Series 66 HELP!

or Register to post new content in the forum

41 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.
Jul 21, 2005 8:31 am

This is my second attempt for my S66. I missed it by 2 questions. I've been using Passperfect and Dearborn. I found Dearborn hard to read and comprehend. Been doing 200 questions per day and been getting between 70 to 80. I must pass this exam this time. I have 4 days left. Should I keep taking more practice exams? Any advice would help alot. Thank you.

Jul 21, 2005 12:06 pm

i found that learning the concepts was better than doing more questions.  I did a lot of questions, but found that I only saw a few questions on the actual test which were similar to those on the practice tests.  Learn the points for each act (1933, 1934, etc.).  Also, there were a lot of questions on compliance and disclosure so brush up on those topics.   Good Luck. 

Jul 21, 2005 12:55 pm

You are scoring higher than I did and on the final exam I got a 78.  Stick with it.


When you get a question wrong hand write out the correct answer.  Every time.  WRITING enhances your learning.


good luck

Jul 21, 2005 8:25 pm

Thank you for the advice.

Jul 22, 2005 8:43 pm

I used Dearborn as well, and found that while it was more difficult to
understand, and harder to score well on the practice exams, it made the
real exam seem all that much easier. I used them for both the 7 and 66,
although it was a while ago now, and while on the practice tests I was
lucky to score 70 or higher on those, when the real exam came, scoring
over 80% was fairly easy.

Jul 23, 2005 1:37 am
JackieNY:

This is my second attempt for my S66. I missed it
by 2 questions. I've been using Passperfect and Dearborn. I found
Dearborn hard to read and comprehend. Been doing 200
questions per day and been getting between 70 to 80. I must pass this
exam this time. I have 4 days left. Should I keep taking more practice
exams? Any advice would help alot. Thank you.





Would you like some fries or an apple pie with that?

Jul 23, 2005 9:17 am

Question. I have the 7,6,63 and 26. I need to get my Investment Advisor license which is the 65 or 66. Which should I take and why? Thx.

Jul 23, 2005 4:51 pm

Take the 66.  It doesn't have options on it, so easier than the 65.

Jul 24, 2005 12:04 am
joedabrkr:

Take the 66.  It doesn't have options on it, so easier than the 65.


Joe's right...I didn't know any better and signed up for the 65.  All my buddies signed up for the 66 and laughed at how much thicker my study guide was.  In the end, I passed, but I probably worked a lot harder than I would have had to...

Jul 24, 2005 8:52 am
derekgaddy:

Question. I have the 7,6,63 and 26. I need to get my Investment Advisor license which is the 65 or 66. Which should I take and why? Thx.


There are actually at least four testing authorities that you might encounter in a career.  The NASD administers all of them, but the tests themselves are compiled by various groups.  The NASD, NYSE, MSRB, and The North American State Securities Administrators (NASSA) which is a bunch of bureaucrats who know nothing about securities, much less the process of selling them.  They're regulation zealots.


NASSA did not always exist.  It's a late 1970s group that was formed because the states felt that they were not getting the regulatory support they wanted from the SEC and the NASD--so they wanted to band together.  Before their creation there was no Series 63--you took either Series 6, or 7, or 22 and you were good to go with whatever they allowed you to sell.


Depending on where you wanted to sell you might have to take a state test--but they were wildly different.  Utah even required you to show up in Utah to test--at least the other states allowed you to take their test in your home state.  Anyway, if you lived in Ohio you would probably end up taking a test for OH, MI, PA, WV, KY, IN and IL--maybe even more depending on your network.  I started in TX and was licensed in 16 states.  As best I can recall I took 15 separate tests--FL did not, and I believe still does not, have a testing requirement.


That was the way it was for more than ten years--late '70s to early '90s.  During that time the industry morphed to asset gathering and the wrap account in its various forms was born.  The states saw a need for another test.


Was it an attempt to force reps to acquire knowledge about rules and regulations--sort of a mandatory refresher?  Of course, but the cynical side of some of us also concluded that it was a way to get a new steam of revenue in the form of testing fees.


In any case, Series 65 and 66 were born.


Originally the Series 65 was to be taken by people who already had a Series 63 since the 66 was designed as a one stop replacement for the 63 and 65.


The outline for the new material was scary.  It was understood that Series 66 would incorporate most of the old Series 63 stuff--but there would be an additional layer of the new stuff, from the scary outline.


Then there was Series 65--nothing but the scary stuff.  New brokers could take the Series 66 because they did not already have the Series 63, but if you had Series 63 you were forced to take Series 65.


The "rollout" was state by state, as I recall CT may have been the first.  In any case, somewhere was first.  Branch managers in that state were told to conduct afternoon training classes using outlines provided by the home offices.  There were no study courses.  Firms like STC and Dearborn knew no more of what to expect than the training departments at the wirehouses.


Nobody knew what the questions would look like--they were being written by the bureaucrats at NASSA rather than the traditional committees of volunteer experts from the member firms.


It wasn't pretty.  Entire branches marched off to take the test and NOBODY passed.  My firm had a branch where thirty two people took it and nobody scored over 50%.


What the bozos at NASSA failed to recognize was that the brokerage industry is not going to roll over.  So we went to work--we being the useless overhead that the "Indy" types complain about.


It took awhile, but the criteria regarding who had to take which test changed--and Series 66 was made "easier" in that it did not get as technical.


These days if you have a Series 7 you are allowed to take the Series 66, but if you do not have a Series 7 you are required to take the Series 65.  Or get a Series 7 then take Series 66.


Additionally, not all states require either, and some states will only allow you to take the more difficult Series 65.


If you have a choice take the Series 66 because it is less challenging.  But before you waste your time studying for Series 66 only to find out you must take Series 65 test with some of the dead wood in your own home office.


