December 18, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:White Men Can't Supervise
Today I took a securities "continuing education" exam. As I am a supervisor (Series 8), it focused on office/branch supervisory issues. The new format of these tests is a presentation of video vignettes, showing brokers, supervisors and clients interacting. There are even filed documents to review in each case. It is all held together with a little graphic "city" where you click on different buildings to start different cases. I'm not sure why the "city" thing, since you have no choice as to what the next case will be. There is the appearance of choice, but no real choice, which is somehow appropriate.
There is also the appearance of "a test" but no real test. If you get something wrong, the computer tells you to try again. So it's more of an educational video game session than a test. I think if you really stink up the place they send a note to your compliance officer. You can't be a potted plant and "pass", but a lobotomy wouldn't be a serious obstacle - as long as you can find your way to the testing center.
I've been taking these sorts of exams (including the original ones that actually require correct answers and a passing grade) for many years, so there are a few important rules of acknowledging the bureacracy's omniscience. When in doubt:
- "report it to the compliance department" is always a good answer
- likewise, so is "investigate further"
- Any answer suggesting you "assume" any knowledge is wrong
- if the question allows more than one right answer, click everything that doesn't sound downright silly
most important- there are never exceptions. Never.
In this new age of aggressively multicultural video vignettes, there are a few new and annoying rules:
- Brokers that are recognizable minorities don't do anything wrong
- Older white men are poor and lazy supervisors - criticize their actions with abandon in your answers! They tolerate not only aggressive brokers with criminal clients, but now drunks and serial sexual harassers.
- Young white men and women are overly aggressive with their clients. A really good-looking white woman is trouble. Fire her. It's only a matter of time before you find out what secrets she's hiding behind her devilishly attractive facade.
- click on all the answers, they love that. About 40% of my questions today were correct with every single answer checked.
It's not, of course, that I think the test-writers have it out for white people, it's just that they know they will get endless crap if they make a minority a "bad guy". Nonetheless, as an approaching-old white guy, it wears on you after a while.
By my count, one African-American supervisor received criticism once in the course of my test. "How could this conversation have gone better"? we are asked, after a client who has been trading on insider information gets offended at the supervisor's suggestion that he has been...trading on insider information.
There is a new section on hiring practices. I found myself resenting it because it incorporated diversity hiring into it's "correct" answers (something that's morally correct isn't necessarily legally or factually correct, folks). One of the answers I got wrong suggested I should inquire into an applicant's ethnic background. If you should ever be interviewed by me, you will not be asked this question. But all of that is irrelevant - hiring practices, beyond the basics that allow or deny a securities registration, are not a matter of securities regulation and did not belong on this test at all. I don't need a test to tell me not to hire a drunk or a womanizer. You can still vote for one, of course.
Anyway, this is all funded through levies on firms and trading activity, so ultimately you pay for it. I thought you might want to see how your money works for you.
One of the points emphasized today was that office managers should contact the clients of the brokers they supervise. I've had an account with another broker (I'm a money manager by trade, not a broker) for 13 years, and I've never once spoken with the office/branch manager. I bet I'm the rule, not the exception. Have any of you been contacted?
Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at December 18, 2002 9:29 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>I am set to take the Series 7 and 63 exams. What a royal waste of resources! I am not arguing that the securities industry does not need to be regulated. I am saying the current examination regime costs a lot but does little to protect the investing public.
Posted by: David Walser on December 19, 2002 12:22 AMOne thing I've been noticing lately is that on TV comercials, the white guy is always the schmuck who buys the wrong kind of toilet paper, falls off the roof, or walks into walls.
The females on these ads patiently roll their eyes and treat the men like dumb children and always have to save the day.
It's really pretty minor I guess, but it's something that's starting to get old.
Posted by: Mumblix Grumph on December 19, 2002 12:35 AMMumblix,
The clueless man is an old, old figure. Dagwood was the ultimate bumbler, saved only by Blondie's competence. A strip called "Bringing up Father" was based every day on how stupid men are. Marge and Homer Simpson are only Blondie and Dagwood brought up to date. I suppose feminists would say that cultural theme was "compensation" for or "transference" of the true oppressive nature of the patriarchy, but I think it reflects men's need to be taken care of and women's sense of superiority. Such a pervasive and attractive idea must have something real behind it. Also, have you noticed that in Law and Order, for years, every single criminal turned out to be a white man and usually rich to boot? It's as though the writers and producers couldn't bring themselves to admit the reality that a disproportionate amount of violent crime is committed by minorities, so they rewrote the world to conform to their prejudices.
Posted by: Robert Speirs on December 19, 2002 8:34 AMDavid: The 7's not sooooooo bad, some parts of the material were actually interesting. Others are almost useful. ;)
I didn't take the 63, though. Which one is that?
Posted by: Chris on December 19, 2002 12:00 PM63 (or 65 for investment managers) is the state registration exam. I'm not sure but some states may not require an additional state exam.
I believe successful registration in one state gives you reciprocal eligibility for registration in other states, subsequent to approval and paperwork with those state authorities.
A successful financial executive needs to know so much more...and at the same time so much less, than these exams can test. Inevitably, there is a large amount of info. outside your specialty.
Posted by: "Mindles H. Dreck" on December 19, 2002 1:34 PMI enjoyed your "rules" for passing the exam. I wrote the Canadian LMCC exam a few years ago (Licentiate of the Medical Council of Canada, sort of a post-med-school licensing exam for physicians), and generated my own brief set of rules:
1. Smoking is bad. Any time the question stem notes that the patient is a smoker, that is always (ALWAYS) the cause of the patient's illness.
2. Talk to the mother. If a child is brought in with any complaint whatsoever, no matter how urgent or obvious, the correct answer is to discuss the issue with the mother.
3. Get the government involved. Any time you have the option of reporting the case to the local public health officer / child protection agency / department of health etc etc etc., that is always the right answer.
I'm sure most professional exams have similar rules. I would be interested to know if any of them EVER consider getting the government involved to be the WRONG answer...
keep up the good work
Office managers who reach out to clients? Are you kidding? As a former supervisor in the customer service division of a big Wall St. firm, I found it hard enough to get the managers to take my calls to help with legitimate and sometimes serious client relationship problems. Asking them to call a client or accept a transferred call from a client was a dead end. Heck, the brokers rarely reach out to their clients; why should the managers?
Posted by: Jonathan on December 20, 2002 12:16 PMis it possible for me to take the series 7 without being affiliated with a brokerage firm or anything of the sort? if so how would i go about it?
Posted by: m on August 11, 2003 12:24 AMComments are Closed.