I’m back. Did I miss anything?
My imaginary CFA results are mid-80% area for both the morning and afternoon sessions. That sounds like it predicts a pass on Saturday, though probably not at a 95% level of significance. (Does it? I have no idea.) The effect of 1 drink before / 1 during the afternoon is hard to discern although there were more wrong answers towards the end of the afternoon session than at the beginning. Also I was heartily sick of it by the end. Are there really II more levels of this thing? Do they have more stuff on them? That seems excessive.
Now I’m not going to run afoul of ethics guidelines by discussing anything on the mock exam, or real exam, or anywhere else. (Also, this is important: CFA Institute, if you’re reading this, we’re just kidding about the whole guaranteeing returns thing.) But the sense I get is that people find the ethics section particularly daunting, which, COME ON PEOPLE, you are not doing much for public perceptions of your industry. Nonetheless, as a public service for those taking the test on Saturday and looking to sharpen your skills, here’s an extra practice ethics question suggested by a reader. Read more »
I am now going to take a mock CFA exam. In order to replicate actual testing conditions as closely as possible without leaving my apartment, I will do the following:
1. Spend 2 hours* on the first session (120 questions)
2. Lunch, beer
3. Spend 2 hours on the second session (120 questions). Another beer.
4. Check answers, post results
5. Mockery. Another beer.
The CFA’s commitment to “past performance does not reflect future results” extends to its own products, saying “Performance on a mock exam should not be used in any way to predict performance on the actual exam.” But you and I know better. So tell me:
Read more »
Remember, back in April, when a bunch of UBS employees, were escorted out of the building and told not to come back, “pending an internal review into their conduct”? At the time we knew all four worked in operations and that they “were responsible for securities movements and payments,” and speculated that perhaps this was another RBS/Jim Glover-esque incident. Today, some other details have been filled in.
Reilly, 34, of Congers, N.Y., was sentenced today by Senior United States District Judge Warren W. Eginton in Bridgeport to 33 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for stealing more than $673,000 from UBS, his employer. According to court documents and statements made in court, from 1999 to April 2011, Reilly was employed at UBS in various positions. Most recently, Reilly worked at the Stamford office of UBS Securities, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the parent company. From November 2007 through January 2010, Reilly held the position of director within the settlements group and, as such, was responsible for overseeing various activities, including managing and maintaining suspense accounts and making sure that accurate payments were made to and by UBS on a daily basis. From approximately February 2009 to April 2011, Reilly was responsible for approximately 84 fraudulent wire transfers that caused more than $673,000 of company funds to be transferred to his own personal accounts…Reilly used his position as a director in the settlements group to cause subordinates to make false journal entries and fraudulent wire transfers without them knowing that the entries were false and that the transfers were going to Reilly’s personal accounts. Today, Reilly was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $673,447.47.
According to the sentencing memo, Reilly stole from the good people at UBS to feed a gambling addiction that often found him sports-betting on the job (by his own estimation, at the height of his problem Reilly would spend “8 hours gambling and 2 hours working”) and sometimes on cruise ships. Read more »