CFA Level 1 · Module 01 Ethical and Professional Standards · Chapter 3
The last reading laid out the seven Standards and their sub-sections. This reading is the first of the guidance chapters, and it takes Standard I: Professionalism apart sub-section by sub-section, showing exactly what each duty means in practice, how it is commonly broken, and what a careful professional does to stay on the right side of it. Standard I is the largest of the seven, with five sub-sections, and it is where a great many exam questions live.
The pattern of every guidance chapter is the same. For each sub-section you get the substance of the duty, the situations that typically create a problem, and a set of recommended procedures, the concrete steps a member or firm can put in place so that violations do not happen in the first place. The exam draws on all three: it asks you to judge whether described conduct complies or violates, and it asks which procedure would have prevented a problem. Learn the duty and the fix together.
As before, MidhaFin teaches this material in its own words and with its own invented illustrations. The Standard I duties and the recommended procedures are the substance you are tested on; the scenarios below are original to MidhaFin and do not reproduce any example from the source curriculum or any prep provider.
Before the detail, fix the structure in mind. Each Standard is stated in a single sentence or two; the guidance then explains what that sentence means when a real situation is messier than the words. The guidance is followed by recommended procedures for compliance, which are not themselves the rule but are the profession’s advice on how to keep the rule. A firm is not penalized for choosing different procedures, but if a violation occurs, the absence of any reasonable procedure is telling.
A useful habit for the exam is to read every scenario twice: once asking “which sub-section is in play?” and once asking “what single step would have prevented this?” The first question earns the compliance-or-violation mark; the second earns the recommended-procedure mark. Standard I rewards this discipline because its five sub-sections are easy to confuse under time pressure.
It also helps to remember that the guidance is written to be applied, not memorized as slogans. Two people can face the same rule and reach different conduct because their facts differ: the level of legal knowledge expected of a supervisor is not the level expected of a junior analyst, and a benefit that would compromise a covering analyst may be harmless for someone with no role in that coverage. So the guidance repeatedly ties the duty to the person’s actual responsibilities and circumstances. When you work a question, anchor on what this specific person’s role requires, rather than on a one-size rule, and the right answer usually becomes clear.
| Sub-section | Duty in one line |
|---|---|
| I(A) Knowledge of the Law | Know and follow applicable law and the Code and Standards; obey the stricter; dissociate from violations |
| I(B) Independence and Objectivity | Keep your judgment independent; do not give or accept anything that could compromise objectivity |
| I(C) Misrepresentation | Make no untrue or misleading statement about your work, including omissions, guarantees, and plagiarism |
| I(D) Misconduct | No dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, and no act reflecting adversely on your professional character |
| I(E) Competence | Acquire and maintain the competence your professional role requires |
Members and Candidates must understand and comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations (including the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct) of any government, regulatory organization, licensing agency, or professional association governing their professional activities. In the event of conflict, Members and Candidates must comply with the more strict law, rule, or regulation. Members and Candidates must not knowingly participate or assist in and must dissociate from any violation of such laws, rules, or regulations.
Verbatim wording of the Standard as published by CFA Institute; all explanation and examples below are MidhaFin’s own.
Standard I(A) requires you to understand and comply with all laws, rules, and regulations that govern your professional activities, including the Code and Standards themselves. You are not required to become a compliance expert or to know every law that could conceivably touch your work; you are required to know and follow the ones that directly relate to your responsibilities, and to keep that knowledge current as rules change.
The most tested part of I(A) is the rule for conflicts between the law and the Code and Standards: you follow the stricter of the two. The stricter one is whichever imposes the greater restriction on you or requires you to do more to protect clients. So if local law is silent on disclosing referral fees but the Code and Standards require disclosure, you disclose; if local law is stricter than the Code and Standards on some point, you follow the law. Where you operate somewhere with looser rules than the Code and Standards, the Code and Standards still bind you.
