Browse Certification Practice Tests by Exam Family

CPH: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

Try 10 focused CPH questions on Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making, with answers and explanations, then continue with Securities Prep.

Open the matching Securities Prep practice page for timed mocks, topic drills, progress tracking, explanations, and full practice.

Topic snapshot

FieldDetail
Exam routeCPH
IssuerCSI
Topic areaConduct, Ethics, and Decision Making
Blueprint weight23%
Page purposeFocused sample questions before returning to mixed practice

How to use this topic drill

Use this page to isolate Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making for CPH. Work through the 10 questions first, then review the explanations and return to mixed practice in Securities Prep.

PassWhat to doWhat to record
First attemptAnswer without checking the explanation first.The fact, rule, calculation, or judgment point that controlled your answer.
ReviewRead the explanation even when you were correct.Why the best answer is stronger than the closest distractor.
RepairRepeat only missed or uncertain items after a short break.The pattern behind misses, not the answer letter.
TransferReturn to mixed practice once the topic feels stable.Whether the same skill holds up when the topic is no longer obvious.

Blueprint context: 23% of the practice outline. A focused topic score can overstate readiness if you recognize the pattern too quickly, so use it as repair work before timed mixed sets.

Conduct checklist before the questions

This topic tests the first ethical and client-protection issue in the fact pattern. Do not jump straight to the trade, product, or client preference until you have checked whether the conduct itself is defensible.

  • Look for conflicts, pressure, misleading communication, weak disclosure, or improper use of discretion.
  • Ask whether the safest next step is to explain, document, refuse, escalate, or seek supervision.
  • Prefer answers that protect the client and the integrity of the record over answers that make the transaction easier.

What to drill next after conduct misses

If you miss these questions, write down the conduct issue before reading the explanation. Then drill product recommendation and client-maintenance questions, where the same ethical judgment appears inside longer workflows.

Sample questions

These questions are original Securities Prep practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.

Question 1

Topic: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

A registered individual at an investment dealer is meeting a client tomorrow who asked for a recommendation for a real estate agent. A local agent tells the registered individual: “Send me your clients and I’ll pay you $500 for each closed purchase.” The dealer has policies requiring pre-approval and documented client disclosure for any referral compensation arrangement.

What is the best next step?

  • A. Make the referral and disclose the fee after closing
  • B. Get compliance approval and written disclosure before referring
  • C. Refer the agent but refuse any compensation
  • D. Accept the fee if the client is satisfied

Best answer: B

What this tests: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

Explanation: A paid referral arrangement is a conflict of interest because it can influence which service provider is recommended. The appropriate workflow is to escalate to the dealer for pre-approval, ensure there is proper documentation, and provide clear client disclosure of the compensation before making the referral.

Gifts, entertainment, and referral compensation can create real or perceived undue influence and conflicts of interest. In this scenario, the $500 payment could bias the recommendation, so it cannot be handled informally or “fixed later.” The registered individual should follow the dealer’s conflict-management process before acting, which typically means:

  • Escalate to a supervisor/compliance for pre-approval
  • Put the referral arrangement in writing as required by the firm
  • Provide the client with clear disclosure of the referral relationship and compensation before the referral
  • Maintain appropriate records

Refusing compensation may reduce the conflict, but the firm’s pre-approval/documentation requirements still apply before proceeding with a referral connected to a proposed compensation arrangement.

  • Disclose later is too late because the client must be informed before the referral decision.
  • Client satisfaction does not remove the conflict or the need for firm controls.
  • Refuse compensation and refer anyway can still breach the dealer’s pre-approval and documentation requirements given the proposed arrangement.

Referral fees create a conflict, so the arrangement must be approved, documented, and disclosed to the client before any referral is made.


Question 2

Topic: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

A registered individual receives a voicemail from someone claiming to be an existing client, asking for an “urgent” account holdings summary and most recent statement to be sent to a new personal email address because the client is travelling. The caller ID and email are not on the client’s file, and the message includes the account number.

Which action best aligns with ethical responsibilities for client confidentiality and safeguarding personal and account information?

  • A. Email the statement to the new address in voicemail
  • B. Text the holdings to the provided mobile number
  • C. Call client using number on file; authenticate; use secure portal
  • D. Fax the statement to the voicemail number; confirm later

Best answer: C

What this tests: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

Explanation: Client confidentiality requires verifying identity and using secure, firm-approved channels before sharing personal or account information. A voicemail request—even with an account number—does not establish authority. Calling the client using a trusted contact method already on file, authenticating, and then delivering information securely best protects the client and the firm.

