|
Based on the information provided, the actions of the research analysts described in this case may potentially constitute violations of the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct. Starting with June Tian's case, her post on WeChat Moments could be considered a violation of the Code and Standards, specifically the duty to communicate with clients and prospective clients in a fair and timely manner. By making a public statement about her prediction on the A-share market, she potentially created unrealistic expectations and misled the public. Moreover, her claim to be the first person on the internet to predict the market increase appears to be more of a boast than a well-researched analysis. This suggests that she may have acted unprofessionally and without integrity, which could potentially harm her clients' interests. Regarding Steve Han, his questionable recommendations and response to his client's losses show a potential violation of the Code and Standards, specifically the duty to act with integrity, professionalism, and diligence. Han's recommendations appear to be deviating from fundamental analysis, which could indicate a lack of diligence in his work. Furthermore, his response to the client's losses shows a lack of professionalism and integrity by blaming the client instead of acknowledging any mistakes in his analysis. This not only violates the Code and Standards, but it also potentially harms the client's interests, which should always be a top priority. Further, Han's forwarding of research reports on two public companies to a WeChat group consisting of institutional investors raises questions about his duty to maintain confidentiality. It is unclear whether he obtained permission from the companies or whether the reports contained non-public information. If either of these were the case, Han would have violated the Code and Standards, specifically the duty to maintain confidentiality. This is an important issue, as confidential information can be extremely valuable and could potentially harm the interests of investors who do not have access to it. In Kevin Feng's case, his recreation of analysis from his previous employer to issue a report on San'an Optoelectronics could be considered a violation of the Code and Standards, specifically the duty to maintain and improve professional knowledge and skills. If Feng's recreation of the analysis was not based on current information or if he did not disclose the fact that the analysis was from his previous employer, he would have violated this duty. This not only shows a lack of professionalism and integrity, but it could also potentially harm his clients' interests by providing inaccurate or outdated information. Another potential violation of the Code and Standards in this case is the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. It is possible that June Tian's positive statements about the A-share market were influenced by her personal interests or biases, which could have created a conflict of interest. Similarly, Steve Han's questionable recommendations and response to his client's losses may have been influenced by his personal interests or incentives, which could have created a conflict of interest. This is an important issue to consider, as conflicts of interest can potentially harm the interests of investors who rely on the advice and analysis of investment professionals. It is also worth noting that the allegations made by June Tian against Steve Han should be carefully evaluated before concluding that a violation of the Code and Standards has occurred. Accusations of jealousy or slander require evidence to support them, and it is possible that Han's actions were not motivated by such negative motives. Nevertheless, the potential violations of the Code and Standards highlighted by this case demonstrate the importance of upholding the highest ethical standards in the investment profession. Overall, this case highlights the potential consequences of failing to uphold the Code and Standards in the investment profession, and the need for continued education and professional development to maintain and improve the skills and knowledge required to do so. By doing so, investment professionals can build trust with their clients and the public, and ultimately contribute to a more fair and efficient global financial system. 首先是田琼琳的案例，她在微信朋友圈的发帖可能被视为违反了道德准则和职业行为标准，特别是在公平及及时地与客户和潜在客户沟通的义务方面。通过公开发表她对A股市场的预测，她可能创造了不切实际的期望并误导了公众。此外，她声称自己是第一个在互联网上预测市场上涨的人似乎更像是吹牛而不是一个经过深入研究的分析。 对于韩松韵，他的可疑建议和对客户损失的回应显示了可能违反了道德准则和职业行为标准，特别是诚信、专业和勤勉的义务。韩的建议似乎偏离了基本面分析，这可能表明他在工作中缺乏勤勉。他对客户损失的回应也表现出缺乏专业和诚信，而是责怪客户，而不是承认自己分析中的任何错误。 此外，韩将两家上市公司的研究报告转发到一个由机构投资者组成的微信群中，引发了关于他保持机密性的义务的问题。不清楚他是否获得了这些公司的许可或这些报告是否包含非公开信息。如果任何一种情况属实，他将违反保持机密性的道德准则和职业行为标准。 在冯凯文的案例中，他重新制作了以前雇主的分析报告，以发布关于三安光电的报告，这可能被视为违反了道德准则和职业行为标准，特别是保持和提高专业知识和技能的义务。如果冯的分析不是基于当前信息或者他没有披露这个分析是来自以前的雇主，那么他将违反这个义务。 总之，本案例中的研究分析师的行为展示了在投资职业中遵守道德准则和职业行为标准的重要性。违反道德准则和职业行为标准不仅伤害了个人投资者，还破坏了公众对金融行业的信任。
| 