For professionals working across borders, a preliminary question is which law even counts as “applicable”, and the answer turns on the facts: the law that governs the conduct in question, which may be the law of the country where you work, where the client is based, or where the activity takes place, depending on the circumstances. A helpful way to reason through these questions is to compare three benchmarks, the local law where you operate, the law that applies to the client or activity, and the Code and Standards, and then follow the most restrictive of them. That single habit resolves most cross-border scenarios without needing to memorize any particular jurisdiction’s rules.
The other tested part is participation in and dissociation from violations. You must not knowingly participate in or assist a violation by others. If you discover ongoing conduct that violates the law or the Code and Standards, you must dissociate from it, that is, separate yourself so that you are no longer party to it. Dissociation can start with raising the issue with a supervisor or compliance and asking for it to stop; if it continues, it may mean removing your name from the work, and in extreme cases resigning from the employer. Simply disclosing a violation, or relying on the firm to fix it later, is not enough on its own.
Two boundaries keep I(A) in proportion. First, the duty is judged on a reasonable, good-faith basis: you must know the rules that directly govern your work and keep that knowledge current, but you are not expected to be a lawyer or to master every statute that could conceivably touch your activities. A junior employee with no supervisory role needs less detailed knowledge of employment law than a divisional manager who oversees many staff. Second, the Standard does not oblige you to report a violation to the authorities, though local law sometimes does; what the Code and Standards require is that you not participate and that you dissociate. Whistleblowing to a regulator can be appropriate and is protected when it serves the integrity of the market, but the baseline duty is separation from the wrongdoing, not public denunciation.
Disclosure is not the same as dissociation. Telling your manager about a violation and then continuing to work on the affected product still leaves you party to it. Dissociation means your name, your effort, and your endorsement are withdrawn from the conduct. When a scenario shows someone who “raised a concern” but kept participating, that is an I(A) violation, not compliance.
Setup. Ishita, an analyst at the fictional Girnar Advisors, discovers that a senior colleague is using an inflated, unverified performance figure to win new clients. She raises it with her manager, who tells her to stay quiet because the accounts are valuable.
Answer: staying silent and continuing to work alongside the false claim would violate Standard I(A). The duty is to dissociate, escalating and, if needed, walking away, not merely to note her objection once.
Setup. Aditya manages accounts at the fictional Meridian Advisory, whose office sits in a country where local law does not require disclosing referral fees. His clients, however, are based in a jurisdiction that does require it. A colleague tells him to follow the looser local rule because that is where the desk operates.
Answer: following the looser local rule would violate Standard I(A); the stricter disclosure requirement governs his conduct.
Members and Candidates must use reasonable care and judgment to achieve and maintain independence and objectivity in their professional activities. Members and Candidates must not offer, solicit, or accept any gift, benefit, compensation, or consideration that reasonably could be expected to compromise their own or another’s independence and objectivity.
Verbatim wording of the Standard as published by CFA Institute; all explanation and examples below are MidhaFin’s own.
Standard I(B) protects the independence of your professional judgment. You must use reasonable care to stay objective, and you must not offer, solicit, or accept any gift, benefit, or compensation that could reasonably be expected to compromise your objectivity or someone else’s. The test is not whether your view actually changed but whether a reasonable person would think the benefit could bias it.
Pressures on independence come from several directions. Companies that an analyst covers may offer lavish hospitality, expensive gifts, or paid trips in the hope of favourable coverage. Sell-side analysts can face pressure to publish optimistic research to win banking business; buy-side managers can pressure sell-side analysts, or be pressured by the companies they hold. Issuer-paid research, where a company pays an analyst to write about it, is a particular hazard: it is permitted only if the analyst is paid a flat fee that does not depend on the conclusions and discloses the arrangement, so the reader can weigh the potential bias. Personal relationships and the desire to maintain access are quieter pressures that work the same way.
