Views on improving the integrity of global capital markets
30 May 2019

Ethics in Practice: Performance Reporting. Case and Analysis–Week of 27 May

Check out the analysis for this week’s case (27 May) to see how you did in practicing your ethical decision-making skills.

Case

Prosper Funding (Prosper) is a marketplace lender that enables borrowers to obtain unsecured consumer loans and allows investors to purchase securities linked to the performance of those loans. Prosper creates individual account pages for each investor on its website, which provides information on the consumer loans, gives the annualized net return (ANR) performance of each investor’s account, and includes a link through which they can invest in Prosper securities. Prosper calculates the ANR for each investor using an automated process developed some years ago by personnel no longer with the firm. ANR results are reported prominently on each investor’s online account page.

After several years, Prosper implements a “debt sale program” through which eligible nonperforming, charged-off consumer loans linked to Prosper securities are sold. Because of an unforeseen effect of a previous, unrelated change to the original coding in the program, Prosper reports an ANR to its clients that excludes the impact of the worst-performing securities that they previously held but that have since been sold to third-party debt purchasers. Periodically, Prosper reviews all of the computer processes used by the company, and through that review, it becomes clear that current employees lack an understanding of the ANR calculation process. The review is always general and at a high level, and thus Prosper does not identify the error in the ANR calculation. Because of the error, Prosper reports to a majority of its investors that their investments are earning up to double the returns they actually had earned.

When certain affected investors raise questions about the accuracy of the ANR calculations they received, Prosper’s customer service department handles the complaints and confirms the reported figures were calculated erroneously because of a flawed computer program. The customer service employees do not elevate any of these complaints to Prosper’s product, engineering, or compliance departments. Prosper has also solicited new investors for its securities based on the miscalculated ANR by sending hundreds of emails that highlight their ANR performance (albeit erroneous) and has recommended that investors “add funds and build on their solid returns.” Prosper does not identify the error for several years and discovers it only after receiving a complaint from a large institutional investor. Prosper notifies investors that it miscalculated and misstated their ANR and provides a current, correct calculation of the ANR to investors at that time.

Choose one of the following Prosper personnel and explain how that employee may have violated the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct (Code and Standards) and why.

  1. Employee responsible for the computer program that calculates the ANR.
  2. Customer service employee responding to client complaints about the ANR.
  3. Marketing employee using the ANR performance calculations to solicit investments.
  4. Compliance employee responsible for firm policies and procedures.
  5. CEO of Prosper.

Analysis

A. Prosper’s issues begin with ANR performance that is calculated incorrectly and posted to client accounts. The CFA Institute Standard of Professional Conduct III(D): Performance Presentation requires CFA Institute members to make reasonable efforts to ensure that investment performance is presented in a fair, accurate, and complete manner. The ANR is calculated using a computer program that was created many years earlier, and over the years, it has developed a defect that leads to dropping underperforming accounts from the calculation. Although the person currently responsible for calculating the ANR did not create the computer program, that employee does not understand the program’s process and has not adequately reviewed the calculation method to ensure that it is accurate, thus allowing the error to continue.

B. Although the customer service employee responding to client complaints is not responsible for the ANR calculation error, that employee is responsible for acting in accordance with Standard III(A): Loyalty, Prudence, and Care to protect client interests once the issue has been raised. That employee failed to elevate any of the investor complaints to Prosper’s personnel responsible for the calculation and apparently simply recalculated the ANR using the same flawed code. The customer service employee did not engage with or investigate the client complaints with sufficient reasonable care, diligence, competence, or professionalism, as required by Standard V(A): Diligence and Reasonable Basis and the Code of Ethics.

C. The marketing employee using erroneous ANR performance is not responsible for the calculation error. Team members should be able to rely on the work of others in their firm (in this case, those calculating the ANR) to fulfill their responsibilities in an appropriate manner to produce accurate work. But in this case, the marketing employee is ultimately responsible for distributing misleading information that misrepresents the true performance of the securities, which violates Standard I(C): Misrepresentation. Once the marketing employee becomes aware that the information is inaccurate, that employee must take steps to remediate the error and distribute accurate and complete information.

D. The compliance employee has a responsibility to review the firm’s policies and procedures to ensure that they meet relevant regulatory and ethical requirements. Prosper only sporadically reviews all the computer programs and processes used by the company, uses employees to calculate the ANR performance that lack an understanding of the ANR calculation process, and conducts only a high-level review that would not catch the error in the ANR calculation. Similar to the customer service employee, the compliance employee did not exercise sufficient care, diligence, competence, or professionalism as required by Standard V(A): Diligence and Reasonable Basis and the Code of Ethics to ensure that an adequate compliance program was in place to address errors or properly investigate problems once discovered.

E. The Prosper CEO likely has no direct involvement with the calculation and presentation of performance, addressing client complaints, or creating and implementing compliance procedures. But the CEO does have overall responsibility to ensure that the firm complies with the law (Standard I(A): Knowledge of the Law) and protects client interests (Standard III(A): Loyalty, Prudence, and Care) as well as overall supervisory responsibility for firm employees (Standard IV(C): Responsibilities of Supervisors). The CEO is allowed to delegate this responsibility. But the Code and Standards require those with supervisory responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that those under their supervision comply with applicable laws and the Code and Standards. The breakdown of the policies and procedures of the firm designed to accurately calculate performance, adequately address complaints, and implement an appropriate compliance program are all red flags indicating a potential failure of the CEO to properly supervise employees of the firm.

This case is based on an April 2019 US SEC Enforcement Action.

Let us know what you think of Ethics in Practice by taking this short survey.

Have an idea for a case for us to feature? Send it to us at ethicscases@cfainstitute.org.


More About the Ethics in Practice Series

Just as you need to practice to become proficient at playing a musical instrument, public speaking, or playing a sport, practicing assessing and analyzing situations and making ethical decisions develops your ethical decision-making skills. The Ethics in Practice series gives you an opportunity to “exercise” your ethical decision-making skills. Each week, we post a short vignette, drawn from real-world circumstances, regulatory cases, and CFA Institute Professional Conduct investigations, along with possible responses/actions. We then encourage you to assess the case using the CFA Institute Ethical Decision-Making Framework and through the lens of the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct. Then join the conversation and let us know which of the choices you believe is the right one and explain why. Later in the week, we will post an analysis of the case and you can see how your response compares.


Image Credit: ©CFA Institute

About the Author(s)
Jon Stokes

Jon Stokes is the Director of Ethics and Standards Education at CFA Institute. His responsibilities include design and creation of on-line ethics education, development and maintenance of the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct, and the design and management of the CFA Institute Ethical Decision-Making and Giving Voice to Values education programs. Stokes holds a JD degree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close