Just took the 7 today and missed it by 3 points after scoring 80s and 90s on STC practice exams. I'm thinking about getting a tutor or use a different company. I really need to pass this exam.....

spree82, I am surprised to hear that after getting 80s and 90s on STC's practice exams, you did not pass. Which investment topics gave you the most trouble?

I think that the STC material doesn't focus on the new format- which is a LOT of situational questions.  "What investment option is best for this client".  STC didn't really have a whole lot of expertise in this area.  I remember this for my exam, before the new format and luckily there weren't too many situational questions.  A girl at my office just hardly skated by with a 72 and she said that the STC material was ok, because she passed but there were many, many, many questions where it came down to 2 answers and she guessed.  I think STC is good for the point blank stuff, but when it comes to this new format where you're using your intuition, STC doesn't really do a great job, however, if you're in this industry maybe you should be able to figure out which investments are best for people given less information.  I mean I guess that is our job, isn't it?

I know that people are commenting on suitability but you can't really tell based on the new format that suitability is a heavier weight.  I compared the old format to the new format. The suggested heavier weight is coming from some test takers.  There is suitability related content through the STC material but you have connect the dots.  While reading the material concerning the characteristics of securities and portfolios, you have to keep in mind that investors have objectives and constraints.  If there are more questions about suitability now, I would think that the exam prep companies would at least start adding additional questions in this area.  Also, it might be helpful for them to add a section covering portfiolio management

I agree with all of this.  Connecting the dots is a lot more prevalent in the updated series 7 test.  I am not sure if STC has updated their stuff since the test was updated.  That takes some time to update and people who work for STC are not allowed the take the tests (that is what my STC in class teacher told me at least). 

[quote=mstudy]

spree82, I am surprised to hear that after getting 80s and 90s on STC's practice exams, you did not pass. Which investment topics gave you the most trouble?

[/quote]

There was alot of ETF's, ETN, Mutual Funds and situation questions.  I had problems with some of the situational questions. I saw alot of questions where I had no idea and just guessed. Now I dont even know what to do....

YUP!  ^^^^  This is the same thing a lot of people are saying.  The study material is not set up for all the situational questions.  Yes, we need to know that stuff but if you are brand new to t he industry that stuff comes over time, not just from studying for 2 months.  Craziness.  With the new format of the Series 7, I almost feel like the Series 7 should be done after you are in the industry for a year +.  I understand why its not, but I feel like a situational test is completely different than the concepts which the Series 7 was based on before.   Series 7 should have stayed simple in terms of being mostly about general concepts and what you should know when you start in the industry.  A situational test should be taken after you are in the industry for a year + to add extra credibility to your skills in giving solid, sound investment advice.  Just sayin'. 

If it has become more situational, industry experience would be a factor in answering the questions and passing the test.  However, you don't get up the learning curve until you have been working in the business for several years. You are right in that the prep providers have not changed their approach.   Modifying the material would probably take a long time. Writing situational questions is very time consuming.  What I am starting to incorporate into my teaching is a portfolio management component.  Essentially, I am going through the various components of creating an investment policy statement (IPS)  To create an IPS, you need to detail the investor's objectives and constraints.

Unfortunately, if the exam is different and more challenging now, pass rates will likely fall.

Lest we forget that this is the general securities rep licensing test. I know there are analysts and traders that take it that won't be using much of the info but jeez... You're not going to have a study guide or a guide for every client you see. Then you'd be no more use than someone at a call center for customer support following a matrix as if everyone's needs can be met by answering yes or no to a few questions.

You are given more than enough information if you’re using STC. You do have to use it in order to pass. This means drawing inferences, or choosing what you believe to be the best answer given the situation presented, which is what this job is supposed to be about. Just my 2 cents.

No one is disagreeing that it is what the job is supposed to be about but its more than just a "general securities rep liceensing test" when it is asking questions that you really need more experience in the industry to answer. I am sure it is a little frustrating.  People at our company take the series 7 who aren't fincncial advisors as well.  Our support desk who helps advisors has to take the tests, and they will NEVER be giving investment advice, they just work in the industry, but its kind of a "you have to get your series 7 or you are worthless", and it should be I guess. I am just being a devils advocate and I think its good to weed people out with the new format, I am simply stating that with the new questions, it seems more like it would be better to have a little more experience before trying to take the tests.  No one remembers anything they take on the test anyway- they just study to pass. I just think if people were in the industry a little longer before taking it, it would be better in the long run for people. 

[quote=registerme]

No one is disagreeing that it is what the job is supposed to be about but its more than just a "general securities rep liceensing test" when it is asking questions that you really need more experience in the industry to answer. I am sure it is a little frustrating.  People at our company take the series 7 who aren't fincncial advisors as well.  Our support desk who helps advisors has to take the tests, and they will NEVER be giving investment advice, they just work in the industry, but its kind of a "you have to get your series 7 or you are worthless", and it should be I guess. I am just being a devils advocate and I think its good to weed people out with the new format, I am simply stating that with the new questions, it seems more like it would be better to have a little more experience before trying to take the tests.  No one remembers anything they take on the test anyway- they just study to pass. I just think if people were in the industry a little longer before taking it, it would be better in the long run for people. 

[/quote]

+1 on this...im starting to get fraustrated everyday studying. i am new to the industry. I do not even give investment advice, and even if i pass, i still wont.

My role on a daily basis shows my understanding when i score well in topics such as customer accounts, brokerage support services, variable annuties. Because his is what i mostly do everyday assisting my advisors and i understand it.

