We’re all has just sat for the exam. Since the end of that local catastrophe we have lost our candidacy status: until we register for the same (or the next for those who were lucky enough) level we are neither candidates, nor charter holders. Due to this status ambiguity we are not bound by the Code and Standards.
Why shouldn’t we discuss the exact questions then? Why do we still have to obey to the Code & Standards, although we don’t have any relation to the CFA Institute?
Those lads who think they have mastered ethics, what do you think, what the correct answer is?
Until you get your result, you are the respective level candidate still. The only gap is between result day and registration for the next exam when you are not a particular level candidate. However, the Code and Standards still apply to you, as you are admitted in the CFA program. Moreover, you have signed a pledge not to discuss the questions, which is independent from the Code and Standards, even should you choose to disregard them. At the end of the day, you can do what you want I guess, but the Code and Standards is not some rulebook that you can find loopholes in. It is a set of ethical principles and trying to find ways to circumvent them goes contrary to their entire spirit and purpose.
I would argue that I become free of candidacy after I walk out of the testing center, but it’s OK. Maybe we all are dismissed after we receive our verdicts. Whatever.
However, there is much more serious question. First, I absolutely agree with you that the Code is the set of principles we must pursue, but it doesn’t relate to the Standards. The Standards are pure regulations of the candidate’s behavior, they are all required and every candidate must follow these rules in full. But they are not principles, they are just clear and present rules every candidate should obey. I don’t have to pursue them irrespective to my candidate or member status.
And by the way, I have signed the _Candidate_ pledge, therefore, it is strictly dependent from the Code & Standards.
Pretty sure the CFA curriculum specifically addresses this and states that you are considered a candidate from the day you register for the exam until you receive your result. Once you receive your result, you cannot claim to be a candidate until you register again.
L2V1R2-1117 Level I candidate Etienne Gagne has been a frequent visitor to an internet forum designed specifically for CFA Program candidates. The week after completing the Level I examination, Gagne and several others begin a discussion thread on the forum about the most challenging questions and attempt to determine the correct answers.
L2V1R2-1118 Comment: Gagne has violated Standard VII(A) by providing and soliciting confidential exam information, which compromises the integrity of the exam process and violates the Candidate Pledge. In trying to determine correct answers to specific questions, the group’s discussion included question-specific details considered to be confidential to the CFA Program.
(Institute 168)
Institute, CFA. 2017 CFA Level II Volume 1 Ethical and Professional Standards, Quantitative Methods, and Economics. CFA Institute, 07/2016. VitalBook file.
It seems that since 1 week past the exam a candidate cannot disclose any exam materials, therefore, he keeps his candidacy status.
However in the CFA Program Candidate Agreement I haven’t found any references to the moment when a natural person becomes void of his candidate status:
Not really sure what your point is. You also signed a pledge on your exam answer sheet. Read Standard VII(A) and the guidance in the curriculum. It’s not ambiguous on this issue.
Candidates in the CFA Program may refer to their participation in the CFA Program, but such references must clearly state that an individual is a candidate in the CFA Program and must not imply that the candidate has achieved any type of partial designation. A person is a candidate in the CFA Program if
L2V1R2-1146 the person’s application for registration in the CFA Program has been accepted by CFA Institute, as evidenced by issuance of a notice of acceptance, and the person is enrolled to sit for a specified examination or
L2V1R2-1147 the registered person has sat for a specified examination but exam results have not yet been received.
(Institute 171)
Institute, CFA. 2017 CFA Level II Volume 1 Ethical and Professional Standards, Quantitative Methods, and Economics. CFA Institute, 07/2016. VitalBook file.
Therefore, you are absolutely right, and I looked into the wrong standard initially. :-))))
Probably. It seems you can say ethics (or whatever topic area) was tough for you, for example, because there are no topics with a 0% range, so even non exam takers know every topic was tested on the exam. And being tough is a subjective evaluation of your experience. It doesn’t really reveal anything about what was or wasn’t asked/tested. Someone else might say it was easy even though you had the exact same questions.
But you can’t/ shouldn’t disclose the number of questions on a particular topic or the actual weighting.
Well, it’s a little bit boring for me to guess about MPS (miles per second? megapascals?), so I’m entertaining myself with attempts to hack CFA rules. I had no time for that before the exam, therefore I’m pretty damn sure I have failed at least in ethics.
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. First off, no matter how comprehensive legislation may seem, there would be millions of eventualities no covered by specific rules, so while no laws are broken, if you adhere to the Code and Standards, you would be breaking them. Moreover, as you probably recall, investment professionals are supposed to apply the stricter action between the Code and the legislation. There is no need to learn about thousands of different pieces of legislation in various industries, which may or may not apply in specific countries.
Trying to find loopholes in a Code of Ethics shows complete disregard for its purpose. It is not a tax-code where you can find a loophole to exploit. It defines what professional conduct should look like, and trying to find ways to circumvent your Candidate’s pledge goes absolutely contrary to it.
Like I said before, you can do whatever you like. Discuss away. But if you get caught and suspended, there is absolutely no chance to reverse the decision based on such technicalities such as what you proposed.
There is. According to the Standard I(A) you must abide the law and know it, so if it’s required to learn about “thousands pieces of legislation”, you will do it, that’s for sure.
I see the problem that I don’t consider the Code & Standards as a sacred cow. They are just a weak imitation of the laws and rules taken primarily from the US regulation system, so I’d better study Act 1933 or Act 1934 rather than vague provisions about insider trading or market manipulation. If you get caught with breaking the law you may appeal to a strange substance of ethics as much as you want, but a judge will be careless about your references.
And I completely agree with @Secyh62 that ethics isn’t what you’re obliged to do, so I don’t understand the reason I am obliged to study “ethics” for.
