FINRA Admits Series 24 Exam Score Error

On September 30, 2015, FINRA announced that 208 Series 24 test takers were incorrectly assigned failing grades for that exam. The individuals affected by this issue all took the test between July 13 and September 24, 2015. Continue reading

On September 30, 2015, FINRA announced that 208 Series 24 test takers were incorrectly assigned failing grades for that exam.  The individuals affected by this issue all took the test between July 13 and September 24, 2015. A FINRA representative reports that this incident affected test takers who were close to the passing score of 70%.

The problem was caused by what FINRA called a “configuration error” in the new version of the Series 24 exam, which was introduced on July 13.  During a review of the system, FINRA staff noticed a higher than usual number of failures, which alerted them to the error.

FINRA is currently in the process of updating the exam records and contacting any firms that were affected by this incident.

The Series 24 is the qualifying exam for general securities principals, and it is the only exam series that experienced this issue.

Source: Statement Regarding Series 24 Exam

Series 24 Live Class – Portland, OR

Solomon Exam Prep is excited to announce that we will be hosting a live, in-person Series 24 study course at our office in Portland, OR, September 9 & 10. Continue reading

Studying for the Series 24 exam? Looking for classroom instruction?

Solomon Exam Prep is excited to announce that we will be hosting a live, in-person Series 24 study course at our office in Portland, OR. Taught by Professor Karen Solomon, this 2-day class will cover the major topics that you will encounter on the FINRA General Principal Qualification Exam. The class will be held September 9 & 10 from 9:00 am – 4:00 pm.

If you are interested in attending please call our office at 503.601.0212 for pricing and details.

Series 24 Portland Class

Exam Alert: FINRA Provides Guidance on Communications

On May 22, 2015, FINRA issued guidance concerning communications with the public. Here are some notable points from the guidance… Continue reading

Exam Alert

On May 22, 2015, FINRA issued guidance concerning communications with the public. Here are some notable points from the guidance.

  • Non-promotional communications (i.e. communications that do not promote or recommend a specific product or service) do not need to be filed with FINRA
  • Electronic forum posts are considered retail communication, but are specifically excluded from filing requirements
  • Template updates do not need to be filed with FINRA if all that changed was statistical information
  • Various non-material changes to previously filed communications do not require refiling the communication
  • A reprinted article does not need to be filed with FINRA
  • Promotional items that only have the name of a mutual fund are not considered “advertisements” under Rule 482
  • If a firm includes mutual fund performance in a retail communication or correspondence, they must also include the fund’s expense ratio
  • Firm must file retail communications regarding registered business development companies
  • A Series 26 registration does not permit a principal to approve retail communications concerning a business development company. The principal must have a Series 24, Series 9/10, or Series 39 registration instead.

Sources:
Regulatory Notice 15-17: Guidance on Rules Governing Communications With the Public
FINRA Rule 2210 Questions and Answers

This alert applies to the Series 6, Series 7, Series 9/10, Series 24, Series 26, Series 39, Series 62, Series 82, and Series 99.

Exam Alert: FINRA Revises Public, Non-public Arbitrator Standards

Effective June 26, 2015, FINRA will alter its rules regarding who will be consider a public or non-public arbitrator. The change will make it so that any arbitrator who has worked in the financial industry for any period of time will be considered a non-public arbitrator. Also, arbitrators who represent investors or the financial industry as a significant part of their business will be considered non-public arbitrators, but may become public arbitrators after a cooling-off period. Continue reading

Exam AlertEffective June 26, 2015, FINRA will alter its rules regarding who will be considered a public or non-public arbitrator. The change will make it so that any arbitrator who has worked in the financial industry for any period of time will be considered a non-public arbitrator. Also, arbitrators who represent investors or the financial industry as a significant part of their business will be considered non-public arbitrators, but may become public arbitrators after a cooling-off period. The cooling-off period lasts five years if they were disqualified from being a public arbitrator based on their own actions. The cooling-off period lasts two years if they were disqualified from being a public arbitrator based on someone else’s actions.

Source: SEC Approves Amendments to Arbitration Codes to Revise the Definitions of Non-Public and Public Arbitrator

This alert applies to the Series 6, Series 7, Series 24, Series 26, Series 27, Series 28, Series 62, Series 79, and Series 82.

Study Question of the Month – June

This month’s study question from the Solomon Online Exam Simulator question database is now available. Relevant to the Series 24, 26, 27, 28, 62, and 99. –ANSWER POSTED– Continue reading

This month’s study question from the Solomon Online Exam Simulator question database is now available.

***Submit your answer to info@solomonexamprep.com to be entered to win a $10 Starbucks gift card.***

Study Question

Question (Relevant to the Series 24Series 26Series 27, Series 28, Series 62, and Series 99):

Which of the following is true regarding lost and stolen security reporting requirements?

I. All reports of securities that have been lost for one business day should be reported to the Commission

II. All reports of lost securities in which there is a substantial belief that theft was involved should be reported to the Commission

III. All reports of lost or stolen securities should be reported promptly to the FBI

IV. All reports of lost securities in which there is a substantial belief that theft was involved should be reported to the FBI

Answers:

A. I and III

B. II and IV

C. I and IV

D. II and III

Correct Answer: B. II and IV

Rationale: All reports in which there is substantial belief that theft was involved should be reported to the Commission within one business day of such a discovery. In addition, when there is believed to be criminal activity involved, it should be reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Securities that have been lost for two business days should be reported to the Commission when criminal activity is not suspected.

Congratulations Roseann L., this month’s Study Question of the Month winner!

All study questions are from Solomon’s industry-leading Online Exam Simulator.

Study Question of the Month – May

This month’s study question from the Solomon Online Exam Simulator question database is now available. Relevant to the Series 6, 7, 24, 26, 27, and 28. –ANSWER POSTED– Continue reading

This month’s study question from the Solomon Online Exam Simulator question database is now available.

***Submit your answer to info@solomonexamprep.com to be entered to win a $10 Starbucks gift card.***

Study Question

Question (Relevant to the Series 6, Series 7, Series 24, Series 26, Series 27, and Series 28):

According to the Code of Arbitration, excluding claims alleging discrimination or sexual harassment, arbitration of disputes is mandatory for all of the following except:

Answers:

A. Disputes between two member firms

B. Disputes brought by member firms against customers, if required by contract

C. Disputes brought by member firms against customers for claims in excess of $25,000

D. Disputes brought by associated persons against customers, if the customer consents

Correct Answer: C. Disputes brought by member firms against customers for claims in excess of $25,000

Rationale: Arbitration of disputes involving customers is mandatory only if the customer consents to arbitration or if required by contract. Claims alleging discrimination or sexual harassment cannot be arbitrated, except by agreement of all disputing parties.

(No winner this month. There were no correct answers submitted. Try back next month!)

Weekly study questions are from Solomon’s industry-leading Online Exam Simulator.

SEC wants off-exchange broker-dealers to become members of FINRA or other securities association

On March 25, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rule amendments to require that broker-dealers trading in off-exchange venues become members of a national securities association. Continue reading

On March 25, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rule amendments to require that broker-dealers trading in off-exchange venues become members of a national securities association. According to SEC Chair Mary Jo White, “today’s proposed rules would close a regulatory gap by extending oversight to a significant portion of off-exchange trading.”

The proposed amendments to Rule 15b9-1 under the Exchange Act would eliminate the proprietary trading exemption and replace it with a narrower one that will permit a floor-based dealer to engage in off-exchange transactions only if such transactions hedge the broker-dealer’s floor-based trading. The proprietary trading exemption originally was designed to accommodate exchange specialists and other floor members that might need to conduct limited hedging or other off-exchange activities ancillary to their floor-based business. Over time, the markets have undergone a substantial transformation, including the emergence of active cross-market proprietary trading firms, many of which engage in so-called high-frequency trading strategies. Although the business of these firms may not be focused on an exchange floor, and they may be responsible for a substantial percentage of the trading volume in the off-exchange market, many are not members of a national securities association because they have been able to rely on the broad proprietary trading exemption in Rule 15b9-1.

The proposed amendments would amend the exemption to target the broker-dealers for which it was originally designed – those with a business focused on an exchange floor and over which that exchange is positioned to oversee the entirety of their trading activity. They also would update the exemption that permits off-exchange transactions necessary to comply with regulatory requirements restricting trade-throughs, under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.

The SEC will take public comment on the proposed rule amendment for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.