" Immediate family : Individual(s) whose principal residence is the same as the principal residence of the subject person." and then under personal trades and investment states that firms should ensure that covered employees and members of their immediate families do not have the ability to trade in advance of or otherwise disadvantage investing clients relative to themselves or the firm" Going by this definition, would that imply that my twin brother who only lives a couple of flats away from me is excluded from the trading restrictions? I know the obvious answer to this, but i just sometimes wondered how a high court judge would see this, should in case i choose to take the CFAI to court if they revoked my membership despite meeting this standard
What matters is that you are ethical, and by that let common sense prevail. it’d mean that if your brother is your client, you treat him just like any other client. if your parent has an account and you possess material information, don’t tell your parents to go trade. if you are in same sex relationship and not married that means you can’t treat your parnter preferentially or allocate shares to him/her disproportionately. But telling anyone the following might be okay if you are not in an advisory relationship with any of them “hon/mom/dad/bro, FB is a hot IPO, i think you should tell your broker to subscribe shares for you”. What you tell your immediate family behind closed doors shouldn’t be CFAI’s business as long as you dont hurt the investment profession’s reputation or conduct unethically.
But hey what do I know on ethics, I keep failing it every single time.
Yes, of course he is excluded. My brother and I (real brother) both work in the investment industry. Why would anything I do affect him and why should it? We do not benefit from each other in any way, and to imagine our two companies cannot do direct business with each other (both major international banks) is absurd beyond belief.