此题为何选A，请看答案解析给出的分析
When Gostkowski eventually receives the audited financial statements from Farmers First, they contain
discrepancies with the unaudited financial information provided during the initial due diligence.
Gostkowski also cannot find evidence that the auditor listed on the Farmers First financial statements
exists. Gostkowski conducts an on-site visit at Farmers First’s offices and finds no evidence that the
firm has five to seven employees, as claimed in its initial disclosures. Gostkowski also cannot locate
the purported underlying borrowers for several of Farmers First’s loans. The USDA eventually confirms
to Gostkowski that a representative sample of the loans purchased from Farmers First were fraudulent
and subsequently informs Banner that it will not honor the guarantee. As a result, Banner’s investors in
the repo programs associated with Farmers First lost millions of dollars. Gostkowski’s actions are
inappropriate.
A. appropriate because he collected the financial statements from Farmers First and did
background checks on both the company and its principals before Banner engaged with the
company.
B. appropriate because he confirmed Farmers First was a USDA-approved lender and was told by
legal counsel that the company’s loans were guaranteed by the government.
C. appropriate because he conducted an on-site visit of Farmers First’s offices once he had
concerns about the company.
D. none of the above.
解析节选（超2000字符了）：
But many
of these steps were inadequate, raised red flags that were ignored, or happened only after Banner had
committed client assets to a fraudulent investment. As a result, the facts are sufficient to indicate that
Gostkowski and Banner failed to exercise appropriate due diligence with respect to the Farmers First
repo investments. Choice A is the best answer.
