Quiet Period

I put delay but was back and forth on issue original report. i can see both.
 
bannisja Wrote:
——————————————————-
> i am pretty confident that if you go back to your
> ethics book, it is huge on NOT delaying… you get
> that report out quickly and accurately. the 2nd
> report was garbage, he should publish the 1st.
> don’t make me grab the handbook, but i could
> almost swear there’s an example q in the handbook
> almost exactly like this. i will not concede this
> point.
That makes no sense. The second report was garbage based on the supervisors opinion. And the analyst who wrote the report did not think the first report was accurate, so why on earth would he issue the original report.
 
The second report was garbage
> based on the supervisors opinion. And the analyst
> who wrote the report did not think the first
> report was accurate, so why on earth would he
> issue the original report.
That is not at all true. The way it was worded was basically that even the analyst thought his new report was garbage. Also, nowhere did it say he did not think his first report was accurate. The deal was he changed with no support other than what was overheard at lunch.
 
king_kong Wrote:
——————————————————-
> what was the 3rd choice on this one?
Contact compliance to make sure what to do. If they aren’t sure call your Legal department.
That was option four and the correct one for every Ethics question.
 
Example 6. Elizabeth Levenson is based in Taipei and covers the Taiwanese
market for her firm, which is based in Singapore. She is invited to meet the finance
director of a manufacturing company along with the other 10 largest shareholders
of the company. During the meeting, the finance director states that the company
expects its workforce to strike next Friday, which will cripple productivity and
distribution. Can Levenson use this information as a basis to change her rating
on the company from “buy” to “sell”?
Comment: Levenson must first determine whether the material information
is public. If the company has not made this information public (a small-group
forum does not qualify as a method of public dissemination), she cannot use
the information according to Standard II(A).
 
That doesn’t mean the original report has to be distributed TheAliMan. You can’t force an analyst to distribute against his will. He improved the report so why would he agree to distribute the old report? Since the rating is opposed to his current view (believe originally it was sell now it was buy).
 
TheAliMan Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Example 6. Elizabeth Levenson is based in Taipei
> and covers the Taiwanese
> market for her firm, which is based in Singapore.
> She is invited to meet the finance
> director of a manufacturing company along with the
> other 10 largest shareholders
> of the company. During the meeting, the finance
> director states that the company
> expects its workforce to strike next Friday, which
> will cripple productivity and
> distribution. Can Levenson use this information as
> a basis to change her rating
> on the company from “buy” to “sell”?
> Comment: Levenson must first determine whether the
> material information
> is public. If the company has not made this
> information public (a small-group
> forum does not qualify as a method of public
> dissemination), she cannot use
> the information according to Standard II(A).
The way I interpret that is, you delay the issue until next week (short delay) when it becomes public. It would be silly, and very silly for anyone who thinks logically the answer would be issue the report even though you know its wrong. Some people are lacking common sense here..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top