Free CISI CWM AWM Practice Questions: Client Review and Suitability

CISI means Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment. CWM means Chartered Wealth Manager, and this page is for the Applied Wealth Management paper. Use this focused CISI CWM Applied Wealth page as a short practice test for Client Review and Suitability. The items are original Finance Prep sample exam questions built for scenario-based practice, not trivia, puzzle questions, official CISI questions, copied live-exam content, or exam dumps.

Topic snapshot

Sample questions

These are original Finance Prep practice questions aligned to this topic area. They are not official CISI questions, copied live-exam content, or exam dumps. Use them to preview question style and explanation depth before continuing with topic drills, mixed sets, and timed mock exams in Finance Prep.

Question 1

Topic: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

A wealth manager is preparing for an annual review with a long-standing private client.

Client extract:

• Client: Mrs Patel, age 61, married, two adult children; one child has recently become financially dependent after a divorce.
• Income and assets: £145,000 salary, £1.1 million discretionary portfolio, £520,000 SIPP, £95,000 cash, main residence mortgage-free.
• Original objective: long-term growth, with possible retirement at 67.
• Recent changes: her spouse has reduced work for health reasons; Mrs Patel is considering retiring at 64; she has asked about helping her dependent child with housing costs.
• Risk profile: previously medium-high; after recent market falls she says, “I still want growth, but I cannot afford a serious setback if I stop work early.”
• Existing arrangements: term assurance to age 65, no lasting power of attorney, and no recent pension or tax review.

A colleague says the review should mainly confirm whether the discretionary portfolio and platform are still competitive, because the original recommendation was suitable when made. Which response best explains the correct approach?

• A. The review should be deferred until Mrs Patel gives formal retirement instructions, because possible future changes should not affect the suitability assessment yet.
• B. The review should focus on replacing any funds that have underperformed their benchmark, because performance is the main evidence that the original recommendation remains suitable.
• C. The review can be limited to checking charges and platform service levels, because discretionary management removes the need to revisit personal circumstances annually.
• D. The review should reassess the continuing suitability of the overall plan, because client objectives, capacity for loss, liquidity needs, tax position, protection and family circumstances may have changed since the original advice.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

Explanation: An ongoing review is part of the adviser-client relationship because suitability is dynamic. The original recommendation may have been appropriate, but the relevant facts have changed: possible earlier retirement, reduced household income, increased family support needs, altered attitude to risk and capacity for loss, and gaps in protection and later-life planning. A proper review should therefore revisit objectives, time horizons, affordability, liquidity, pension strategy, tax considerations, protection and estate-planning needs. Product and platform checks are relevant, but they are only part of the review. Treating the process as a one-off product check risks leaving the client with an arrangement that is operationally sound but no longer aligned with her circumstances or priorities.

• Fund performance is relevant, but it does not by itself establish continuing suitability for a changed client situation.
• Charges and service levels matter, but discretionary management does not remove the need to reassess personal objectives and constraints.
• Waiting for formal retirement instructions ignores clear review triggers that already affect risk, liquidity and planning priorities.

Ongoing review is relationship-based because suitability depends on current client circumstances and objectives, not only on whether the original product remains technically acceptable.

Question 2

Topic: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

At an annual review, a client questions whether her discretionary balanced portfolio has underperformed. The suitability letter says performance should be monitored against the agreed strategic composite benchmark, net of charges, over rolling periods.

Agreed strategic allocation:

• 50% global equities
• 30% UK gilts
• 20% cash and short-dated bonds

One-year review figures:

Which comparison provides the most useful benchmark evidence for the performance review?

• A. Compare the portfolio’s 4.8% return with the agreed composite benchmark of about 5.0%, indicating slight underperformance of about 0.2 percentage points.
• B. Compare the portfolio’s 4.8% return with the FTSE 100 return of 8.5%, indicating underperformance of 3.7 percentage points.
• C. Compare the portfolio’s 4.8% return with the friend’s global technology fund return of 18.0%, indicating underperformance of 13.2 percentage points.
• D. Compare the portfolio’s 4.8% return with the cash and short-dated bond benchmark of 5.0%, indicating that the client should have held only cash-like assets.

