Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Finra Series-63 Exam - Topic 8 Question 18 Discussion

Actual exam question for Finra's Series-63 exam
Question #: 18
Topic #: 8
[All Series-63 Questions]

In which of the following scenarios will the investment adviser be subject to criminal fraud charges?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

An adviser that sells its shares of TweedleDee Corporation after issuing a report recommending the stock as a ''buy'' is subject to criminal fraud charges for willfully deceiving its clients.

The adviser who recommends the stock as a buy without disclosing the fact that it owns the stock is engaging in a prohibited activity for non-disclosure, but would be unlikely to face criminal fraud charges.


Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Elinore
1 day ago
I disagree, B) is fine since they disclosed it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Patrick
6 days ago
A) is definitely fraud if they don't disclose ownership.
upvoted 0 times
...
Curt
11 days ago
Haha, trick question! The answer is clearly D. Advisers are crooks, every last one of them.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorriane
17 days ago
Hmm, this is tricky. I'll go with B - disclosure is key.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vicki
22 days ago
D is the answer. Advisers can't recommend anything they have a stake in, period.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mendy
27 days ago
This question is a real head-scratcher. I'm going to go with C - selling after a recommendation is shady.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashawn
2 months ago
B is the correct choice. As long as the ownership is disclosed, it's not considered fraud.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lavina
2 months ago
D is the right answer. Investment advisers must disclose any positions they have in securities they recommend.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aracelis
2 months ago
A is the correct answer. Failing to disclose a conflict of interest is considered fraud.
upvoted 0 times
...
Viola
2 months ago
I feel like D might be too broad. Just because an adviser has a position doesn't automatically mean they're committing fraud, right? It depends on the disclosure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brittni
2 months ago
I remember a practice question that was similar to this, and it emphasized the importance of disclosure. So, I think A is the right answer, but I’m not confident about the others.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ciara
2 months ago
I'm not entirely sure about option C. Selling shares after a recommendation feels sketchy, but does it really count as fraud if they disclosed it?
upvoted 0 times
...
Juan
3 months ago
I think option A could definitely lead to criminal fraud since the adviser didn't disclose their ownership. It seems like a clear conflict of interest.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annmarie
3 months ago
I'm a bit confused on this one. The wording of the question is tripping me up. I think I need to re-read it a few times and really think through the different scenarios to figure out the right answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kimberlie
3 months ago
I'm pretty confident that the answer is D. Any recommendations on a security where the adviser has a position, whether disclosed or not, is considered criminal fraud. Gotta be super careful about conflicts of interest in this field.
upvoted 0 times
...
Theron
3 months ago
Okay, let me see if I can break this down. If the adviser disclosed their ownership, then that seems like it would be okay, right? But if they didn't disclose it, then that's a problem. I'm leaning towards A or D as the correct answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pete
3 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure. I think it might depend on the specific laws and regulations around investment advisers and disclosures. I'll need to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Blondell
3 months ago
I think the key here is whether the adviser disclosed their ownership of the stock. If they didn't disclose it, then that seems like fraud to me.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel