一、综合案例
案例 1：双重身份
张经理在资产管理公司工作。周末他参加了一个投资讲座，以个人名义发表了对市场的看法。讲座中他声称自己是"前摩根士丹利副总裁"（实际是助理 VP），并暗示"有些消息我不能公开说，但你们懂的..."。
违规清单： - I(C) 夸大资质（前摩根"副总裁" vs 实际职位） - I(C) + II(A) 暗示拥有内幕信息 - IV(A) 可能违反——用雇主品牌背书个人活动
案例 2：研究报告的数据来源
李分析师在研报中引用了某咨询公司的行业增长率预测（15%），但标注为"基于我们的研究"。实际上该数据直接取自咨询公司报告第 42 页。李分析师没有核实该咨询公司的原始数据来源。
违规分析： - I(C) 抄袭——引用他人数据未注明出处 - I(C) 虚假陈述——标注为"我们的研究"但实际上是别人的 - V(A) 勤勉义务——未核实数据来源 = 不够勤勉
案例 3：离职后的业绩声明
前基金经理在 LinkedIn 上写："曾在 XYZ 资产管理公司管理 50 亿 AUM，年化收益 18%。" 实际：该基金由 5 人团队管理，该经理负责其中一部分，整体 AUM 50 亿中他直接管理的约 8 亿。
违规： I(C) 资质夸大（50 亿 → 实际 8 亿）。离职后仍受 I(C) 约束。
案例 4：模型缺陷
量化团队开发了选股模型，回测表现优异。但团队发现模型在流动性低的股票上使用了错误的交易成本假设。团队决定暂不修正，继续展示回测结果。
违规： I(C) 明知模型有缺陷但不披露 = 虚假陈述。
二、I(C) 违规后果汇总
| 违规类型 | 涉及 | 典型后果 |
|---|---|---|
| 夸大业绩 | I(C) | 客户流失 + 监管处罚 + 法律诉讼 |
| 资质造假 | I(C)+VII(A) | CFA 协会处罚 + 雇主解雇 |
| 抄袭 | I(C)+IV(A) | 版权诉讼 + 行业信任破产 |
| 模拟当真实 | I(C) | GIPS 违规 + 客户赔偿 |
三、测试题
1. 李分析师引用咨询公司数据但标注为"基于我们的研究"。这主要违反：
A) 仅 I(A)
B) I(C) — 抄袭 + 虚假陈述
C) 仅在数据错误时违规
D) 不违规——咨询公司数据是公开的
2. 量化团队发现模型缺陷但继续使用回测结果宣传。最佳描述是：
A) 合理商业判断
B) 违规——明知有缺陷仍使用 = 虚假陈述
C) 合规——只要后续修正模型
D) 仅违反 V(A) 勤勉义务
3. 前基金经理在个人资料中夸大管理规模。离职后是否仍受 I(C) 约束？
A) 不——离职后不再受 CFA 准则约束
B) 是——CFA 准则终身适用
C) 仅在前雇主投诉时才受约束
D) 仅受 VII(A) 约束
4. 虚假陈述中"明知"（Knowingly）的最准确解释是：
A) 仅包括主动故意的谎言
B) 包括实际知道和合理应当知道
C) 仅包括书面陈述
D) 需要法律程序才能认定
5. 以下哪种做法可以帮助防止无意的虚假陈述？
A) 加快研究报告的发布速度
B) 所有声明都保留支持文件和来源记录
C) 不发表任何研究报告
D) 仅在内部传播
答案
- B — 数据来自他人却说"我们的研究"= 抄袭 + 虚假陈述的双重违规。
- B — 知道模型有毛病还用 = "knowingly misrepresent"。
- B — CFA 准则对会员和持证人终身适用，离职后 I(C) 义务不变。
- B — 明知 + 应知 = 高于一般法律标准。
- B — 保留文件支持每一个声明 = 防止无意虚假陈述的最佳实践。
下一课 L037：Standard I(D) 职业不端行为
1. Comprehensive Cases
Case 1: Dual Identity
Manager Zhang works at an asset management firm. Over the weekend, he speaks at an investment seminar, expressing personal market views. During the talk he claims to be a "former Morgan Stanley Vice President" (actually Assistant VP) and hints, "There are things I cannot say publicly, but you know what I mean..."
