This occured to me back in level 1 but I never given it much thought, however it is bothering me quite abit now. In the Guidance section under each of the Standards of Professional Conduct , I noticed the frequent usage of the word “should” when describing certain actions one is expected to undertake. For example, “A member or candidate should verify that the firm has a policy about the timely and consistent review of approved research providers to ensure that the quality of continues to meet the necessary standards…” The word “should” gives me the impression that it is not a strict requirement, rather, a recommendation or guideline compared to a statement like “If memeber or candidate rely on secondary or 3rd party research, they must make reasonable and diligent efforts to determine whether such research is sound.”
Can anyone clarify the usage of the word “should” vs. “must”/“shall”? I know in legal documents, words such as “shall” or “must” usually carries a strict mandatory denotation, whereas “should” is usually used to indicate actions that are preferred but not necessarily required. Would this interpretation apply to the CFA curriculum as well? Thanks.
The CFAI makes it very clear, even for non-native English speakers like me. Look at the title that the paragraph falls under: everything is either under “actions required” or “recommended procedures”. Quite straightforward!
First, I was referring to individual ambigous words that fall inbetween lines and statements and are open to different interpretations.
Second, I currently have my CFAI Financial statements e-book opened right in front of me and having gone through 20 pages of text, I am yet to come across the " quite straightforward and clearly labelled" sections you mentioned. I am guessing we probably don’t have the same textbooks then?
Well, if you’re referring to p.11 “today’s investment professional should consider the long-term health of the market as a whole.”, then I don’t see what’s wrong; as S2000 said “should” is a recommendation.
Now, when you’ll get to later topics, like all the Standards of Professional Conducts and all the Research Objectivity Standards, you’ll realize that it is indeed straightforward, with each standard falling under one of those two categories.
Didn’t mean to contradict you, just saying that the content of the item sets is always clear, having done them all. When I failed a question, that’s because I had forgotten a point, or read too quickly, missing important information.
What concerns me is the sometime contradictory message I get from the CFAI text if we were to interpret “should” as recommendations. For example on page110 of the CFAI text, Standard V(B) Communication with Clients and Prospective Clients says “members and candidates must : …(2) Use reasonable judgment in identifying which factors are important to their investment analyses, recommendations, or actions and include those factors in communications with clients and prospective clients”
However, on the next page (P111) Guidance section, 2nd paragraph it says “Standard V(B) states that members and candidates should communicate in a recommendation the factors that were instrumental in making the investment recommendation…”
I have found a few of these as I read through the text, is this just a case of bad writing or am I missing something.
