CFA Institute’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct codify the ethical guidelines for the investment profession that are critical to maintaining the integrity of capital markets and investor trust. Members, candidates, and even firms make a commitment to uphold these standards as they help elevate ethical decision-making universally around the globe.
As investment professionals, we are certain to face important ethical decisions in our day-to-day activities. Some scenarios we encounter will be straightforward, while others may be more complex. No matter what circumstances we face, continuous learning remains imperative in an investment industry that continues to evolve with products undergoing innovation and a regulatory environment continuing to adapt.
For that reason, each week we will feature a sample case from CFA Institute’s Ethics in Practice Casebook. Each case is built upon a real-life example that may involve a regulatory matter or even a CFA Institute Professional Conduct investigation. At the end of the case is a multiple-choice question that addresses the ethical nature of the actions taken in that case.
This week’s case involves Standard V(A) Diligence and Reasonable Basis.
Stick to IPS during Volatile Markets?
Barry Van Wagenen manages the portfolios of high-net-worth clients. He completes an individualized IPS for each client when opening their account. He then develops a personal asset allocation formula based on each client’s risk tolerance, financial goals, and so forth. Over the past two days, the domestic and global equity securities markets fell more than 6%. Fearing a continued drop in the markets, Van Wagenen liquidates his personal investments and moves to cash until the financial markets stabilize. But he keeps his clients’ portfolios fully invested pursuant to the directives in their IPS. Van Wagenen’s actions are
A. unacceptable because he is trading ahead of his clients for his personal account.
B. unacceptable because his personal investment decisions do not match the investment recommendations he has made to his clients.
C. unacceptable because he is not acting in a diligent and reasonable manner by leaving his clients assets fully invested in a rapidly declining securities market.
D. acceptable because he is following his client’s directives, as detailed in their IPS, by keeping them fully invested.
What do you think is the correct choice? Feel free to discuss in the comments below and make sure to check back later this week as we post the analysis. The completion of this case qualifies for 0.25 hour of Standards, Ethics, and Regulation (SER) credit.
[Update – 7/23/2020]
Welcome back! Here is the analysis of this case:
Analysis:
The CFA Institute Ethical Decision-Making Framework provides guidance to investment professionals facing ethical dilemmas. The framework calls for identifying the ethical principle at issue, to whom a duty is owed, the relevant facts, and whether there is a conflict of interest to assist in choosing the appropriate course of conduct. In this case, we need more facts before we can properly analyze whether Van Wagenen’s actions are acceptable. Specifically, what level of investment discretion have Van Wagenen’s clients given him regarding investment decisions and whether the clients’ IPSs address how investment decisions are to be made in the face of rapidly changing market conditions. If Van Wagenen has full investment discretion, failing to adjust his client’s portfolio in a timely manner means Van Wagenen could be in violation of his duty to act with diligence and a reasonable basis — CFA Institute Standard V(A) — and in violation of his duty to his clients of loyalty, prudence, and care — CFA Institute Standard III(A).
Similarly, if the IPS states that in the event of a significant market downturn, Van Wagenen has the authority to alter the agreed on asset allocation formula prior to formally revising the IPS, that would also be a strong indicator for Van Wagenen to take action. Under those circumstances, Answer C would be the best choice. But if Van Wagenen has limited discretion or the IPS was silent about “emergency” powers to make changes in the portfolio, Van Wagenen’s hands may be tied (Answer D). It is also not clear whether Van Wagenen acted diligently in attempting to contact his clients in the face of the volatile markets to determine whether they had any changes to their investment instructions. CFA Institute Standard VI(B): Priority of Transactions states that investment transactions of clients must have priority over personal transactions. This standard does not require that an investment professional’s personal investments match those of his clients because there may be differences in the risk tolerances, financial goals, and so on between the adviser and his or her clients (Answer B). Finally, it is not clear that Van Wagenen is “front running” his client accounts because the price of the securities at issue may not be affected by the trades on his personal account (Answer A).
The facts for this case are not based on a particular case but reflective of current market volatility
Image by Mediamodifier from Pixabay
© 2018 CFA Institute. All rights reserved. You may copy and distribute this content, without modification and for non-commercial purposes, provided you attribute the content to CFA Institute and retain this copyright notice. This case was written as a basis for discussion and is not prescriptive of how a business situation or professional conduct matter should or should not be handled or addressed. Certain characters mentioned are fictional to facilitate discussion, and any resemblance to actual persons is coincidental.