When it comes to the others, options, muni's, suitability, margins, taxation etc. since i do not even do this at work, i find it such a hard time to understand. i guess experience comes with some of the questions, but for newbies the new format, i beleive, it more financial advisor related...just my 2 cents..joping to pass this soon

Yes- the new series 7 is undoubtedly geared toward people in the financial advisor role.  I thought the Series 7 was more for anyone in the industry, including support roles which wouldn't give advice.  I guess they are switching over a bit on the purpose of the Series 7.  Like I stated before.  I think the Series 7 should have remained the same, and they should have added a Series 7-2 (or something), which would have been more geared toward financial advisors- situational questions etc, (but not quite to the extent of what a CFP, CFA, etc would be).  Again, just my opinion but they do what they do- and they want the Series 7 to be more Financial advisor geared. 

Well its is what it is I assume, just a though exam to tackle

The following is from FINRA's website:

"The Series 7 Examination is designed to assess the competency of entry-level General Securities Representatives.  It is intended to safeguard the investing public by helping to ensure that General Securities Representatives are competent to perform their jobs"

The entry level part of this description is not necessarily consistent with a format that contains lots of situational questions.  The CFP and CFA exams have many situational questions but these exams are not geared towards entry level people.  

Exactly.  And there are a ton of situational questions on the Series 7 now.  Just kind of odd, thats all.  Whatever, I passed before they changed it- I just like to discuss this stuff :)

I'm brand new to the industry and I have zero background in economics (beyond high school) and finance.  I'm trying to change careers to become a financial advisor because it's interesting and others have said I'm "good with people".  Still, I'm at a loss as to what to do next. 

I took the 7 on March 1st and scored a 63, using the Pass Perfect materials and taking practice exams on Investopedia.com.  I was frustrated with such a low score, but I got back on the horse.  I went over all the Pass Perfect materials again and made Investopedia worthless to me since I had memorized every question they threw at me.  I took the 7 again on April 10th.  I scored a 63 - the same exact score.

Now, I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, but I also know I'm not "special" (at least I'm pretty sure).  What I saw on the exam was a lot of suitability/situational questions that my materials and Investopedia barely even touch on.  The second time around, I was hoping my clearer knowledge of the products would assist me in deducing the multiple choice situational questions.  Apparently it did not.  I'm taking the test for a third time on July 10th.  I NEED to pass this test, I NEED something that's actually going to prepare me for it.  I like what people have said about TC, maybe I'll give that a go. 

Right now I'm an assistant at a firm.  I acquire no knowledge of this biz in my day to day work (there's no question that asks "how many pieces of paper do you need to load into the copier for an F246 form?"). 

Any additional comments on what/how to study would be wonderful.  Thanks.

Well, first off, you need to be more than "good with people" to make it in this industry, let alone as a financial advisor.  You need to have a knack for understanding the economy and how to give people advice based on what is going on in the economy.  If you are "good with people", maybe some other sales position would be better suited. I mean, no offense but a 63 both times?  Didn't you realize after the first time you should switch your material up?  No offense, but it seems like thats common sense that if you fail a test with material the first time, you won't pass with it again.  You don't need to memorize the qusetions and answers, that is the LAST thing you want to do with any of this series 7 material.  You literally have to UNDERSTAND what you are reading and how it can be applied to situations that clients may encounter. 

Yes, I think TC would be better suited, but a lot of people pass with STC.  HOWEVER, there will be no identical questions with any of these study materials, so simply MEMORIZING will not do the trick- you must understand this stuff. 

The series 7 now, is more geared toward weeding people out who literally don't know how to apply the information they are given, in a client focused manner.  If you aren't able to pass the new Series 7 because its focused too much on situational questions, I am a little worried about you being a financial advisor.....  Maybe you need to take a little more time to really understand the industry before you jump into being a financial advisor.  ITs a lot of work and you really have to know what you are doing- if you are in more of an administrative role, thats different.  But if you are wanting to jump right into an advisory role, I would be a little hesitant..  just my 2 cents. 

Jerefack,  Great first post and nice to see that you have a sense of humor about all of this.  Suitability questions are very difficult for people who have no investment experience. They can also be difficult for people with investment experience.  TC has a good reputation so they would be a good option.  I have never actually seen their materials, though.  STC is also a very option for materials.  How much time are you studying each day?  I usually recommend reading the materials cover to cover.  Do every practice exam once, review all of the answers and note which ones you got wrong or guessed on.  Go back and re-read those sections in the book.  Take the exams again but only focus on the ones you got wrong, guessed or are especially difficult.  Then, re-read the materials cover to cover again.    When you are reading the materials, take notes.  Taking notes sometimes forces you to concentrate.

Improving on the suitability questions is diffciult but doable. Start talking to people with some investment experience and start watching CNBC and Bloomberg.  You need to get more exposure to investing.

@ registerme... yeah, I guess I blamed myself rather than the material the first time, went back to it and gave it another shot... an associate of mine passed with that material, so I thought I could too.  @  mstudy - I've been coming into work at 7 everyday, studying for 2 hours before work, an hour at home after work (although I'm usually toast) and then 6 hours on Saturday.  I try and take Sundays off to not get burned out.  Mistake?  I've done the books cover to cover and the practice tests... one thing I haven't done is note-taking.  I've composed some summaries in a word doc but haven't actually "written out" anything long hand.  That might help.

I wanna give it one more really good honest shot before I consider something else.  Thanks for your honesty and encouragement.

I think it is a good idea to take Sunday's off.  When I studied for the CFA exam, I studied 4 hours per day and then all day Saturday.  Eventually it became a mission for me and I would use every free moment to study.   I had an advantage in that I had already been working in investments for several years prior to taking any of these exams plus I majored in finance in college and in grad school.