CIRE Cheat Sheet (CIRO) — Rules, Workflows, Formulas

Use this as your “what do I do next?” playbook. Pair it with the full CIRE guide for coverage and CIRE web practice for speed. Subscribers can also use the full Securities Prep web app with the same account credentials, including email and password, Sign in with Apple, or Sign in with Google.

Quick links

• CIRE web practice
• Full CIRE guide
• Study plan
• Official resources

CIRE in 60 seconds (what the exam rewards)

• Process > trivia: pick the safest compliant next step, not the cleverest fact.
• Classify first: CSA/provincial vs CIRO issue, and role boundaries (who can recommend vs who can execute).
• KYC + KYP + suitability: constraints drive product fit; revisit on triggers.
• Stop → escalate → document beats improvisation on complaints, trade errors, AML/MNPI, and market integrity red flags.

    flowchart TD
	  A["Scenario"] --> B["Classify: securities-law (CSA) vs dealer conduct/market integrity (CIRO)"]
	  B --> C["Confirm authority + role boundaries (rep vs IR)"]
	  C --> D["Get facts: KYC + constraints + what is missing"]
	  D --> E["KYP + appropriateness / suitability (as required)"]
	  E --> F{"Red flag? complaint / MNPI / AML / conflict / trade error"}
	  F -->|Yes| G["Stop, escalate, preserve records, follow policy"]
	  F -->|No| H["Proceed with compliant action"]
	  G --> I["Document + retain an audit trail"]
	  H --> I
	  I --> J["Monitor + update on triggers"]

Official topic weights (use for time allocation)

CIRE pressure map

If you need to compress the exam into a fast mental map, use this order:

15-second triage ladder

Use this every time a stem feels broad or messy:

1. What is the main issue? Relationship, product, conduct, complaint, execution, or analysis?
2. Who has authority? CSA/provincial regulator, CIRO, dealer, representative, IR, client, or outside body?
3. What is still missing? KYC, classification, disclosure, approval, paperwork, supervision, or escalation?
4. What is the safest compliant next step? proceed, pause, disclose, document, restrict, or escalate?

If you cannot answer step 1 cleanly, do not jump to the product answer yet.

Stem clue -> likely domain

1) Regulatory map (CSA vs CIRO) (10%)

Fast classification

Fast regulator triage

Where the “parts” sit (high level)

    flowchart LR
	  subgraph LAW["Securities law (CSA / provincial regulators)"]
	    CSA["CSA + Provincial/Territorial<br/>Securities Regulators"]
	    NI["National/Multilateral Instruments<br/>Policies + Staff Notices (conceptual)"]
	  end
	
	  subgraph CIRO["CIRO"]
	    IDPC["IDPC Rules<br/>(dealer/Approved Person conduct)"]
	    UMIR["UMIR<br/>(market integrity)"]
	  end
	
	  subgraph MARKET["Market Infrastructure"]
	    VENUE["Marketplaces<br/>(Exchanges, ATS, CTPs, FORM)"]
	    CLEAR["Clearing agencies<br/>(CDS, CDCC)"]
	    CIPF["CIPF<br/>(dealer insolvency protection, not market losses)"]
	  end
	
	  CLIENT["Client"] --> DEALER["Investment dealer / Approved Person"]
	  DEALER --> VENUE --> CLEAR
	  CSA --> NI
	  CSA --> DEALER
	  CIRO --> DEALER
	  CIRO --> VENUE
	  DEALER --- CIPF

Other high-yield bodies (recognize the names)

• Bank of Canada: monetary policy, rates, and liquidity (macro impacts).
• OSFI: prudential oversight (banks/insurers) at a high level.
• FINTRAC: AML/ATF framework (policies, client due diligence, monitoring).
• OBSI: dispute resolution option for clients (when applicable).
• Privacy commissioners / PIPEDA: confidentiality and client information handling.

