The case studies issued on Friday 19th June (Seth and Kaitlyn, Mita and Harish) were what we have got used to expecting from the examining body.

They were very 'open-ended' case studies, with lots of possible areas that questions could be based on. There was no 'obvious' protection question in sight, looking at both couples (or so we thought). CS1 questions included the expected factfinding questions style. Other expected question areas, such as state pension deferral, transitional pension protection and the offshore bond came up as expected. CS2 questions again included some predictable areas, such as the commercial property in the SIPP with a few curve balls, including the suitability of an OEIC for funding university costs, using the deposit account for paying off Harish's BLT mortgage, and the merits of income protection versus critical illness for protection needs.

The recent style of the R06 exam clearly demonstrates that it is not enough to do a bit of study, buy an analysis and hope for the best. A level 4 adviser should be able to weigh up the merits of an OEIC and deposit account - these should not be viewed as the CII trying to catch candidates out. We admit though, the protection question made us chuckle...but again it is perfectly reasonable to expect candidates to be able to demonstrate they know the differences between two protection products, even if CS2 had no stated protection need.

The R06 exam is an analysis exam. It needs three things to achieve a pass:

  • good overall knowledge
  • plenty of work
  • the right question answering technique

It is not an exam to disrespect. This July paper showed us there were marks to be had for areas that were predictable, marks to be had if candidate base knowledge levels were good, and some unusual question wordings to test your answering skills.

Get in touch with BTS at www.bespoketrainingsolutions.com and see how we can help you get an R06 pass.