Best answer: A

What this tests: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

Explanation: Useful benchmark evidence should match the client’s mandate, risk profile, asset allocation, currency and measurement basis. Here the agreed benchmark is a composite of the strategic allocation: 50% × 7.0% = 3.5%, 30% × 1.5% = 0.45%, and 20% × 5.0% = 1.0%, giving about 4.95%. The portfolio’s 4.8% net return is therefore only slightly behind the relevant benchmark. Comparisons with a single UK equity index, a friend’s concentrated technology fund, or cash alone may be interesting context, but they do not evidence whether this balanced portfolio has been managed suitably against its agreed objective.

• A FTSE 100 comparison ignores the portfolio’s global, gilt and cash exposures, so it is not the agreed or risk-matched comparator.
• A friend’s technology fund has a different concentration, volatility and objective, so it is not suitable benchmark evidence.
• Cash-like returns may inform liquidity discussions, but they do not measure performance of a balanced growth mandate.

The agreed composite benchmark reflects the client’s strategic allocation and gives the relevant evidence for judging portfolio performance.

Question 3

Topic: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

A wealth manager is carrying out an annual review for Mrs Patel.

Client and portfolio facts:

• She is 71 and became the sole client after her husband died during the year.
• Her £1.2 million discretionary portfolio was set up on a medium-risk mandate for long-term growth and retirement income.
• She now needs £30,000 a year from the portfolio and plans an £85,000 gift to her daughter in 18 months.
• She says recent market falls worry her more and she does not want to take “the same level of risk”.
• The portfolio is still 68% in equities and alternatives, with 4% held in cash.

Which evidence should be obtained and retained before the manager records the existing portfolio as continuing to be suitable?

• A. Confirmation that all trades during the year were within the original mandate and no investment restrictions were breached.
• B. A performance report showing the portfolio has exceeded its benchmark since inception, supported by the original signed discretionary mandate.
• C. An updated fact-find and cash-flow review, a documented risk and capacity-for-loss reassessment, and an analysis showing the portfolio’s liquidity, asset allocation and charges remain aligned with her changed needs.
• D. A signed note from Mrs Patel saying she understands markets can recover and would prefer not to make immediate changes.

Best answer: C

What this tests: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

Explanation: Continuing suitability must be supported by current evidence, not just the original recommendation or historical performance. A review should update the client’s circumstances, objectives, time horizons, income needs, liquidity requirements, attitude to risk and capacity for loss. The portfolio should then be assessed against those current facts, including asset allocation, liquidity, risk exposure, performance, costs and any planned withdrawals. Mrs Patel’s bereavement, lower risk tolerance, annual withdrawals and planned gift are all review triggers. The manager needs evidence that the mandate still fits those facts or that changes have been recommended. Client consent to leave matters unchanged is relevant to the record, but it does not replace a suitability assessment.

• Strong past performance and an original mandate do not show that the arrangement still fits the client’s changed circumstances.
• Trade compliance shows the portfolio was managed as authorised, but not that the mandate remains appropriate.
• A client preference to avoid changes does not remove the need to assess risk, capacity for loss and liquidity needs.

These records address the client changes that directly affect continuing suitability: income need, gift timing, risk tolerance, capacity for loss, liquidity and portfolio alignment.

Question 4

Topic: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

At an annual suitability review, a client’s circumstances and risk attitude have changed.

Review notes:

• The client is 58 and now plans to start drawing retirement income in five years.
• The risk-profile discussion has moved from 7/10 to 5/10.
• The client says they would accept lower expected long-term returns to reduce the chance of large short-term falls.
• The agreed revised strategic target is 50% growth assets and 50% defensive assets.
• The firm’s policy is to rebalance to the revised target when a client’s risk attitude changes.

Current portfolio:

Which recommendation best reflects the change in asset allocation, risk, reward, and client risk attitude?