Violation Checklist: - I(C) inflating credentials ("former MS VP" vs. actual title) - I(C) + II(A) implying possession of inside information - IV(A) potential — using employer brand to endorse personal activities
Case 2: Data Sourcing in a Research Report
Analyst Li cites an industry growth forecast of 15% from a consulting firm in a research report but labels it "based on our research." In reality, the data was taken directly from page 42 of the consulting firm's report. Analyst Li did not verify the consulting firm's original data source.
Violation Analysis: - I(C) plagiarism — citing others' data without attribution - I(C) misrepresentation — labeled "our research" when it is actually someone else's - V(A) diligence — failure to verify the data source = insufficient diligence
Case 3: Post-Departure Performance Claims
A former fund manager writes on LinkedIn: "Managed $5 billion AUM at XYZ Asset Management with 18% annualized return." Reality: The fund was managed by a 5-person team; the manager was responsible for a portion, with approximately $800 million directly managed out of $5 billion total.
Violation: I(C) credential exaggeration ($5 billion → actual ~$800 million). I(C) continues to apply after departure.
Case 4: Model Defects
A quant team developed a stock selection model with strong backtest results. But the team found that the model used incorrect transaction cost assumptions for low-liquidity stocks. The team decided not to correct the model and continued to present the backtest results.
Violation: I(C) — knowingly using a flawed model without disclosure = misrepresentation.
2. I(C) Violation Consequence Summary
| Violation Type | Standards Involved | Typical Consequences |
|---|---|---|
| Inflated performance | I(C) | Client attrition + regulatory penalties + litigation |
| Credential fraud | I(C) + VII(A) | CFA Institute sanctions + employer dismissal |
| Plagiarism | I(C) + IV(A) | Copyright litigation + industry trust bankruptcy |
| Simulated passed off as actual | I(C) | GIPS violation + client compensation |
3. Practice Questions
1. Analyst Li cites consulting firm data but labels it "based on our research." This primarily violates:
A) Only I(A)
B) I(C) — plagiarism + misrepresentation
C) Only if the data turns out to be incorrect
D) No violation — consulting firm data is public
2. A quant team discovers a model defect but continues using the backtest results for promotion. The best description is:
A) Reasonable business judgment
B) Violation — knowingly using a flawed model = misrepresentation
C) Compliant — as long as the model is subsequently corrected
D) Violates only V(A) diligence
3. A former fund manager exaggerates management scale in a personal profile. Is I(C) still binding after departure?
A) No — CFA Code no longer applies after leaving a firm
B) Yes — the CFA Code applies for life
C) Only binding if the former employer complains
D) Only bound by VII(A)
4. The most accurate interpretation of "knowingly" in misrepresentation is:
A) Only actively intentional lies
B) Includes both actual knowledge and what one reasonably should have known
C) Only written statements
D) Requires legal proceedings to determine
5. Which practice helps prevent unintentional misrepresentation?
A) Speeding up the release of research reports
B) Retaining supporting documentation and source records for all claims
C) Not publishing any research reports
D) Disseminating only internally
Answer Key
- B — Data from others labeled "our research" = double violation: plagiarism + misrepresentation.
- B — Knowing a model is flawed and still using it = "knowingly misrepresent."
- B — The CFA Code applies to members and candidates for life; the I(C) obligation is unchanged after departure.
- B — Actual knowledge + constructive knowledge = a higher standard than general law.
- B — Retaining documentation to support every claim = best practice against unintentional misrepresentation.
Next L037: Standard I(D) Professional Misconduct