Has Hatcher violated, either directly or indirectly, the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice?

Cindy Hatcher, CFA, has spent the last ten years as a portfolio manager with Bernhardt Capital. While working for Bernhardt, Hatcher was responsible for maintaining and improving the company’s code of ethics and guidelines for ethical money management. As a result of Hatcher’s efforts, Bernhardt saw a dramatic decline in the number of complaints received from their individual and institutional customers. One of Bernhardt’s direct competitors, Smith Investments, is keenly aware of Hatcher’s reputation for ethical business practices and has offered her a job as their compliance officer. Hatcher has been apprised of several potential ethical problems at Smith that she will be directly responsible for fixing through implementation of policies and procedures that will prevent ethical dilemmas. The management at Smith is willing to grant Hatcher the authority to construct and implement policies to eliminate the ethical problems at the company.

Hatcher agrees to accept the position with Smith and resigns from employment with Bernhardt. As her first initiative with the company, Hatcher distributes to all employees at Smith a survey intended to acquaint her with the company’s common business practices. Her goal is to identify those factors that are most likely to interfere with Smith’s compliance with the CFA Institute’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. After collecting and analyzing the anonymous responses to the survey, Hatcher has identified the following four issues as the most frequently cited questionable business practices:

• Many Smith employees have relatives who are clients of the firm. For relatives* accounts where the Smith employee does not have beneficial ownership, trades are generally executed in conjunction with trades for other discretionary accounts held at the firm. Only in accounts where the Smith employee has beneficial ownership are trades delayed until all discretionary account trading is completed.

• Many of Smith’s employees either personally own or maintain, through a family member, beneficial ownership of stocks that are also held in accounts for many of the firm’s clients. While the company maintains a strict disclosure policy to the firm of such beneficial ownership and an "at will" disclosure policy to its clients, employees are not barred from trading these securities for their personal benefit even if their clients also own or have a direct or indirect financial interest in the same securities.

• Account managers meet weekly to discuss the issues and concerns of the client portfolios managed at the firm. During the meetings it is not unusual for individual clients to be identified and discussed. Information regarding the client’s holdings and investment strategy is discussed as well as persona! needs related to the client’s portfolio. The meetings are held in order to provide guidance and continuing education to all of the firm’s account managers.

• At the suggestion of fixed-income analysts at the firm, most of the portfolio managers working for Smith have been adding B-rated corporate fixed-income securities to their portfolios. Analysts originally made (and continue to make) the suggestion due to the attractive yield potential offered by this class of

investments. Smith’s portfolio managers were thrilled with the idea since the returns on many of the portfolios’ equity positions have been stifled by high profile accounting scandals.

Management at Smith Investments has been pleased with Hatcher’s efforts so far but is concerned about the firm’s ability to maintain compliance with the CFA Institute’s Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®). The managing director of the firm, Erich Prince, has made the following comments to Hatcher: "I am concerned that we will not be able to claim compliance with GIPS at the end of the year since our new information system has inhibited our ability to include terminated portfolios in the historical record up to the last full measurement period before they were terminated. Also, we are unable to regroup portfolios that utilize hedging into separate composites from those that do not utilize hedging. These portfolios are currently grouped according to traditional value and growth strategies based on the capitalization of portfolio holdings (i.e., large vs. small)."

Hatcher eases Prince’s mind by telling him she will "ensure full compliance with GIPS by the end of the quarter."

Has Hatcher violated, either directly or indirectly, the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice?
A . Hatcher violated Standard III(E) Responsibilities of Supervisors by accepting the position with the knowledge that violations were occurring at Smith.
B . Hatcher violated Standard 111(E) Responsibilities of Supervisors by failing to make an adequate effort to uncover potential violations at Smith Investments.
C . Hatcher has not violated the Code or Standards.

View Answer

Answer: C

Explanation:

There is no indication from the case that Hatcher is in violation of (he Code and Standards. Hatcher is allowed to accept a position where there are known violations as long as she will be granted sufficient latitude to eliminate such violations. Management at Smith Investments is hiring Hatcher to eliminate ethical violations at the company and giving her the proper power and authority. Hatcher is also taking reasonable measures (through the anonymous survey) to identify the violations of the Code and Standards. Hatcher is allowed to take a position with a direct competitor as long as she is not working for them secretly while still employed with Bernhardt. (Study Session 1, LOS 2.a)