Two days ago, the results of the Level III CFA exam were released. Fifty-one percent of you breathed sighs of gratitude and relief. After years of sacrifice and moments of crippling self-doubt, you were officially granted permission to place those little letters next to your name. Forty-nine percent of you were left feeling a bit less satisfied with how the June test panned out. We haven’t spoken with everyone, but in our professional opinions, we’re guessing most who failed are at stage two of Kübler-Ross. You’re so angry you can hardly see straight and you’ve fired off at least two emails to everyone associated with the Institute, Subject: “I see your three little letters and raise you three of my own: S a D” followed by a picture of a rabbit with a knife through it and a little card that says “YOU,” and then later, a photo you took using the self-timer function in which, and it’s kind of dark so it’s hard to make out, it looks like you’ve arranged hundreds of small candles spelling out the letters ‘c’ ‘f’ ‘a’ on your front lawn? And are attempting to put out the flames with your own piss?
And while many people have tried to tell you that it’s not a big deal, that you can take it again next year, that it doesn’t reflect who you are, that it happens to a lot of guys, nothing has seemed to work. You’re still really, really angry and deep down inside, you’re really sad, sad that you’ve been denied access to the club where apparently now they’ll let in just over half of anyone who shows up to take the goddamn test.
You shouldn’t be. In fact, you dodged a bullet.
Our review of the individuals “currently serving public disciplinary sanctions for violations of the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct or have resigned their memberships while under investigation for industry-related misconduct” reveals why.
Did you really wanted to be associated with a group that:
Would make you choose between your designation and your drug-dealing business?
On 11 March 2010, CFA Institute imposed a Summary Suspension against John Diedrich (USA), a candidate in the CFA Program, pursuant to Article 11.3(c) of the CFA Institute Bylaws and Rule 7 of the CFA Institute Rules of Procedure. Diedrich pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Champaign County, Illinois, to the offense of unlawful possession with the intent to deliver cannabis.
Chooses to punish, instead of reward, ingenuity?
Downen enrolled to take the 2002 Level II CFA examination. Although he was enrolled for the 2002 exam, Downen failed to take the exam – he was a “no show.” Although he did not take the Level II exam, Downen created a document, purportedly from AIMR, that represented he passed the 2002 Level II CFA exam. Downen presented this document to his supervisor and also verbally represented to his supervisor that he passed the Level II CFA exam. Downen received a compensation increase for “passing” Level II of the exam. Downen’s employer subsequently investigated the matter and his employment was terminated.
Pissed off this guy?
On 16 April 2009, CFA Institute imposed a Summary Suspension against Albert Hsu, pursuant to Article 11.3(c) of the CFA Institute Bylaws and Rule 7.3 of the CFA Institute Rules of Procedure for Proceedings Related to Professional Conduct. Summary Suspension automatically suspends Hsu’s membership and right to use the CFA designation. Hsu pleaded guilty in Connecticut Superior Court to one count of attempted kidnapping and one count of trafficking in personal identification information, both which are felonies.
HAD THE BALLS TO SUSPEND 5K MARATHON PARTICIPANT JEFFREY CHIANG???
On 14 May 2010, CFA Institute imposed a Summary Suspension on Jeffrey Chiang (USA), pursuant to Article 11.3(f) of the CFA Institute Bylaws and Rule 7 of the CFA Institute Rules of Procedure for Proceedings Related to Professional Conduct. Summary Suspension automatically suspends Chiang’s participation in the CFA Program. Chiang failed to cooperate with the CFA Institute Professional Conduct Program in its investigation of his conduct.
No. You would not.