You know something?  Those of you who are lucky enough to work for a major firm need to thank your lucky stars that there is dead wood paving the way for you.


I had an associate once say, "The field has no idea what we do for them because they don't see it.  When something does NOT happen because of what we did to prevent it from happening it's impossible to show them."

Jul 24, 2005 10:28 am

Home Officer, what specifically did you personally accomplish that would make the rest of the industry wish to erect statues in your honor, as opposed to viewing the majority of management as useless overhead?

Jul 24, 2005 10:46 am
Starka:

Home Officer, what specifically did you personally accomplish that would make the rest of the industry wish to erect statues in your honor, as opposed to viewing the majority of management as useless overhead?


What do you mean in your signature line about having to be strong if you're stupid?  Do you think stupidity is an asset, even if you're strong?


I gave you an example.  If you already have a Series 7 you don't have to take Series 65.  Had you been around ten years ago you would have had to take Series 65 because you already had a Series 63.


We got that changed.  You appear to be the epitome of somebody who could not have passed the Series 65, and thanks to us you don't have to humiliate yourself.


You should prostate yourself at the feet of those of us who take care of you.

Jul 24, 2005 10:50 am

I didn't think you'd have an answer.


Welcome back Put, however short this visit might be.

Jul 24, 2005 10:57 am
Starka:

I didn't think you'd have an answer.


Welcome back Put, however short this visit might be.



How about this one.


As originally proposed the "Consumer Telephone Protection Act"--the No Call List Idea--was going to completely forbid phone calls from brokerage houses.  You could not make a cold call--period.


Under our guidance members of Congress began to yield.  The first stop was to allow calls only to businesses--no calls to residences.


As you know we got that changed too.


How would you have done that on your own?

Jul 24, 2005 11:33 am

That's not an answer, Put, that's a feeble attempt at obfuscation.  As a member of the NASD, I too could make the claim that WE had a hand in limiting the DNC legislation.  I repeat:  What was your personal contribution?


On another note, I don't cold call, so I welcomed the DNC lists.

Jul 24, 2005 11:48 am
Starka:

That's not an answer, Put, that's a feeble attempt at obfuscation.  As a member of the NASD, I too could make the claim that WE had a hand in limiting the DNC legislation.  I repeat:  What was your personal contribution?


On another note, I don't cold call, so I welcomed the DNC lists.



Isn't it curious that everybody who ever says something smart on this forum is accused of being Put Trader?  Here a Put, there a Put, everywhere a Put!  He must be a hell of a guy.


The NASD depends greatly on the members to provide the manpower to actually pull off the things that are done.


Things like fighting the Do Not Call bill are done by men and women from the member firms.  They go to Washington, or the various states, to testify, to schmooze, to raise money and so forth.


But mostly they are the men and women who guide the ships that employ the brokers.


Fools like this Starka character are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that they rail against leadership of any type.


Back in World War II there was a guy named Bill Mauldin who sent cartoons home from the European battlefields.  He learned early on that the way to get cooperation with the grunt soldiers was to portray them as the ones doing the work.  He also mocked the officer corps.


Those of us who are the Wall Street equivilent of the Colonels and Generals have come to expect it.  It goes with the territory.


Starka, there is nothing wrong with being a producing broker, but there's nothing magic about it either.  You are a salesman.  Nothing more, nothing less. 


As you demonstrate you don't have to be educated, or even very bright, to explain mutual funds to people and then write their name and address down on a form.


But if you were to be dropped into a chair in front of a Congressional hearing about something of interest to the brokerage community those who were watching you would conclude, "Not too bright, very unrefined, poorly dressed" and so forth.


The industry needs to take those of us who put forward a good image and let us protect you.


No doubt there were soldiers who sneered about General Eisenhower.  I'm sure he cared more about them than I do about you and your ilk.

Jul 24, 2005 12:00 pm

A typical, long-winded, self-aggrandizing harangue Put, but as usual, one that doesn't answer or even address the question.


I've noticed, Put, that whenever you're unable to answer a question you attempt to denigrate the questioner.  That is not a typical characteristic of a leader, and it does you no credit.

Jul 24, 2005 12:36 pm
Starka:

A typical, long-winded, self-aggrandizing harangue Put, but as usual, one that doesn't answer or even address the question.


I've noticed, Put, that whenever you're unable to answer a question you attempt to denigrate the questioner.  That is not a typical characteristic of a leader, and it does you no credit.



Ah, but nobody is trying to lead you.  Are you bright enough to grasp the idea that this is not a real place?  This is cyberspace, where guys like me can say what's on our minds.


Do you really think that somebody who rose through the ranks to near the top does not know how to "play the game?"


Do you think the game might be infinitely more difficult than explaining mutual funds to people who don't even read the newspapers, and would be impressed by anything you say?

Jul 24, 2005 12:42 pm

Does the fact that the discussion is taking place in cyberspace make irrelevant the fact that you refuse to answer direct questions?


I'd have to wonder at this point exactly what you've risen "through the ranks to be near the top" of.  It wouldn't seem to be anything honorable.

Jul 24, 2005 10:43 pm
Home Officer:
Starka:

Home Officer, what specifically did you personally accomplish that would make the rest of the industry wish to erect statues in your honor, as opposed to viewing the majority of management as useless overhead?


You should prostate yourself at the feet of those of us who take care of you.



You should learn how to spell prostrate and quit suggesting to Starka that he become a groin gland for you.


I think that the Indy channel is proving that your type is mostly unnecessary for good investment advisors.  Yeah, we may need some of you to process statements, conduct a few compliance exams, etc., but I don't need anybody telling me how to run my business.