A practical Series 162 study plan for FINRA Supervisory Analyst Part II, with weighted reading order, report-review milestones, miss-review method, and final review plan.
Use this study plan if you want a clean reading order instead of treating Series 162 like a general finance-reading test. Part II is narrower than many FINRA exams, but the dominant function is deep enough that weak analytical discipline shows quickly.
The chapter sequence under /finra/series162/ is the main reading path. Use the Cheat Sheet for fast recall, the FAQ for route and exemption cleanup, and the Resources page for official FINRA links and current source material.
Review the Content of the Report to Ensure a Reasonable Basis Exists for the Analyst’s Conclusions, because it carries 68% of Part II| Checkpoint | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| 50 items | The test is compact; unsupported-conclusion misses are expensive. |
| 120 minutes | Your pace target is about 2 minutes and 24 seconds per item. |
| 74% passing score | The margin for “sounds reasonable” guesses is thin. |
| Two job functions | Most decisions reduce to source/calculation integrity or reasonable-basis support. |
| Function | Exam weight | Why it matters to your plan |
|---|---|---|
| Review the Content of the Report to Ensure a Reasonable Basis Exists for the Analyst’s Conclusions | 68% | Core block and the main place where support, logic, and analytical-basis errors show up. |
| Review the Content of the Report to Assess the Accuracy, Consistency, and Sources of Data and Calculations Included in the Report | 32% | Smaller, but still important because inaccurate data and inconsistent calculations weaken the whole report. |
This order works because factual and calculation discipline makes the larger analytical-basis function easier to evaluate.
Use this only if research-report review, valuation support, and financial-statement analysis are already familiar. Otherwise, use the 30-day or 60-day plan.
| Days | Primary focus | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1-4 | Data, source, calculation, and reconciliation controls | Build a one-page map of source, estimate, accounting, ratio, and market-data defects. |
| 5-10 | Reasonable-basis review | Build a one-page map of model, valuation, recommendation, economics, industry, company, ratio, risk, and technical-analysis support. |
| 11-12 | Mixed sets | Tag every miss as data/source, calculation, model, valuation, recommendation, or unsupported conclusion. |
| 13 | Official-outline pass | Re-read the FINRA outline and verify that both functions are covered. |
| 14 | Light review | Review the cheat sheet, error log, and exemption/route facts only. |
| Days | Primary focus | What you should finish |
|---|---|---|
| 1-10 | Accuracy, consistency, sources, and calculations | Build the factual and numerical review frame. |
| 11-24 | Reasonable basis for conclusions | Spend the bulk of your time on the dominant function. |
| 25-30 | Mixed review | Use the Cheat Sheet, FAQ, and Resources page to tighten weak spots and confirm current FINRA details. |
Use this if valuation review or financial-statement support is not part of your daily work.
| Weeks | Primary focus | What good progress looks like |
|---|---|---|
| 1-2 | Data integrity and source quality | You can identify stale, unlabeled, inconsistent, or weakly sourced inputs quickly. |
| 3 | Calculation and accounting consistency | You can spot ratio, reconciliation, per-share, and adjustment problems. |
| 4-5 | Valuation and recommendation support | You can decide whether a target, rating, estimate, or valuation method is proportionate to the evidence. |
| 6 | Economics, industry, company, risk, and technical support | You can tell whether broad context actually supports the issuer-specific conclusion. |
| 7 | Mixed practice | Your error log shows fewer unsupported-conclusion and model-link misses. |
| 8 | Final review | You can explain why a conclusion should be challenged without rewriting the whole report yourself. |
Tag each miss as one of these:
data or source issuecalculation or consistency issueanalytical-basis issueunsupported conclusionvaluation or recommendation alignment issueYour note should be one sentence: what in the report was weak, what clue should have exposed it, and what the supervisory analyst should have challenged.
| Stage | What to do | Move on when… |
|---|---|---|
| Topic drills | Separate data/calculation questions from reasonable-basis questions. | You can identify the defect before reading the choices. |
| Mixed short sets | Mix both functions in 10- to 15-question sets. | You are not confusing arithmetic support with conclusion support. |
| Timed sets | Work near the 120-minute exam pace. | You can read carefully without over-modeling every vignette. |
| Final review | Rework missed-question notes and official-outline weak points. | Your errors are narrow details, not failure to test support. |
Day 7-5: Rework your weakest reasonable-basis notes.Day 4: Review data, source, and calculation integrity together.Day 3: Run a full Cheat Sheet pass from memory.Day 2: Confirm the live Series 16 / Part II structure and the CFA Level I exemption note from the Resources page.Day 1: Keep it light and focus on report support, internal consistency, and defensibility.