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.

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.

Pierce’s behavior upon assuming her new position at Cheeri can best be described as violating CFA Institute Standards because she:

A. encouraged her former clients to leave Chester.

B. should not have contacted her former clients at all.

C. disclosed Chester’s new compensation program.

View Answer

Answer: C

Explanation:

Standard IV(A). Pierce took no client records with her from Chester. It is reasonable to assume that she is using publicly available information to contact her former clients. So long as Pierce did not have a non­compete agreement, the standards do not preclude her from contacting former clients or encouraging them to move their accounts. The violation in this case was disclosing the new compensation plan. This plan should be disclosed to Chester’s clients by Chester. Pierce does not have whistleblower status in this case because she stands to receive a personal gain by bringing her former clients to Cheen. By disclosing the plan. Pierce has violated Standard IV(A) Duties to Employers – Loyalty by attempting to injure her former employer. Note that the compensation plan is not illegal; it is only a policy that should be disclosed. Had there been an illegal activity, Pierce may have had more justification as a whistleblower. (Study Session 1, LOS 2.a)