• A. Retain the current portfolio because the growth allocation remains appropriate for a client who previously accepted a higher-risk strategy.
• B. Sell about £110,000 of growth assets and allocate the proceeds to defensive assets, reducing expected return potential but aligning volatility with the revised risk attitude.
• C. Move about £110,000 from defensive assets to growth assets to preserve long-term reward potential before retirement income begins.
• D. Sell all growth assets and hold the proceeds defensively because the client has expressed concern about short-term market falls.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

Explanation: A suitability review must consider both portfolio drift and changes in the client’s circumstances and attitude to risk. The current growth allocation is £410,000 out of £600,000, or about 68.3%. The revised target is 50% growth, equal to £300,000. Rebalancing to the revised target therefore requires reducing growth assets by £110,000 and increasing defensive assets by the same amount. This lowers exposure to equity-type volatility and reduces expected long-term return potential, but it is consistent with the client’s shorter time horizon, planned retirement-income need, and lower stated willingness to accept losses. Keeping the old allocation would not reflect the new suitability assessment.

• Retaining the existing allocation relies on the old risk profile and ignores the client’s changed circumstances.
• Moving money into growth assets increases risk when the review evidence points to lower risk tolerance.
• Selling all growth assets overreacts to the client’s concerns and may unnecessarily sacrifice long-term return and inflation protection.

Growth assets are £410,000, while the revised 50% target is £300,000, so £110,000 should be reallocated to match the new risk profile.

Question 5

Topic: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

At an annual review, a client has a £420,000 balanced growth portfolio originally intended to supplement retirement income in about 10 years. She has been contributing £1,500 per month from surplus income.

Review changes:

• She has recently separated and expects legal and moving costs of about £30,000 within 18 months.
• Her net income has fallen after reducing working hours to care for a parent.
• Her fixed-rate mortgage ends in 9 months; payments are expected to rise from £1,100 to about £1,850 per month.
• Her updated budget shows only £200 monthly surplus before the mortgage increase.
• She now wants fossil-fuel extraction excluded, provided this does not materially increase charges.

Which conclusion is most appropriate when reassessing suitability?

• A. The review can wait until the mortgage rate is confirmed because separation costs and sustainability preferences do not materially affect suitability.
• B. The priority is to increase income-producing investments so portfolio income can meet the higher mortgage payment while monthly contributions continue.
• C. The existing growth strategy can continue because the original 10-year retirement horizon remains in place and the sustainable-investment preference can be implemented by a fund switch.
• D. The plan should be reassessed around lower affordability, higher debt costs, near-term liquidity, and the revised sustainable-investment preference before confirming contributions or asset allocation.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

Explanation: An ongoing suitability review must identify material changes in circumstances, objectives, affordability and preferences. Here, several facts undermine the previous plan: reduced income, a likely mortgage payment increase, a short-term £30,000 cash need and a much smaller budget surplus. Continuing £1,500 monthly contributions may no longer be affordable or sustainable. The client also has a new sustainability preference that should be recorded and assessed alongside cost and investment constraints. The appropriate response is not an immediate product switch or yield chase, but a reassessment of cash flow, debt commitments, liquidity reserve, contribution capacity, risk profile, time horizon and investment restrictions before confirming the portfolio strategy.

• Maintaining the old growth strategy gives too much weight to the original time horizon and ignores changed affordability and liquidity needs.
• Increasing income assets to cover mortgage payments may introduce unsuitable investment risk and does not solve the contribution affordability issue.
• Waiting for the mortgage rate confirmation overlooks already-known changes: reduced income, separation costs, a short-term cash need and revised investment values.

The changed facts affect affordability, debt servicing, flexibility, liquidity and investment values, so the previous growth plan cannot simply be carried forward.

Question 6

Topic: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

At an annual review, a wealth manager is asked to make an immediate recommendation.

Client and family:

• Mrs Akhtar, 76, widowed, owns her home outright.
• Her daughter has a registered lasting power of attorney for property and financial affairs but is not present.
• Her son attends the meeting and says Mrs Akhtar should release £350,000 from her portfolio to lend to his unquoted company within two weeks.

Existing position:

• Discretionary portfolio: £900,000, balanced mandate, originally intended to support future care costs.
• Pension and rental income: £38,000 a year.
• Expenditure has not been updated since her husband died.
• The file records medium risk tolerance, but no recent capacity-for-loss assessment after a diagnosis of early-stage dementia.

“I trust my son. Please just arrange it; I do not want to go through the paperwork again.”

The son will not provide company accounts, and Mrs Akhtar becomes confused when asked how much money she would have left after the transfer. What should the wealth manager do next?

• A. Proceed as an insistent-client instruction if Mrs Akhtar signs a clear warning that the loan is outside the existing balanced mandate.
• B. Pause the recommendation, explain that suitability cannot be assessed with the missing information and vulnerability concerns, and agree to meet Mrs Akhtar privately before involving the attorney or reassessing the proposal.
• C. Recommend funding the loan only from lower-risk holdings and cash so that the remaining portfolio still broadly matches her recorded medium risk profile.
• D. Recommend a smaller loan now and schedule the next annual review earlier, because the portfolio is large enough to absorb some loss.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

Explanation: A recommendation should not be made or implemented where the adviser cannot form a reasonable view of suitability. Here, the proposed transaction is large, illiquid and concentrated, while Mrs Akhtar’s expenditure, care funding needs and capacity for loss are not up to date. Her confusion, recent diagnosis and her son’s pressure also create vulnerability and possible undue influence concerns. The next step is to pause, explain clearly why advice cannot proceed, document the reasons, and agree how the information gap will be addressed. A private meeting with Mrs Akhtar and appropriate involvement of the registered attorney or other support may be needed before reassessing objectives, affordability, capacity for loss and the proposed company loan.

• Treating the matter as an insistent-client instruction does not cure missing suitability information or vulnerability concerns.
• Adjusting the source of funds focuses on implementation, but the underlying proposal has not been shown to be suitable.
• Reducing the loan amount still assumes affordability and understanding without current expenditure, care-cost and capacity-for-loss evidence.

The recommendation should not proceed because key suitability, affordability, capacity and influence concerns remain unresolved.

Question 7

Topic: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

At an ongoing review, a wealth manager is considering whether to reaffirm an earlier, unimplemented recommendation to move a client’s taxable general investment account to a lower-cost model portfolio.

Review figures:

• Current account value: £320,000
• Allowable base cost: £250,000
• Current total ongoing charge: 1.25% a year
• Proposed total ongoing charge: 0.80% a year
• Implementation charge for the switch: 1.00% of the amount transferred
• The move requires a full disposal of the current holding.
• The client is a higher-rate taxpayer; CGT on the gain is 20% after an unused annual exempt amount of £3,000.

Assume annual charges are compared using £320,000, and ignore investment growth, income, dealing costs, and tax timing. Which assessment is most appropriate before reaffirming the recommendation?

• A. Implementing now would cost about £3,200 over the first 12 months because the implementation charge is the only incremental cost.
• B. Implementing now would leave the client about £11,960 worse off over the first 12 months because the CGT cost is partly offset by lower annual charges.
• C. Implementing now would save about £1,440 over the first 12 months because the ongoing charge falls by 0.45%.
• D. Implementing now would leave the client about £15,160 worse off over the first 12 months, so the cost-saving rationale should be reassessed.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

Explanation: An ongoing review should not simply reissue earlier suitability reasoning when the numbers have changed. The disposal would realise a gain of £70,000. After the £3,000 exempt amount, £67,000 is taxable at 20%, giving a CGT liability of £13,400. The implementation charge is 1.00% of £320,000, or £3,200. The annual charge saving is only 0.45% of £320,000, or £1,440 for the first year. The first-year net effect is therefore £13,400 + £3,200 - £1,440 = £15,160 worse. A lower ongoing charge may still matter over a longer horizon, but the wealth manager must reassess suitability and explain the break-even effect before proceeding.

