- CFA Exams
- CFA Exam: Dec. 2020 Level 1
- Study Session 1. Ethical and Professional Standards
- Reading 3. Guidance for Standards I-VII
- Subject 4. Standard I (D) Misconduct
CFA Practice Question
There are 361 practice questions for this study session.
Rick's conduct reflects adversely on his fitness as a CFA charterholder. Convictions of even minor offenses might rise to the level of violating Standard I (D).
User Contributed Comments 21You need to log in first to add your comment.
Frequency is key and it is a misdemeanor
Yes is correct, however, it should be noted that the official CFA materials say, "Generally, Standard I(D) is not meant to cover legal transgressions resulting from acts of civil disobedience in support of personal beliefs because such conduct does not reflect poorly on the member or candidate's professional reputation, integrity, or competence."
Keep in mind though that this is not a misconduct due to his personal beliefs, it is something that potentially might influence his performance and reputation
i guess the key word would be controlled substance and the nos of times:)
Oh no! Does is mean I can't take Marijuana any more?
I guess no realistic boss with testify in support of a worker who take marijuana, I does have a long run effect though
Your boss may not think that taking coke creates impairment either. That is also illegal though. Frequency is definitely a major part, but also the degree of the offense. Just because you murdered only one person will not exempt you from breaking Standard 1(D). (Or the law for that matter)
Maybe it was his medicine !!
controlled substance - is the keyword...
for robB, never assume anyth
if u r arrested becuz u were against irag war, now..that wud not be a violation, it is a personal belief and is not a violation of 1D but if u streaked naked and wear a board, bobby smith, CFA, well i dunno lol
I think typing incoherrently reflects badly on the investment profession...
to be "in possession of" is different from "being a consumer".
i agree fully with roBb, THC, the active ingredient in marijuana has been scientifically proven to lower and even eliminate stress and depression far better than some synthetic drug made by a pharma with some questionable objectives,Billion dollar C-level perks and private corporate jets
It says he is charged...it doesn't say anything about conviction. Being charged doesn't necessarily mean he was guilty.
Yeah smoking weed is not really pursuing one's personal believes (in the text book it is about a woman who is arrested in some sort of demonstration) unless their goal were to "experience god" ;) He's repeatedly breaking the law so it reflects badly on him & the profession? I am sure there are lots of IBankers out there doing lines all day but we're just talking about the standards here.
If his boss believes that it does not affect his work, and his boss is widely believed as being competent, then would this act not be a violation of the standard?
But I guess that it hurts his professional reputation, so it is a violation of the standard.
I think some people are missing the point; this is not a violation because of anyone's personal beliefs about the use of controlled substances or even his bosses opinion on how it affects his work. This is a violation specifically because the incidents mentioned and the frequency reflect poorly on the analysts reputation and thus compromise the reputation of financial professionals as a whole. It is my understanding that a lot of the Standards are designed to promote confidence in the industry; regardless of the specific events the frequency of potentially compromising incidents alone can have a dramatic impact on how financial professionals are viewed.
Any substance that creates intoxication is going to affect someone's ability to perform investment decisions. One or two drinks that do not create definitive drunken effects for someone don't create that scenario, while any amount of recreational drug should be assumed to do just that if they are not prescribed.
Guys, what about a Rasta CFA?
Does he not also Violate standard I A knowledge of the law?