2) Prospective client relationships (CRM) (10%)

Client Relationship Model (CRM) skeleton

Think of CRM as “set expectations → control conflicts → prove suitability → report clearly”.

    flowchart TD
	  P["Prospect / first contact"] --> D["Relationship disclosure<br/>(services, limits, fees, conflicts approach)"]
	  D --> K["Collect KYC<br/>(objectives, horizon, risk tolerance/capacity, liquidity, knowledge)"]
	  K --> C["Classify client<br/>(retail vs institutional; waivers/exemptions if applicable)"]
	  C --> O["Open account + approvals<br/>(recordkeeping + audit trail)"]
	  O --> S["Suitability / appropriateness<br/>(and re-assess on triggers)"]
	  S --> R["Reporting<br/>(holdings, performance, key communications)"]

KYC checklist (retail, exam-friendly)

• Identity + authority: who can instruct? POA? trusted contact? corporate signing authority?
• Objectives/needs: growth/income/preservation (make it specific).
• Risk profile: distinguish risk tolerance vs risk capacity.
• Time horizon: when money is needed.
• Liquidity constraints: known withdrawals, emergencies.
• Knowledge/experience: complexity the client can reasonably understand.
• Cost sensitivity: fees, turnover, and taxes can change outcomes.
• Documentation: capture facts, disclosures delivered, and why decisions were made.

Client categories (high level)

• Retail vs institutional classification can change what’s required, but it does not remove the need to act fairly, keep records, and escalate when unsure.
• If a scenario involves exemptions/waivers (e.g., permitted client waivers, accredited investor concepts), the safe move is usually: confirm eligibility → deliver required disclosure → document → escalate if unclear.

Onboarding near-miss checklist

• relationship disclosure delivered
• client category actually supportable
• authority documents complete
• KYC facts usable, not vague
• fees and costs visible
• file quality strong enough for later suitability review

If one of those is weak, the best answer is often “not yet”.

3) Scope of client relationships (15%)

Role boundaries (don’t get trapped)

Service models (know the “duty level”)

Appropriateness vs suitability (simple)

• Appropriateness: is the account type/service/product category even reasonable for this client? (high level)
• Suitability: is this recommendation/transaction right for this client now, given KYC and constraints?

KYP mini-checklist (fast due diligence framing)

Relationship-scope traps

4) Complaints (timelines + recordkeeping) (5%)

Safe workflow (what to do)

    flowchart TD
	  A["Complaint received"] --> B["Log + preserve records<br/>(create complaint file)"]
	  B --> C["Acknowledge<br/>(typically within 5 business days)"]
	  C --> D["Classify<br/>(service issue vs misconduct allegation vs trade error)"]
	  D --> E["Escalate + investigate<br/>(per firm policy)"]
	  E --> F["Substantive response<br/>(typically within 90 calendar days)"]
	  F --> G["Remediate / settle<br/>(approved + documented)"]
	  G --> H["Retain complaint file<br/>(typically 7 years)"]

What NOT to do (easy points)

• Don’t promise outcomes or compensation.
• Don’t “handle it privately”.
• Don’t destroy/alter records.
• Don’t use settlement terms to discourage regulator reporting (escalate).

Complaint red flags

Client recourse (high level)

Clients may have recourse paths such as OBSI, arbitration, or litigation (context-dependent). Your safest answer is almost always to follow policy, document, and provide accurate process information (not legal advice).

5) Market and company analysis (8%) — the minimum math you need

Macro → markets (concept map)

    flowchart LR
	  POLICY["Policy<br/>(rates, inflation, fiscal/monetary)"] --> YC["Yield curve + discount rates"]
	  YC --> BONDS["Bond yields/prices"]
	  YC --> EQ["Equity valuation multiples<br/>(P/E, discounting)"]
	  POLICY --> FX["FX + capital flows"]
	  FX --> EQ
	  BONDS --> EQ

Core return formulas (use test-friendly versions)

Simple total return

$$ R = \frac{(P_1 - P_0) + I}{P_0} $$

• $P_0$ = starting price, $P_1$ = ending price, $I$ = income (dividends/interest).

Dividend yield (equity)

$$ \text{Dividend Yield} = \frac{\text{Annual Dividends}}{\text{Price}} $$

Real rate (rule of thumb)

$$ \text{Real} \approx \text{Nominal} - \text{Inflation} $$

Basic company ratios (know what they imply)

Analysis clue table

6) Market integrity, trade execution and settlement (12%)

UMIR mindset (high level)

• Market integrity rules aim for fair and orderly markets.
• “Best answer” often includes: best execution mindset + supervision + documentation + escalation.

