Chester’s advertising campaign includes claims about Rogers’s investment performance, as well as Rogers’s use and reference to the CFA charter. Is Chester’s advertising campaign consistent with the CFA Institute Standards?

Chester Brothers, LLC, is an investment management firm with $200 million in assets under management. Chester’s equity style is described to clients as a "large cap core" strategy. One year ago, Chester instituted a new compensation plan for its equity portfolio managers. Under this new plan, each portfolio manager receives an annual bonus based upon that manager’s quarterly performance relative to the S&P 500 index. For each quarter of aut-performance, the manager receives a bonus in the amount of 20% of his regular annual compensation. Chester has not disclosed this new plan to clients. Portfolio managers at Chester are not bound by non-compete agreements.

Fames Rogers, CFA, and Karen Pierce, CFA, are both portfolio managers affected by the new policy. Rogers out-performed the S&P 500 index in each of the last three quarters, largely because he began investing his clients1 funds in small cap securities. Chester has recently been citing Rogers’s performance in local media advertising, including claims that "Chester’s star manager, James Rogers, has outperformed the S&P 500 index in each of the last three quarters." The print advertising associated with the media campaign includes a photograph of Rogers, identifying him as James Rogers, CFA. Below his name is a quote apparently attributable to Rogers saying "as a CFA chartcrholdcr I am committed to the highest ethical standards."

A few weeks after the advertising campaign began, Rogers was approached by the Grumpp Foundation, a local charitable endowment with $3 billion in assets, about serving on their investment advisory committee. The committee meets weekly to review the portfolio and make adjustments as needed. The Grumpp trustees were impressed by the favorable mention of Rogers in the marketing campaign. In making their offer, they even suggested that Rogers could mention his position on the advisory committee in future Chester marketing material. Rogers has not informed Chester about the Grumpp offer, but he has not yet accepted the position.

Pierce has not fared as well as Rogers. She also shifted into smaller cap securities, but due to two extremely poor performing large cap stocks, her performance lagged the S&P 500 index for the first three quarters. After an angry confrontation with her supervisor, Pierce resigned. Pierce did not take any client information with her, but when she left she did take a copy of a Pierce has not fared as well as Rogers. She also shifted into smaller cap securities, but due to two extremely poor performing large cap stocks, her performance lagged the S&P 500 index for the first three quarters. After an angry confrontation with her supervisor, Pierce resigned. Pierce did not take any client information with her, but when she left she did take a copy of a computer model she developed while working al Chester, as well as the most recent list of her buy recommendations, which was created from the output of her computer valuation model. Pierce soon accepted a position at a competing firm, Cheeri Group. On her first day at Cheeri, she contacted each of her five largest former clients, informing them of her new employment and asking that they consider moving their accounts from Chester to Cheeri. During both telephone conversations and e-mails with her former clients, Pierce mentioned that Chester had a new compensation program that created incentives for managers to shift into smaller cap securities.

Cheeri has posted Pierce’s investment performance for the past five years on its Web site, excluding the three most recent quarters.

The footnotes to the performance information include the following two statements:

Statement 1: Includes large capitalization portfolios only.

Statement 2: Results reflect manager’s performance at previous employer.

Chester’s advertising campaign includes claims about Rogers’s investment performance, as well as Rogers’s use and reference to the CFA charter. Is Chester’s advertising campaign consistent with the CFA Institute Standards?

A. Chester’s performance claims are inconsistent with CFA Institute Standards, but his use and reference to the CFA designation is appropriate.

B. Both the performance claim and the reference to the CFA charter are violations.

C. Neither the performance claims nor the use and reference to the CFA designation are violations.

View Answer

Answer: A

Explanation:

Standard III(D). Chester has violated Standard III(D) Duties to Clients -Performance Presentation. The claim in itself is acceptable. Rogers’s superior performance has lasted only a short time, and the advertising does not suggest otherwise.

However, the superior performance has been achieved by investing in small cap securities, which is inconsistent with the stated style of Chester’s equity management. Unless Chester discloses this change in style, the performance claims do not accurately reflect the firm’s performance. Chester has not violated the Standards regarding use of and reference to the CFA designation. Rogers’s use or the CFA designation is acceptable, and the quote stating that a CFA charterholder is committed to high ethical standards is acceptable as well. (Study Session 1, LOS 2.a)