问题如下图:
选项:
A.
B.
C.
解释:
根据讲义211页,发现有potential violation,应该限制employees的activity,叫停业务等。继续留用应该是违反的吧。还是感觉应该选C,烦请能说服我,感谢。
发亮_品职助教 · 2019年06月06日
讲义211页和前面几页是Standard IV(C) Responsibilities of Supervisors。这条准则是对员工的监管职责。
Standard IV(C) states that members and candidates must promote actions by all employees under their supervision and authority to comply with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and firm policies and the Code and Standards.
这道题涉及的主体,是外部第三方投资机构,不是他的员工,对员工的监管要求不适用于对外部第三方的评估。
聘用外部第三方机构,涉及到对第三方的评估,可能会有很多评估要求,但最重要的一条是投资者的利益最大化为准。
题干这里也解释要暂时继续要聘用这家公司,直到他完成评估:
He also decides that he will allow NGM to continue to manage Fund assets until he finishes his evaluation.
继续聘用这家公司的原因是:
This decision is based on the superior returns of the NGM-managed assets, the significant diversification this portfolio adds to the Fund, and also the political implications of firing the local money manager.
显然暂时聘用NGM,这是以客户利益最大化为标准的。
当完成评估后,可以决定是否继续聘用,如果还在评估时,就解聘了这家公司,那账户受损,损害到了客户利益。
如果完成评估,发生继续聘用会损害客户的长期利率,那就应该解聘。
NO.PZ201604030300004104 最后一句implication of political那句,来自政治的压力让他不能解雇这个基金经理,这样不违反独立客观性吗
Yes, because he allowepoliticfactors to influenhis cision. Yes, because he is obligateto immeately suspenNGM until he finishes his evaluation. A is correct. Until Locke’s investigation is complete, he hno obligation to suspenthe manager or take any other action. He believes the manager canes a value through superior returns anversification, antherefore it mreasonable to retain NGM if Locke csatisfieththe manager cawithin the constraints of the IPS anCFA Institute Stanr. Until the analysis is complete, it woulnot practical, anLocke woulviolating his ty to ain his clients’ best interests suspenng the manager anleaving the assets unmanageor to temporarily moving them to another manager for safe-keeping.既然已经发现前面提到的有明显偏离ips要求、ipo不当修正等情况,为什么还要放任NGM继续投资呢,只要是return满足要求就可以吗?韩韩_品职助教 · 28月前同学你好,虽然之前讲了有一些小问题,但是NGM在return上,versification上都是可以满足公司的要求的,这就是很充分的理由了。老师您好,这是我看到的之前同学的提问和老师的回答。我的问题是在return、versification满足的情况下,IPS未被遵守算是小问题?IPS都不当回事了,颠覆整个知识体系了吧?是不是有另一个角度来看这道题?
既然已经发现前面提到的有明显偏离ips要求、ipo不当修正等情况,为什么还要放任NGM继续投资呢,只要是return满足要求就可以吗?