Trade lifecycle (mental model)

    sequenceDiagram
	  participant Client as "Client"
	  participant Dealer as "Dealer/Rep"
	  participant Venue as "Marketplace/Venue"
	  participant Clear as "Clearing (CDS/CDCC)"
	  participant Settle as "Settlement/Custody"
	  Client->>Dealer: Place order / instructions
	  Dealer->>Venue: Route order
	  Venue-->>Dealer: Execution report (fill)
	  Dealer-->>Client: Confirmation (fees/commissions)
	  Dealer->>Clear: Clear and net obligations
	  Clear->>Settle: Settlement processing
	  Settle-->>Client: Position/cash updated (statements/reporting)

Order types (recognize the “constraint”)

Execution danger words

• unusual activity
• trade error
• correction
• manipulative appearance
• frontrunning / knowledge concern
• best execution
• margin deficiency
• account authority problem

When you see these, the answer usually gets more procedural and less investment-opinion based.

Gatekeeping & escalation (the safest reflex)

If you see suspicious activity (client pattern mismatch, MNPI cues, manipulation cues):

Stop → escalate → preserve records (and do not tip off).

7) Products (19%) — product-fit cues

Product picker (high level)

Product comparison traps

Fixed income: minimum formulas

Current yield

$$ \text{Current Yield} = \frac{\text{Annual Coupon}}{\text{Price}} $$

Duration intuition (price/yield inverse, approximation)

$$ \frac{\Delta P}{P} \approx -D \cdot \Delta y $$

• $D$ = duration (approx), $\Delta y$ = yield change (in decimal).

8) Derivatives (5%) — payoff intuition

Types + why they exist

• Forwards/futures: lock in a price; hedge or speculate.
• Options: define asymmetric payoff; hedge downside or express a view with defined risk.

Derivatives triage

Core option payoffs

Call payoff

$$ \max(S-K, 0) $$

Put payoff

$$ \max(K-S, 0) $$

Breakeven (long options, simple)

$$ \text{Call BE} = K + \text{premium} \qquad \text{Put BE} = K - \text{premium} $$

Exam cue: if the stem implies a hedge need, the best answer usually prefers the simplest instrument that addresses the dominant risk, with clear disclosure and appropriate approvals.

9) Conflicts & ethics (16%) — the decision tree

Conflicts management workflow

    flowchart TD
	  A["Potential conflict identified"] --> B["Name it (what is the incentive / pressure?)"]
	  B --> C{"Can it be avoided or removed?"}
	  C -->|Yes| D["Avoid/remove + document"]
	  C -->|No| E["Mitigate (controls/supervision)"]
	  E --> F["Disclose in plain language"]
	  F --> G["Client-first decision + approvals as required"]
	  G --> H["Document + monitor"]
	  D --> H

Ethics “best answer” process

1. Clarify facts and what is missing.
2. Identify stakeholders and duties.
3. Check rules/policy and conflicts.
4. Choose the most defensible client-first action.
5. Document the rationale and escalation.

Confidentiality + cybersecurity (fast checklist)

• Least privilege access; don’t share client data casually.
• Watch for phishing/social engineering; escalate suspected incidents.
• Use information controls (restricted/grey lists, barriers) when applicable.
• If it’s sensitive and you’re unsure: pause → escalate → document.

When disclosure is too weak

Disclosure alone is usually not enough when the facts point to:

• a serious or material conflict
• outside activity creating real client confusion
• confidentiality or cyber risk
• personal dealing pressure
• a situation where the safer answer is avoidance, restriction, or supervision

High-yield glossary (quick)

• CSA: Canadian Securities Administrators (provincial/territorial coordination)
• CIRO: dealer conduct + market integrity oversight
• IDPC / UMIR: CIRO rule frameworks (dealer conduct vs market integrity)
• CIPF: protection in a dealer insolvency (not protection from market losses)
• OBSI: dispute resolution option (when applicable)
• FINTRAC: AML/ATF oversight framework
• ATS / CTP / FORM: trading venue categories (high level)

Final 10 exam-day reminders

1. Classify the issue before you touch the answer choices.
2. Relationship problems beat product problems if the file is not usable yet.
3. Product classification often comes before suitability.
4. Complaint questions usually reward process discipline, not client-pleasing improvisation.
5. Conflict questions often fail because disclosure sounded good enough when it was not.
6. Execution questions often end as control questions.
7. If authority is unclear, solve authority first.
8. If the file is thin, documentation usually matters.
9. If the stem feels unsafe, escalation is probably closer than execution.
10. The safest answer is usually the one that is most defensible later in the file, not the one that sounds fastest now.

✅ Next: keep the full CIRE guide open as your coverage checklist, and use CIRE web practice to build decision speed.