A new survey from CFA Institute on ethics showed that 41% of respondents in the Asia Pacific (APAC) region regarded non-consideration of product suitability before selling to or investing for clients as the most common unethical behavior in the industry today.

Not disclosing conflicts of interests to clients and/ or employers followed, with over 30% of responses. The findings emerge ten years after the Global Financial Crisis, as the industry continues to wrestle with rebuilding trust.

The Ethics Survey, conducted among investment management professionals in APAC, reinforces the efforts of CFA Institute to drive conversations around, and raise awareness of ethics among investors and within the investment management community.

“Our findings come at a critical time when trust in the financial industry, particularly in Hong Kong, remains low. While there’s a growing focus on ethics, we urge the investment community to strengthen their commitment to transparency and professionalism,” said Tony Tan, co-head, Ethics, Standards and Professional Conduct, CFA Institute. “Around 15% of our CFA curriculum focuses on ethics, so that professionals entering the field are equipped not only with the practical skills to perform their jobs, but with a solid foundation in ethics.”

Respondents in China feel relatively positive about the current level of ethical and professional conduct among investment professionals, with 39% expressing that the current level stands at very ethical. This figure is notably higher than how respondents felt in Australia (29%) and the rest of APAC (20%).

Yet, only 44% of respondents from China said a firm’s commitment to ethics and professionalism should matter to clients when they are considering awarding a mandate or hiring an advisor, significantly behind Australia (85%) and the rest of APAC (52%).

The biggest roadblocks that respondents saw when dealing with clients were managing conflicts of interest (26%) and determining product suitability (26%). Independently and objectively providing recommendations trailed slightly behind, with 25% of responses.

Other key findings include:

* Respondents think institutional investors view the investment profession as more trustworthy than retail investors do: 61% of respondents say institutional investors would rate the trustworthiness of the investment management profession as very or somewhat high, while only 34% of respondents said the same for retail investors.

* In general, respondents were fairly positive on the current level of ethical conduct of investment professionals, with 66% of respondents agreeing that the level of ethical conduct of investment professionals was either very ethical or somewhat ethical. Only 1% of respondents rated the level of ethical conduct as not ethical at all.

* More than a quarter of respondents (27%) note that their firms never provide ethics training to employees.

* Respondents in China were more likely to agree that their firms advocate their code of ethics compared with the APAC region on average (84% vs. 78%).