Even if LeCompte discloses the cost of her attendance she may still not be permitted to take the trip depending upon her company’s policies. In addition, the dis- closure in this case is not enough to avoid a potential violation of Standard I(B) relating to independence and objectivity. By allowing the corporate issuer to pay for her travel expenses her judgment could be compromised. It is more appropriate for LeCompte to decline the invitation or have her company pay all costs for the trip in order to avoid any conflict or appearance of conflict.
The actions are appropriate and would avoid poten- tial conflicts.

. Find prices one period from the end. Value at Year 2:
0.5 × [(104/1.0450) + (104/1.0450)] + 4 = 103.522 0.5 × [(104/1.0325) + (104/1.0325)] + 4 = 104.726 0.5 × [(104/1.0235) + (104/1.0235)] + 4 = 105.612
Find prices two periods from the end. Time 1 values are the average of Time 2 dis- counted plus the coupon payment.
0.5 × [(103.522/1.0360) + (104.726/1.0360)] + 4 = 104.506
0.5 × [(104.726/1.0260) + (105.612/1.0260)] + 4 = 106.504
Find prices at Time 0. There is no coupon paid in this node.
0.5 × [(104.506/1.029) + (106.504/1.029)] = 102.532
because the discount rate used is an average across time.
because the calculation omits the 4 coupon in the last period.

. LeCompte provided all the recommended disclosures relating to potential conflicts of interest with respect to UniFlash. In addition to her small equity position in NanoMem and the firm’s market making role for NanoMem shares, LeCompte should have also disclosed the “benefit received” from NanoMem concerning the trip she took as required by Standard 2, Public Appearances. In addition, if news of the secondary offering of NanoMem had already been made public, she should have also disclosed the fact that Topaz had been appointed the lead underwriter.
LeCompte only provided recommended disclosures relating to potential conflicts of interest with respect to UniFlash.

1 Drawbridge sold AUD 5 million forward to the settlement date at an all-in forward price of 0.8940 (USD/AUD).
2 To mark the position to market, Drawbridge offsets the forward transaction by buying AUD 5 million three months forward to the settlement date.
3 For the offsetting forward contract, because the AUD is the base currency in the USD/AUD quote, buying AUD forward means paying the offer for both the spot rate and forward points.
I. The all-in three-month forward rate is calculated as 0.9066 – 0.00364 = 0.90296
II. This gives a net cash flow on settlement day of 5,000,000 × (0.8940 – 0.90296) = –USD44,800 (This is a cash outflow because Drawbridge sold the AUD for- ward and the AUD appreciated against the USD).
4 To determine the mark-to-market value of the original forward position, calculate the present value of the USD cash outflow using the three-month USD discount rate: –USD44,8000/[1 + 0.0023(90/360)] = –USD44,774.
The present value of the cash flow was not calculated (step 4 of
calculation).
The cash flow was calculated using the bid rate instead of the offer rate.
1 The all-in three-month forward rate = 0.9062 – 0.00368 = 0.90252
2 This gives a net cash flow on settlement day of 5,000,000 × (0.8940 – 0.90252) = – USD42,600, and the present value is calculated as –USD42,600/[1 + 0.0023(90/360)] = –USD42,576.

Hollingsworth;s preferred method of calculating the GDP growth rate is the Solow growth accounting equation, and the rate is calculated as follows:
ΔY/Y = ΔA/A + α(ΔK/K) + (1 – α)(ΔL/L) where
ΔY/Y = Growth in gross domestic product, GDP ΔA/A = Growth in total factor productivity = 1/5% ΔK/K = Growth rate of capital = 3.2%
ΔL/L = Growth rate of labor = 0.4%
α = Output elasticity of capital = 0.3
1 – α = Output elasticity of labor = 0.7
Thus, ΔY/Y = 1.5 + (0.3 × 3.2) + (0.7 × 0.4) = 1.5 + 0.96 + 0.28 = 2.74. The calculation did not apply (1 – α).
ΔY/Y = 1.5 + (0.3 × 3.2) + 0.4 = 1.5 + 0.96 + 0.4 = 2.86
The inflation rate was incorrectly used in place of TFP in the calculation.
ΔY/Y = 1.7 + (0.3 × 3.2) + (0.7 × 0.4) = 1.7 + 0.96 + 0.28 = 2.94