• Looking only at the 0.45% annual charge reduction ignores the CGT and implementation charge caused by switching.
• Treating the 1.00% implementation charge as the only cost ignores the tax generated by the required disposal.
• Including CGT but omitting the implementation charge understates the first-year disadvantage by £3,200.

The taxable gain is £67,000 after the exemption, giving £13,400 CGT, and this plus the £3,200 implementation charge is only partly offset by £1,440 lower annual charges.

Question 8

Topic: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

At a scheduled quarterly monitoring point, a wealth manager reviews a retired client’s discretionary portfolio after rising interest rates and weak bond markets.

Client mandate and needs:

• Planned withdrawal: £4,000 per month from the portfolio.
• Liquidity policy: hold at least 9 months of planned withdrawals in cash.
• Strategic allocation: 55% growth assets, 35% defensive bonds, 10% cash.
• Rebalancing trigger: act when any asset class moves outside a ±5 percentage point range from its strategic allocation or when cash falls below the liquidity policy.
• No change has been reported in objectives, attitude to risk, capacity for loss, health, or family circumstances.

Current portfolio values:

Which review response is most proportionate?

• A. Move the defensive bond allocation into fixed-rate cash deposits to capture higher interest rates.
• B. Suspend the client’s withdrawals pending a full new suitability assessment.
• C. Document the review, confirm no client changes, leave the portfolio unchanged for now, and monitor against the next trigger.
• D. Rebalance immediately to the exact strategic allocation by increasing cash to 10% of the portfolio.

Best answer: C

What this tests: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

Explanation: The minimum cash reserve is 9 months × £4,000 = £36,000, so the current £60,000 cash holding is sufficient. Total portfolio value is £920,000. The current allocations are growth assets 58.7%, defensive bonds 34.8%, and cash 6.5%. The permitted ranges are growth assets 50%-60%, defensive bonds 30%-40%, and cash 5%-15%. Since no allocation or liquidity trigger has been breached and the client’s circumstances are unchanged, the proportionate response is to evidence the monitoring review, confirm the facts, and continue to monitor. External market changes do not automatically require trading or a full new recommendation if the portfolio remains within the agreed mandate and suitability assumptions still hold.

• Rebalancing to exact strategic weights ignores the agreed tolerance bands and may cause unnecessary trading costs or tax consequences.
• Moving defensive bonds into cash would replace the agreed asset allocation based only on current interest rates, without a suitability reason.
• Suspending withdrawals is disproportionate because the cash reserve covers the stated liquidity requirement and no affordability trigger has been breached.

Cash exceeds the £36,000 liquidity requirement and all current allocations are within the permitted tolerance ranges.

Question 9

Topic: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

At an annual review, an adviser is checking whether a revised fund mandate still fits Mrs Hughes’s agreed retirement plan. Mrs Hughes has not agreed to increase risk and has made no change to her income needs.

Agreed plan constraints:

• Medium-risk portfolio with growth assets kept within 35%-50% of the portfolio.
• Planned withdrawals of £4,000 per month.
• At least 12 months of planned withdrawals must be held in cash or same-day money-market assets.

Current portfolio after the fund mandate revision:

Which conclusion is most appropriate?

• A. The revised position remains aligned because monthly unit sales can replace the agreed cash reserve.
• B. The revised position no longer aligns with the plan because growth exposure is about 52.4% and the cash reserve is £18,000 short.
• C. The revised fund should be retained unchanged until it has a performance record under the new mandate.
• D. The revised position remains aligned because the portfolio is still diversified across equities, bonds, and cash.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

Explanation: A product or fund mandate change requires a fresh suitability check against the client’s agreed objectives, risk limits, and liquidity requirements. The revised growth exposure is £160,000 from the equity fund plus 75% of £150,000 from the cautious managed fund, giving £272,500. Against a total portfolio of £520,000, this is approximately 52.4%, above the agreed 50% maximum. The liquidity reserve also fails the plan: 12 months of £4,000 withdrawals requires £48,000 in cash or same-day money-market assets, but only £30,000 qualifies, leaving an £18,000 shortfall. The adviser should not treat the old recommendation as automatically continuing to apply after the fund’s mandate has changed.

