Claims of outperformance must be supported by a diligent and reasonable basis. Using benchmark data that is inaccurate undermines the integrity of the analysis and means the performance claim isn’t based on reliable, verifiable evidence. This violates the duty to have a reasonable basis for investment analyses and recommendations, including the data and methods used to evaluate performance. Even if the presentation of performance data is covered by other standards, the core issue here is the failure to apply proper diligence to the benchmark data, which is exactly whatStandard V.A Diligence and Reasonable Basis requires.

The key idea is that investment recommendations must be grounded in thorough analysis with a documented, reasonable basis. Standard V.A Diligence and Reasonable Basis requires members and candidates to base their recommendations on careful due diligence, using appropriate evidence and documentation to support the rationale. If there’s no documented evidence or rationale, the recommendation lacks the necessary basis and cannot be defended to clients or supervisors, which violates this standard. This isn’t about how performance is presented, confidentiality, or whether a given investment is suitable for a client. Those areas are addressed by other standards. The absence of a documented justification directly points to failing the diligent, evidence-backed analysis that underpins every recommendation.

When you’re employed, you owe loyalty to your employer, and you must avoid activities that could conflict with their interests or compete with their business. If you’re considering independent practice that might compete with your employer or bring you compensation or other benefits tied to that competition, you must obtain explicit written consent from the employer before proceeding. The written form matters because it creates a clear record of what’s allowed, sets any conditions, and helps manage conflicts of interest. That’s why the best choice states that written consent from the employer is necessary to permit independent practice that could result in compensation or other benefits in competition with the employer. Verbal consent isn’t sufficient, and client approval does not substitute for the employer’s consent.

The issue is governed by the standard that requires fair dealing with clients, meaning information must be presented honestly, clearly, and in a way that lets the client make informed decisions. If a risk disclosure omits material risks or gives a misleading impression about potential losses, it fails to meet this standard. Clients rely on accurate disclosures to assess risk and make prudent choices, so downplaying or hiding risk information violates the duty to deal fairly. Other standards focus on different concerns, such as conflicts of interest or how performance data is presented, but they don’t address the fundamental obligation to disclose investment risks fairly and fully.

When a third party requests a client’s holdings and law may require disclosure, the right move is to involve your firm’s compliance function to determine what you may disclose and how to do it correctly. Checking with compliance ensures you interpret the local law, follow internal policies, and apply CFA Institute standards while protecting client confidentiality. The compliance team can confirm whether disclosure is mandated, what information can be released, and whether client consent or additional approvals are needed, coordinating with legal if necessary. This approach safeguards the client’s privacy, satisfies regulatory and firm requirements, and maintains professional integrity. Disclosing information without this review, forwarding documents without proper authorization, or ignoring the request would risk violating confidentiality, policy, and legal obligations.