问题如下图：
选项：
A. 
B. 
C. 
解释：
请问选项C为什么错？
发亮_品职助教 · 2019年03月08日
Diligence and reasonable basis，是指做的每一项投资决策，都有合理的依据，有理有据。
题干问B同学要求G同学删掉多因子模型，不影响这份投资建议Buy recommendation仍然是有理有据的。
原因是G同学提交的投资决策是基于B同学以前的研究报告得到的，而以前的研究报告是基于“top-down” fundamental analysis，以前报告的建议是做到了有理有据，所以基于以前报告G同学做出来的现在的报告也是有理有据的。如下，说明G同学是做个认真研究的：
Grohl reads Brecksen’s old reports before studying the financial statements of the company and its competitors.
而且，题干信息也说了G同学按照B以前的报告模式得到了自己的投资建议Buy recommendation：
Afterward, he produces a written buy recommendation using Brecksen’s old research reports as a guide for format and submits a draft to Brecksen for review.
而B同学以前的报告是基于“top-down” fundamental analysis，G同学基于这个模式，也就说明他也做了“top-down” fundamental analysis。所以Buy recommendation是有理有据的。
第二点是投资建议也得到了Multi-factor支撑。这个Buy recommendation是有理有据的。把模型部分删除，也不影响是可靠的结论。
iloveueat · 2019年05月03日
问题问的是B同学是否违反准则，而不是问这份投资建议有无违反。这个B同学自己不懂量化，就让下属删掉自己的独立方法，没有做到尽责审慎有理有据。答案解释非常牵强。
发亮_品职助教 · 2019年05月04日
这道题有点问题，我也解释错了，正确的答案应该是选项B。B同学首先是没有违反diligence and reasonable basis的，因为得到这个结论是有理有据的，即便删除掉模型，也不影响结论是Reasonable basis的。但是如果删除掉模型，会影响结论的支持Record retention。具体可以参考经典题讲解视频。
Yes, relating to recorretention. Yes, relating to ligenanreasonable basis. A is correct. Brecksen es not consir the multi-factor analysis a criticcomponent of the analysis or the resulting investment recommention anthus, unr Stanr V(an(C), is not requireto maintain a recorof the analysis within the completereport. Apfelbaum uses tration\"top-wn\" funmentanalysis in the investment process. The report followethe trationformof previous reports on the same company. It containea complete funmentanalysis anrecommention—incating ligenanreasonable basis. The report also containea multi-factor analysis—whiis a quantitative analysis tool. If quantitative analysis were the basis of the investment recommention, it woulconstitute a change in the generinvestment principles usethe firm. Accorng to StanrV(–Communications with Clients anProspective Clients, Brecksen anGrohl woulrequireto promptly sclose those changes to clients anprospective clients. 1、B 协会不要求完工的报告保留底稿？2、因为不熟悉就删掉mol，哪怕结论一致都是买，但论据就缺失了，为什么A对？
Yes, relating to recorretention. Yes, relating to ligenanreasonable basis. A is correct. Brecksen es not consir the multi-factor analysis a criticcomponent of the analysis or the resulting investment recommention anthus, unr Stanr V(an(C), is not requireto maintain a recorof the analysis within the completereport. Apfelbaum uses tration\"top-wn\" funmentanalysis in the investment process. The report followethe trationformof previous reports on the same company. It containea complete funmentanalysis anrecommention—incating ligenanreasonable basis. The report also containea multi-factor analysis—whiis a quantitative analysis tool. If quantitative analysis were the basis of the investment recommention, it woulconstitute a change in the generinvestment principles usethe firm. Accorng to StanrV(–Communications with Clients anProspective Clients, Brecksen anGrohl woulrequireto promptly sclose those changes to clients anprospective clients. 老师，我还想追问一下传统的基本面分析与使用何种数量模型是无关的对么？多因素模型也会分宏观或者公司层面，这个跟传统的基本面分析有什么关系么？感觉自己比较搞混了，还请帮忙解答，谢谢！
Yes, relating to recorretention. Yes, relating to ligenanreasonable basis. A is correct. Brecksen es not consir the multi-factor analysis a criticcomponent of the analysis or the resulting investment recommention anthus, unr Stanr V(an(C), is not requireto maintain a recorof the analysis within the completereport. Apfelbaum uses tration\"top-wn\" funmentanalysis in the investment process. The report followethe trationformof previous reports on the same company. It containea complete funmentanalysis anrecommention—incating ligenanreasonable basis. The report also containea multi-factor analysis—whiis a quantitative analysis tool. If quantitative analysis were the basis of the investment recommention, it woulconstitute a change in the generinvestment principles usethe firm. Accorng to StanrV(–Communications with Clients anProspective Clients, Brecksen anGrohl woulrequireto promptly sclose those changes to clients anprospective clients. B看了报告，觉得量化模型不重要，而且表现出他对这个模型不熟知，然后G本来想保留模型，但是B电话打断了。这些信息难道都是误导信息？怎么就能判断他删除模型是做了充分研究和判断呢？
Brecksen是看了G同学的报告，说同意G同学的观点。请问题干中哪里写了Brecksen用top-wn方法得出他自己的观点的？如果没有自己推导，又说看不同multi-factors模型就同意G的观点，那么也违反了R吧？
committee对量化模型很满意可以看出量化模型很重要啊，所以应该保留recor？