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 II(A) Material Nonpublic Information.
Just Being a Shrewd Investor.
Sung Kook “Bill” Hwang is the founder and lead portfolio manager of Tiger Asia Partners (TAP) and Raymond Park is a trader for the firm. TAP is participating in private placements for both Bank of China and China Construction Bank stock, and the placement agents shared confidential information with Hwang and Park about both companies. In the days prior to the private placement, Hwang directed Park to make short sales in each stock. TAP earned $16.2 million by using the discounted private placement shares they received to cover the short sales. Park’s actions were
A. acceptable because he was following the orders of his superior.
B. acceptable because he used a short position rather than trading in the bank stock itself.
C. acceptable if the placement agents did not require a confidentiality agreement covering information about the private placements.
D. unacceptable because the trade was based on material nonpublic information.
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 - 4/23/2020]
Welcome back! Here is the analysis of this case:
Analysis
This case relates to trading based on material nonpublic information (MNPI). CFA Standard II(A): Material Nonpublic Information prohibits members who have MNPI that could affect the value of an investment from acting or causing others to act on that information. Hwang and Park received MNPI about the bank stocks from the placement agents as part of the offering process. Park is not exempted from the requirements of the standards simply because his boss directs that he violate laws or ethical standards, so Answer A is not correct. Park should have advised Hwang that the actions he was being asked to take were unethical and likely illegal and refused the directive to trade. The prohibition on using MNPI goes beyond the direct buying and selling of individual securities and extends to any related derivatives (e.g., swaps or option contracts), mutual funds, other alternative investments, so Answer B is not correct. It would have been advisable for the private placement agents to ask Hwang and Park to sign a confidentiality agreement, establish a “fire wall” around the disclosure of that information, and agree not to trade on the information. But even absent such an agreement, Park is prohibited from trading on MNPI, therefore C is incorrect. Because the trading was based on MNPI, the trade was improper and Park’s conduct is unacceptable — Answer D.
This case is based on an enforcement action by both the US SEC and the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong.
Image by Lorenzo Cafaro 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.
#Ethics