is it ok without disclosure?

CFA Level III Ethics
#21

Violation due to no disclosure and violation due to not allocating IPOs to relatives (fair treatment)

#22

i think it is not a violation of allocating IPOs. See question 81 page 178

#23

i think it is not a violation of allocating IPOs. See question 81 page 178

#24

You have to allocate IPOs to fee-paying customers, you can’t deny them shares just because they are relatives, that’s not fair to them.

#25

I do agree with you by logic but why in the EOC question no 81 page 178 said that he should not allocate?

#26

I do agree with you by logic but why in the EOC question no 81 page 178 said that he should not allocate?

#27

agree, unless you benefit, for instance if you live with your wife’s parents, share the same bank account with them, they are going to use the IPO they receive to bequeath to your wife etc. if it is your wife’s account then it is not a violation, since they are only relatives must treat them like any other clients, agree with markd10027.

#28

it seems you are correct. just last Q, did they say wife relatives or parents?

#29

it seems you are correct. just last Q, did they say wife relatives or parents?

#30

The answer is he doesn’t violate the Standards because he doesn’t allocate the IPO to his wife. Allocating to your wife is essentially allocating to yourself. If this were his uncle, grandparents, etc. then he’d be in violation, UNLESS the vignette specifically stated he is sharing an account with his relative.

#31

Not if the account is fee-paying, then it won’t be treating customers fairly. I didn’t read the EOC question you’re referring to but if it’s non fee paying then I agree with you.

#32

the one we have in exam is fee paying or not? for wife parents or relatives? i just want some one to remind me

#33

the one we have in exam is fee paying or not? for wife parents or relatives? i just want some one to remind me

#34

and now we wait

#35

MCAP 11 , so in the case we got in PM session, is it a violation or not?

#36

MCAP 11 , so in the case we got in PM session, is it a violation or not?

#37

Turkey

#38

Turkey

#39

Yes, it is a violation. It would not be a violation if he had beneficially ownership (i.e. if it were his wifes accounts and not her parents). Also, a rule of thumb is if they live in the same address (which is strange). I think if there was more mention of inheritance then the case could be made that they had beneficially ownership but that was not the case.