The practical rules the guidance recommends are concrete. Accept only modest, ordinary-course gifts and hospitality, and decline anything lavish. When visiting a company, use commercial transport and pay your own way rather than travelling on the issuer’s plane or budget, so your independence is visibly intact. Firms should adopt formal independence policies, maintain restricted lists, and separate the people who produce research from those who chase revenue. A gift from a client that relates to past performance is treated more carefully than a token gift because it can bias future conduct, and it should be disclosed to the employer.
Two nuances are worth pinning down. First, the Standard is two-sided: you must not offer inducements to compromise someone else’s objectivity any more than you may accept them. A manager who pressures a sell-side analyst for a favourable rating is on the wrong side of I(B) just as the analyst who yields to the pressure is. Second, a gift already received from a client is treated differently from a gift or benefit offered by a prospect or a covered company. A modest token from an existing client, given in appreciation of past service, carries less risk than a benefit dangled to influence future work, but even client gifts tied to performance should be disclosed to the employer so the firm can judge whether they threaten objectivity going forward. The governing question throughout is the appearance test: would a reasonable, informed observer think the arrangement could bias professional judgment?
Standard I(B) turns on appearance, not proof of actual bias. You do not have to be swayed for the Standard to be breached; it is enough that a reasonable person could expect the gift, trip, or payment to compromise objectivity. This is why “but it did not change my opinion” is never a defence. Protect the perception of independence and you protect the substance of it.
Independence pressures also arise in settings the guidance highlights beyond individual gifts. Credit-rating work carries a structural conflict when the issuer being rated also pays for the rating, and professionals on both sides must manage that tension so the analysis stays objective. Fund managers can be pressured by the companies they hold, or by their own firms, to soften a view that would embarrass a relationship. Even the ordinary desire to preserve access to a management team can nudge an analyst toward optimism. In each case the antidote is the same: recognize the pull, keep the analysis anchored to evidence, and rely on firm-level structures, restricted lists, separation of functions, and disclosure, so no single relationship can quietly bend a professional’s judgment.
| Pressure | The risk | The compliant response |
|---|---|---|
| Lavish gifts and hospitality | Sense of obligation biases coverage | Accept only modest, ordinary items; decline the rest; disclose client gifts to employer |
| Issuer-paid trips | Travel funded by the covered company | Use commercial travel and pay your own way where practical |
| Issuer-paid research | Payment tied to a favourable conclusion | Flat fee independent of findings, plus clear disclosure of the arrangement |
| Banking or revenue pressure | Optimistic research to win business | Separate research from revenue functions; firm independence policy |
Setup. Karan, an analyst at the fictional Aravalli Securities, is offered a week-long trip on a covered company’s corporate jet to tour overseas plants, with five-star hotels and a generous gift on arrival. He argues the tour is genuinely useful for his research.
Answer: accepting the jet, hotels, and gift would violate Standard I(B). The research benefit does not license the loss of visible independence; he takes the tour on his own firm’s dime.
Members and Candidates must not knowingly make any misrepresentations relating to investment analysis, recommendations, actions, or other professional activities.
Verbatim wording of the Standard as published by CFA Institute; all explanation and examples below are MidhaFin’s own.
Standard I(C) prohibits knowingly making any misrepresentation relating to your analysis, recommendations, actions, or other professional work. A misrepresentation is any untrue statement or any omission that makes a communication misleading. It covers false claims about your qualifications, services, or performance, and it covers misleading impressions created by leaving out material facts, not just outright lies.
Two specific forms show up repeatedly. First, guarantees: you must not promise a specific return or the preservation of capital for an investment whose value can fluctuate. Saying “you are guaranteed to earn eight percent” or describing a risky instrument as “guaranteed” misrepresents its nature; you may, however, accurately describe genuine, contractual guarantees that actually exist. Second, plagiarism: presenting someone else’s work, words, analysis, charts, or models, as your own without attribution is a misrepresentation. This includes copying research, using another analyst’s forecasts without credit, or reusing material from a source without acknowledgment. Attributing facts to their source and citing others’ work is the cure.
