Sell-side analyst tipping and personal trading during a live mandate
Jisoo is a sell-side analyst at a Korean brokerage covering battery materials. Her employer is bidding to lead a 500 billion KRW rights issue for Hanbit Materials, a company she rates Buy with a 70,000 KRW target price. The investment banking team asks her to “refresh” the rating before the mandate is awarded. She receives an email from Hanbit’s CFO with preliminary second-quarter earnings that are 25% above consensus and not yet public. She forwards it to a hedge fund client who holds a large position and, that afternoon, buys Hanbit shares in her mother’s account. She also sends a draft report to the client with the line “subject to final compliance review.” The stock rises 8% over two days. Compliance asks for her communications and finds that she had not pre-cleared the personal trade. The hedge fund client sold half its position after the draft report and before publication.
1. Identify each ethical and legal violation in Jisoo's conduct and the rule implicated.
Read the worked answer
Violations. (1) The CFO's email is material non-public information: preliminary earnings 25% above consensus. Jisoo must not trade on it or tip others. Forwarding it to the hedge fund is tipping and a breach of the prohibition on using or disclosing undisclosed material information. (2) Buying Hanbit shares in her mother's account that afternoon is insider trading through a related account; it is also a failure to pre-clear a personal trade. (3) Sending a draft report to one hedge fund client before publication is selective distribution and, if the draft contains the earnings information, a further unlawful disclosure. (4) The investment banking team's request to “refresh” the rating before a mandate creates a conflict of interest; research must be independent, and any IB relationship must be disclosed. (5) Failure to escalate the email to compliance breaches the firm's information-barrier policy.
2. What should Jisoo have done at each decision point?
Read the worked answer
What she should have done. On receiving the CFO email, she should have stopped, not forwarded it, and immediately reported it to compliance. The firm should have placed Hanbit on the restricted list and, if necessary, suspended her coverage. She should not have traded for herself or any related account; she should have pre-cleared any personal trade and, given the IB mandate, probably been prohibited from trading Hanbit altogether. She should not have sent a draft to a single client. Research should be distributed to all clients simultaneously after compliance review, with the IB relationship disclosed. If she believed the IB pressure compromised her judgment, she should have documented the pressure and recused herself. She should have kept the CFO email within the restricted information circle.
3. What are the firm's supervisory responsibilities, and what sanctions or remediation are likely?
Read the worked answer
Firm responsibility. The firm must maintain information barriers, restricted lists, pre-clearance, surveillance of analyst communications, and a review process for rating changes during live IB mandates. Compliance should investigate the hedge fund client's sale of half its position after the draft report: the fund may also have traded on MNPI. The firm should consider suspending Jisoo, clawing back compensation, correcting the research record, and reporting to the FSS. Potential sanctions include fines, disgorgement, suspension, and criminal referral for insider trading or tipping. The supervisory lesson is that a single unreported email can defeat a paper Chinese wall; compliance needs email surveillance and a clear, no-blame escalation channel. The firm should also separate analyst compensation from IB deal outcomes.