IBBC CAPITAL ACADEMY / 2027
Resolve a multi-duty committee incident
Independent IBBC Capital draft content for self-study. Not affiliated with or endorsed by CFA Institute. New lessons await subject-matter review. No CFA designation or official PSM credit is awarded.
Learning goals
- Diagnose the conduct from the facts and relevant professional duties.
- Recommend a documented preventive and corrective response.
Draft · approximately 60 minutes, excluding further revision.
Decision case · fictional facts
A fictional fund discovers that its manager gave a related account preferential fills, used an unverified valuation to improve reported returns, and sent client holdings to a consultant through an unapproved channel. The chair proposes quietly deleting messages and using a new disclaimer. Some facts remain disputed and no legal conclusion has been reached.
Duties and competing interests
Integrated ethics cases can involve loyalty, fair dealing, analysis, performance presentation, confidentiality, conflicts and supervision simultaneously. Separate each action and its affected parties; do not force every fact into a single favored standard. Distinguish established facts, reasonable inferences and evidence still needed.
A disclaimer cannot cure false numbers, unfair allocation or unauthorized data access. Protect assets and information, preserve records, use independent investigation and avoid prejudging disputed facts. Corrections and disclosures should be accurate, timely and consistent with legal/privacy obligations and the mandate.
Decision, controls and remaining uncertainty
Secure logs and suspend the risky process proportionately; appoint an independent reviewer, reconcile fills and obtain supportable valuations. Determine the scope of information exposure through authorized incident handling.
Correct affected records, communicate through approved channels and remediate incentives, access and supervision. Verify that the remediation works rather than merely collecting acknowledgments.
Formula and assumptions
Identify facts → duties → affected parties → feasible action → evidence and follow-up
Compare with the model response after drafting
- Secure logs and suspend the risky process proportionately; appoint an independent reviewer, reconcile fills and obtain supportable valuations. Determine the scope of information exposure through authorized incident handling.
- Correct affected records, communicate through approved channels and remediate incentives, access and supervision. Verify that the remediation works rather than merely collecting acknowledgments.
Errors to catch
- Treating disclosure, client consent or a supervisor’s instruction as permission for prohibited conduct.
- Inventing missing facts or treating a potential concern as a proven legal violation.
Write, compare, then self-assess
Your writing stays in this page’s memory and is lost on reload. Export includes self-assessment totals only.
Original knowledge check
Answer every question before checking. Review explanations after submitting; retry starts a new attempt.
Sources and coverage status
These original lessons are drafts. Public outlines are used to check scope; the official learning-outcome text and proprietary question banks are not reproduced here. Follow the source for exam-year requirements and updates.