Misrepresentation is not limited to formal written reports. It applies equally to oral statements, marketing material, website and social-media content, and performance presentations, and it applies whether the false impression is created by what you say or by what you leave out. An omission can mislead as effectively as a false statement: describing only an investment’s upside while staying silent on a material risk misrepresents it just as surely as an outright untruth. The knowledge element matters too, the Standard targets misrepresentations you make knowingly, but wilful blindness, passing on a claim you had good reason to doubt without checking it, does not excuse you.
The recommended procedures are practical. Present qualifications, services, and performance factually and completely. Keep a summary of your own experience and credentials so claims stay accurate. Verify third-party information before passing it on, and maintain records that support any performance figures. To avoid plagiarism, attribute quotations, data, and ideas to their authors, and keep copies of the sources you relied on. Firms should set a written policy on attribution and on how performance may be presented, and keep web and social content current so nothing stale becomes misleading.
Candidates often think plagiarism requires copying word for word. It does not. Using another analyst’s conclusions, model, or forecast as though it were your own, even reworded, is misrepresentation under I(C). Acknowledged facts from recognized statistical sources are the narrow exception, but original analysis must always be credited.
Setup. Priya, a relationship manager at the fictional Nilgiri Wealth, markets a mortgage-linked product to conservative clients by calling the income stream “guaranteed”, because the underlying loans carry a government guarantee, even though the investor’s principal and income are not in fact protected.
Answer: calling the income “guaranteed” violates Standard I(C). Priya must present the product accurately, distinguishing the loan-level guarantee from the investor’s unprotected position.
Members and Candidates must not engage in any professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit or commit any act that reflects adversely on their professional reputation, integrity, or competence.
Verbatim wording of the Standard as published by CFA Institute; all explanation and examples below are MidhaFin’s own.
Standard I(D) is broader than the rest of Standard I because it reaches conduct beyond specific professional tasks. It prohibits any professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, and, importantly, any act that reflects adversely on your professional reputation, integrity, or competence. The second half is what makes I(D) wide: an act does not have to occur at work to violate it, if it bears on your trustworthiness as an investment professional.
The line the guidance draws is about relevance to professional character. Personal behaviour that shows dishonesty or deceit, lying, stealing, cheating, defrauding, reflects on your integrity and can violate I(D). Conduct that is merely personal and does not bear on professional trustworthiness generally does not; for example, the guidance notes that personal bankruptcy, on its own, may not reflect on integrity, and lawful personal activity such as peaceful civil protest is not misconduct. The question is always whether the act signals that you cannot be trusted in your professional role.
A caution runs the other way too: I(D) is about conduct that genuinely bears on professional character, not a licence to police every private choice or lawful belief. The guidance is careful to note that lawful personal activity, such as peaceful civil protest, and financial misfortune that does not involve dishonesty, such as bankruptcy arising from a business downturn rather than fraud, do not by themselves violate the Standard. The discriminating question is always dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, or an act that a reasonable observer would read as undermining trust in you as an investment professional.
The recommended procedures are firm-level: adopt a code of ethics that makes clear misconduct will not be tolerated, give employees a list of the kinds of conduct that violate the standard, and set out the sanctions that follow. Making the expectation and the consequence explicit is what keeps I(D) from being a surprise.
Setup. Rahul, a portfolio analyst at the fictional Satpura Capital, is convicted of falsifying receipts to claim reimbursements he was not owed. The amount is small and unrelated to client money, and he argues it has nothing to do with his job.
Answer: the fraud violates Standard I(D). Dishonest conduct that bears on trustworthiness is misconduct even when it is small and occurs outside direct client work.
Setup. Vikram, a fixed-income analyst at the fictional Deccan Asset Managers, is convicted of running a side scheme in which he sold counterfeit event tickets to acquaintances. The scheme has no link to his firm or its clients, and he insists his work record is spotless.
Answer: the fraud violates Standard I(D); deceit that bears on trustworthiness is misconduct even when it is unconnected to the job.
Members and Candidates must act with and maintain the competence necessary to fulfill their professional responsibilities.
