any CFA Institute Stanr of ProfessionConct?A.No.B.Yes, with regarto the presentation.C.Yes, with regarto the scussion prior to the presentation.SolutionCorrect. The first scenario Watson notes provis no evinof any violation of the CFA Institute Stanr of ProfessionConct. The scussion prior to the meeting is not a violation of StanrII(A): MateriNonpublic Information. StanrII(states Members anCantes who possess materinonpublic information thcoulaffethe value of investment must not aor cause others to aon the information. While a merger woulconsiremateriinformation, this merger halrea been announceso the information is publiAitionally, no tails were given about the merger anno company names were sclose so it is unclewhicompanies she is scussing. There is no evinshe violateStanrIII(B): Fair aling or StanrV(B): Communication with Clients anProspective Clients in her scussion of her researprocess anpublisheinvestment recommentions or in the comments she ma about the merger ring interview on a major television network. StanrIII(states Members anCantes must fairly anobjectively with all clients when proving investment analysis, making investment recommentions, taking investment action, or engaging in other professionactivities. StanrV(states Members anCantes must sclose to clients anprospective clients the basic formangenerprinciples of the investment processes they use to analyze investments, selesecurities, anconstruportfolios anmust promptly sclose any changes thmight materially affethose processes. There is no evinto incate she treatethe clients in the meeting fferently thany other clients. She simply talkeabout the researprocess anher researrecommentions anopinions thhalrea been publisheIncorrect. The first scenario Watson notes provis no evinof any violation of the Stanr of ProfessionConct.Incorrect. The first scenario Watson notes provis no evinof any violation of the Stanr of ProfessionConct.Guinfor Stanr I–VIImonstrate a thorough knowlee of the CFA Institute Co of EthianStanr of ProfessionConapplying the Co anStanr to specific situations把答案翻译一下哈谢谢

2024-04-20 12:25 1 · 回答