Decision reasoning – validity period for transfer forms (investment schemes) Statement: The Institute has fixed a validity period of one year for transfer forms for some of its listed schemes. Courses of Action to evaluate: I. The Institute should consult investors before fixing the validity duration. II. Investors should be duly informed about the validity period. III. The list of schemes covered under this validity period should be communicated. Which course(s) logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
Policy changes affecting investors require transparent communication. The question asks which actions are necessary and logically connected to implementing a new validity period for certain schemes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A one-year validity applies to transfer forms for some listed schemes.
• Stakeholders need clarity on duration and coverage.
• There is no requirement stated for prior consultation.

Concept / Approach:
Good governance principles emphasize timely disclosure and unambiguous instructions so investors can act within deadlines and understand applicability.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: While consultation can be beneficial, it is not necessary to implement a validity period. The statement does not imply consultation is required. Hence I does not follow.II: Informing investors about the validity period is essential for compliance and fairness. This follows.III: Communicating the exact list of covered schemes prevents confusion and misapplication. This follows.

Verification / Alternative check:
For any rule with scope and deadline, notice (II) plus scope clarity (III) are the minimal required actions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Options including I assume a procedural requirement not stated.
• Only III omits the critical duty to inform about the duration.

Common Pitfalls:
Overvaluing consultation as mandatory; in many regulatory contexts, communication and clarity are the core obligations.

Final Answer:
Only II and III follow