Verbatim wording of the Standard as published by CFA Institute; all explanation and examples below are MidhaFin’s own.
Standard I(E), added in the 2023 revisions, requires you to act with, and maintain, the competence your professional responsibilities demand. It makes explicit a duty the Code always implied. The level of competence is not fixed: it scales with the nature and complexity of your role, so a manager overseeing complex strategies is held to a different standard of knowledge than someone in a narrow support function, and as your role grows you must build the new skills it needs.
Two points are worth holding. First, the duty is ongoing, not a one-time achievement: you must maintain competence as products, markets, and rules change, which in practice means continued learning throughout a career. Second, the Standard does not prescribe any particular course, certification, or number of hours; competence can be demonstrated and maintained in many ways, and what matters is that you are actually capable of doing the work you take on. Accepting responsibilities you are not competent to handle, without acquiring the needed skill or support, is the violation.
Competence does not mean you must personally master everything a task touches. A perfectly compliant response to work that exceeds your current expertise is to acquire the knowledge before acting, to bring in a colleague or specialist who has it, or to decline the assignment. What you may not do is proceed as though competent when you are not, because the client bears the cost of the gap. This is why I(E) sits naturally beside I(A) Knowledge of the Law and the diligence duty you will meet in Standard V: together they say that a professional must be equipped, in knowledge and in skill, for the specific work in front of them, and must close any shortfall rather than hide it.
The way competence is demonstrated scales with role. For a specialist moving into a new asset class, it may mean study and mentoring before taking client mandates; for a manager, it may mean ensuring the team collectively holds the skills a strategy demands. Because the required level is tied to the complexity of the work, the same person can be fully competent for one assignment and out of their depth on another, and the Standard asks them to recognize the difference honestly. Seen this way, competence is a form of respect for the client: it refuses to let a professional’s ambition or convenience become the client’s risk.
Standard I(E) links competence to ethics directly: taking on work you cannot competently perform is not just a skills gap, it is an ethical breach, because clients are harmed by incompetent service just as surely as by dishonest service. When a scenario shows someone stepping into a role well beyond their demonstrated skill without building competence, think I(E).
Setup. Sana, an equity analyst at the fictional Ridgeline Investments who has only ever covered listed shares, is asked to build and sign off a valuation of a complex private derivative position for a large client, on a tight deadline. She has never modelled such an instrument.
Answer: signing off a valuation she is not competent to perform would violate Standard I(E); the compliant path is to build the skill, get help, or decline.
Because the exam often asks which procedure would have prevented a problem, it helps to see the recommended procedures for all five sub-sections together. The table gathers the main ones; each maps directly to the duty it protects, and reading it as duty-and-fix pairs is by far the fastest way to lock the whole material in before test day.
| Sub-section | Key recommended procedures |
|---|---|
| I(A) Knowledge of the Law | Stay current on applicable rules; use compliance and legal resources; keep procedure files; dissociate from and, if needed, report violations |
| I(B) Independence and Objectivity | Limit gifts to modest amounts; pay your own travel; require flat-fee, disclosed issuer-paid research; maintain restricted lists and independence policies |
| I(C) Misrepresentation | Present qualifications and performance factually; verify third-party data; keep a personal credentials summary; attribute all sources to avoid plagiarism |
| I(D) Misconduct | Adopt a firm code of ethics; list prohibited conduct; state the sanctions for violations |
| I(E) Competence | Match responsibilities to demonstrated skill; pursue ongoing learning; seek support or decline work beyond current competence |
When a Standard I question describes a benefit, gift, or trip, reach first for I(B). When it describes a false or misleading claim, a guarantee, or copied work, reach for I(C). When it describes lying, cheating, or fraud, even outside work, reach for I(D). When it describes ignoring or enabling a rule breach, reach for I(A). And when it describes someone in over their head, reach for I(E).
An analyst discovers his firm is knowingly overstating a fund’s track record to prospects, reports it, and is told to drop it. What must he do?
