63 compared to 65/66

or Register to post new content in the forum

12 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Aug 6, 2008 9:02 pm

How is the 63 compared to those two test. For those who have taken both, would you say the 63 was more or less difficult then 65/66, can you take it without a sponsorship and what type of study time is required?

Aug 6, 2008 9:20 pm

You must be sponsored for all FINRA exams, including the 63.  I took mine way too long ago to be helpful to you.

Aug 7, 2008 11:18 am
OldLady:

You must be sponsored for all FINRA exams, including the 63.  I took mine way too long ago to be helpful to you.



Not true, you can take the 63 and a few others without being sponsored, although I don't know why you'd want to.

From the FINRA.org website......






Exams that do not require sponsorship
include the Series 3, 30, 31, 32, 33, 63, 65, and 66. However, the
Series 7 must be successfully completed in addition to the Series 66
Examination before a candidate can apply to register with a state. You
may take either exam first but must pass both exams.

Aug 7, 2008 11:20 am

I just took and passed the Series 65 last Saturday.  Personally, I thought it was pretty gnarly.

Aug 7, 2008 11:55 am

Like Mike Damone, I also passed the 65 this weekend .... I might have studied the practice questions for a total of maybe 4 hrs .... and I passed ...


But, I am Series 6, 63, and 7 licensed, so alot of the info you would know from the other licensing material
Aug 7, 2008 3:44 pm

I passed the 66 after the 7 and I thought the 66 was not too bad.  Have no idea about the 63.  Why in the world would you be taking the 63 when the 66 is the 63 & the 65 and you can do fee based???

 
I studied for two weeks after the 7 and passed the 66 with an 81.
Aug 7, 2008 4:12 pm
finale1:

Like Mike Damone, I also passed the 65 this weekend .... I might have studied the practice questions for a total of maybe 4 hrs .... and I passed ...


But, I am Series 6, 63, and 7 licensed, so alot of the info you would know from the other licensing material
 
Why in the world do people who have the 7 go and take the 65, instead of the 66?
 
I assume their ultimate goal is to promote to the Department of Redundancy Department?
Aug 7, 2008 7:08 pm

I already have a 7 and a 63. But not others

Aug 7, 2008 8:13 pm

Regarding the 66 as opposed to 65 for RIA, I know someone who has done this, or became a wholesaler for an RIA which will cause him to loose the 7 in two years. I was interviewed for a similar role a year ago in which I was told I would loose my 7 if there for two years but not the 66. I also know an individual who lost his 7 in such a context and was able to petition the NASD (wasn't FINRA yet) to reinstate his 7 since even though it wasn't registered, he was still working in a finance related position. They can do this on a discretionary basis.

Aug 8, 2008 11:40 am

I got my 6 and 63 at one firm, and my 7 and 65 at another ... it doesnt matter tho, because the 63 + 65 = 66 ....... i just didnt want to go over 63 material again, so I opted to just get the 65 instead

Aug 8, 2008 1:55 pm

oh

Aug 8, 2008 11:50 pm

icecold, a 66 allows you to function in the same capacity as one with a 65. The title is "uniform combined" referencing state (63) and registered investment advisor (65) designations. You just don't need the state component. I know several people working at RIA wholesalers within the Schwab network that are not hanging their 7 but have the 66 and are using it to fulfill the RIA designation necessary to sell advisory services alone independent of products. You shouldn't have to ever get the 65.