• Diversification alone does not prove suitability where the agreed risk and liquidity constraints are breached.
• Selling units monthly may provide access to money, but it does not meet the explicit cash-reserve requirement.
• Waiting for a new performance record ignores an immediate mismatch with the client’s agreed plan.

The revised mandate takes the portfolio above the agreed 50% growth limit and leaves less than 12 months of withdrawals in qualifying cash assets.

Question 10

Topic: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

At an annual suitability review, a married client couple ask whether they should proceed with a plan agreed in principle at the previous review.

Client extract:

• Ages 57 and 55, both higher-rate taxpayers before recent changes.
• Existing objective: invest £140,000 from a maturing deposit into a higher-risk AIM Business Relief portfolio to start reducing potential IHT exposure.
• Risk profile: balanced overall, but high-risk capacity only for genuinely surplus capital.
• Existing arrangements: £42,000 emergency cash, ISAs, pensions on track for retirement at 65, repayment mortgage with 8 years remaining.
• New facts: one spouse has been made redundant, employer sick pay has ended, and the mortgage payment will rise by £950 per month when the fixed rate ends shortly.
• Current cash reserve after redundancy-related expenses is £19,000, while essential family outgoings are £6,500 per month.

Which recommendation best reflects suitable prioritisation at this review?

• A. Proceed with the AIM Business Relief investment because the IHT planning clock should start as early as possible.
• B. Delay the AIM Business Relief investment and prioritise short-term cash-flow resilience, mortgage affordability and protection review.
• C. Use the remaining cash reserve for extra pension contributions because the couple are still on track for retirement at 65.
• D. Delay the mortgage review because pension funding and long-term estate planning were already agreed objectives.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Ongoing Client Review, Portfolio Maintenance, Insistent Clients, and Suitability Reassessment

Explanation: A suitability reassessment must consider changed circumstances, not simply continue the previous plan. The AIM Business Relief objective was appropriate only for surplus capital and a client with capacity to accept higher risk and reduced liquidity. The redundancy, reduced cash reserve and imminent mortgage payment increase change both affordability and capacity for loss. Before committing capital to an IHT strategy, the adviser should reassess cash-flow needs, emergency reserves, debt affordability and protection. The estate-planning objective may still matter, but it should be delayed until the couple’s short-term financial resilience is restored and the capital can again be treated as genuinely surplus.

• Starting the AIM Business Relief strategy early focuses on tax planning while ignoring the loss of income and reduced liquidity.
• Delaying the mortgage review misprioritises a long-term objective over an imminent affordability issue.
• Extra pension contributions may be tax-efficient, but they reduce accessible cash when emergency liquidity has become the pressing need.

The higher-risk IHT strategy depended on surplus capital, but the redundancy, lower cash reserve and mortgage increase make liquidity and affordability more urgent.

Continue in the web app

Use Finance Prep for interactive CISI CWM Applied Wealth practice with mixed sets, timed mock exams, topic drills, explanations, and progress tracking.

Related focused pages

• Free CISI CWM AWM Practice Exam: Applied Wealth
• Free CISI CWM AWM Practice Questions: Regulation, Ethics, and Consumer Duty
• Free CISI CWM AWM Practice Questions: Client Discovery and Recommendations
• Free CISI CWM AWM Practice Questions: Liquidity and Cash-Flow Management
• Free CISI CWM AWM Practice Questions: Financial Protection
• Free CISI CWM AWM Practice Questions: Pensions Context and Tax
• Free CISI CWM AWM Practice Questions: Retirement Income Strategy
• Free CISI CWM AWM Practice Questions: Social Investment and Philanthropy
• Free CISI CWM AWM Practice Questions: Private-Client Taxation
• Free CISI CWM AWM Practice Questions: Trusts and Estate Planning

Practice next step

Use the Finance Prep web app above when you want interactive practice beyond this static page.