He must dissociate from the violation under Standard I(A). That means pressing compliance or higher management to correct it, removing himself from the affected work, and, if the firm refuses to act, being prepared to resign. Reporting once and continuing as before is not sufficient.
Is issuer-paid research always a violation of Standard I(B)?
No. It is permitted if the analyst is paid a flat fee that does not depend on the report’s conclusions and the arrangement is disclosed, so readers can weigh the potential for bias. Payment contingent on a favourable conclusion, or an undisclosed arrangement, is the violation.
Why can conduct outside work violate Standard I(D)?
Because I(D) prohibits any act that reflects adversely on your professional reputation, integrity, or competence. Personal conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit bears on your trustworthiness, which is central to the professional role, so it falls within the Standard even if it happens away from the office.
An analyst reuses another firm’s forecast in her report, reworded and without credit. Which Standard does this breach?
Standard I(C) Misrepresentation, through plagiarism. Presenting someone else’s analysis or forecast as your own, even reworded, is a misrepresentation; the fix is to attribute the source.
An analyst works in a country whose local law is looser than the Code and Standards on disclosing conflicts of interest. Which one must she follow?
The Code and Standards. Under Standard I(A) you follow the stricter requirement, and where local law is less demanding than the Code and Standards, the Code and Standards still bind you.
A manager copies a rival firm’s published economic charts into his own report and relabels them as his team’s work. Is this compliant, or a violation?
A violation of Standard I(C). Presenting another party’s charts or analysis as your own without attribution is plagiarism and therefore misrepresentation; the fix is to credit the source.
Does Standard I(E) require a specific certification or a set number of study hours to prove competence?
No. It does not prescribe any particular course, certificate, or number of hours. What it requires is that you are actually capable of the work you take on, with the level scaled to the role, and that you maintain that capability as products, markets, and rules change.
I(A) Knowledge of the Law, I(B) Independence and Objectivity, I(C) Misrepresentation, I(D) Misconduct, and I(E) Competence. Standard I is the largest of the seven Standards, and the guidance treats each sub-section with its own duty and recommended procedures.
When applicable law and the Code and Standards call for different conduct, you follow whichever imposes greater restrictions on you or requires more to protect clients. If the law is stricter, follow the law; if the Code and Standards are stricter, follow them. Where local rules are looser than the Code and Standards, the Code and Standards still bind you.
Separating yourself from ongoing misconduct so you are no longer party to it. In practice that means raising it with a supervisor or compliance and asking that it stop, removing your name from the affected work if it continues, and, in extreme cases where the firm will not act, resigning. Disclosing it once and carrying on is not enough.
No. Modest, ordinary-course gifts are generally acceptable. The concern is any gift, benefit, or trip large enough that it could reasonably be expected to compromise your objectivity. Gifts from clients tied to past performance need particular care and should be disclosed to your employer, because they can bias future conduct.
No. Using another person’s analysis, forecast, model, or charts as though they were your own, even reworded, is plagiarism and therefore misrepresentation. The remedy is to attribute the work to its source. Facts from recognized statistical sources are a narrow exception, but original analysis must always be credited.
Yes, when it reflects adversely on your professional reputation, integrity, or competence. Dishonesty, fraud, or deceit in personal life bears on your trustworthiness and can violate I(D). Conduct that does not bear on professional character, such as personal bankruptcy on its own or lawful peaceful protest, generally does not.
That you act with, and maintain, the competence your professional responsibilities demand. The required level scales with the complexity of your role, the duty is ongoing rather than one-time, and no specific certification or number of study hours is mandated. Taking on work you are not competent to perform, without building the needed skill, is the violation.
Through scenarios that ask whether described conduct complies or violates and which sub-section applies, and through questions on which recommended procedure would have prevented a problem. A quick guide: benefits and trips point to I(B), false or copied claims to I(C), dishonesty to I(D), enabling rule breaches to I(A), and being out of one’s depth to I(E).
Loading comments...
Add your Thoughts: