dates are incorrect na? and is the optionA right answer?
Share
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Based on the provided solution, there is an error in the explanation for scenario B. The solution incorrectly states that the minimum effective compliance date for a real estate pooled fund is 1 January 2006. However, according to the information provided, the correct minimum effective compliance date for real estate pooled funds is 1 January 2010. Therefore, the statement that performance not compliant with the GIPS standards can be linked with GIPS-compliant performance for a firm whose claim of compliance began on 1 January 2010 is incorrect.
Here is the corrected information:
A. Wrap fee composite for a firm whose claim of compliance began on 1 January 2006: The minimum effective compliance date for a wrap fee composite is indeed 1 January 2006. Therefore, a firm in this scenario could link performance that is not compliant with the GIPS standards to performance that is compliant with the GIPS standards.
B. Real estate pooled fund for a firm whose claim of compliance began on 1 January 2010: The minimum effective compliance date for a real estate pooled fund is 1 January 2010. In this scenario, performance that is not compliant with the GIPS standards cannot be linked with GIPS-compliant performance.
C. Large-cap equity composite for a firm whose claim of compliance began on 1 January 2001: The minimum effective compliance date for all other composites and pooled funds is 1 January 2000. Therefore, in this scenario, performance that is not compliant with the GIPS standards cannot be linked with GIPS-compliant performance.
The correct answer is A.