The core standard is to protect non-public personal and account information from unauthorized access or disclosure. When a request arrives through an unverified channel (like a voicemail from an unknown number) and asks to send information to new contact details, you should treat it as a potential social-engineering attempt.

Appropriate steps include:

  • Use a “trusted path” by contacting the client using phone/email already on file.
  • Authenticate the client per firm procedures before discussing or sending details.
  • Use secure, firm-approved delivery methods (e.g., client portal/secure messaging).
  • Update contact information only through the firm’s controlled process and document the interaction.

Convenience or urgency does not override safeguarding obligations.

  • Unverified email delivery can disclose confidential data to an impostor.
  • Texting account details is typically insecure and may go to the wrong person.
  • Faxing to an unverified number risks misdelivery and creates an uncontrolled copy.

Using contact details already on file and strong authentication before releasing information helps prevent unauthorized disclosure and supports secure delivery.


Question 3

Topic: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

All amounts are in CAD. A client holds $85,000 in a no-load Canadian equity mutual fund. The client’s investment dealer offers a similar proprietary fund with a higher MER and a trailing commission that would increase the registered individual’s compensation. The client asks, “Is there any downside to switching?”

Which response by the registered individual is INCORRECT under the duty to deal fairly, honestly, and in good faith with the client?

  • A. Compare features and total costs, and disclose the compensation impact
  • B. Explain key risks and differences and document the discussion and rationale
  • C. Offer a written summary and give the client time to decide
  • D. Recommend the switch and state there are no meaningful added costs

Best answer: D

What this tests: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

Explanation: Dealing fairly, honestly, and in good faith requires client communications to be accurate, balanced, and not misleading, especially when a client asks directly about potential disadvantages. Material costs and compensation-related impacts must not be minimized or misrepresented. A recommendation should be supported by clear, truthful disclosure and documentation.

The fair dealing obligation applies to what you say and how you act in client interactions. When a client asks about “downside,” the registered individual must provide a truthful, balanced explanation of material information relevant to the decision—such as higher ongoing costs, differences in fund features, and any compensation impact that could reasonably matter to the client.

Misstating or downplaying material costs (or implying there are none) is misleading and inconsistent with acting in good faith. A compliant approach is to explain the differences in plain language, disclose the compensation impact, answer questions, document the conversation, and allow the client to make an informed decision without undue pressure.

  • Misleading cost disclosure fails because denying meaningful added costs with a higher MER/trailing commission is not fair or honest.
  • Cost and compensation comparison is appropriate because it gives the client material information to decide.
  • Risk explanation and documentation is appropriate because it supports informed consent and an audit trail.
  • Time to decide is appropriate because it promotes informed, unpressured decision-making.

It is misleading to deny or minimize material cost differences when the client is explicitly asking about downsides.


Question 4

Topic: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

A registered individual (RI) prepares an email to a retail client that includes a performance chart. Before sending, the RI notices the chart period was set to “Since inception” instead of the client’s requested “1-year,” which would have made recent performance look better. No email is sent and no trade occurs.

Exhibit: Firm WSP excerpt (Learning from errors and near-misses)

“Near-miss” = an error or conduct issue that was detected and corrected
before it reached a client or the market.

All near-misses must be:
1) Reported to Compliance using the Near-Miss Form within 1 business day.
2) Documented with what happened, why it happened, and the control used to
   stop it.
3) Supported by retaining drafts/working papers and related messages.
4) Reviewed in a brief ‘lessons learned’ debrief to prevent recurrence.

Based on the exhibit, what is the most appropriate next step for the RI?

  • A. Correct the chart and send the email without reporting
  • B. Take no action since no client received the information
  • C. Delete the draft and messages once the chart is corrected
  • D. Submit a Near-Miss Form and retain the draft and messages

Best answer: D

What this tests: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

Explanation: A near-miss is still a compliance and ethics learning opportunity. The firm’s WSP requires the RI to report the incident to Compliance, document what happened and why, retain supporting records, and participate in a “lessons learned” review to strengthen controls and reduce repeat errors.

Learning from mistakes and near-misses supports an ethical compliance culture by encouraging early escalation, transparency, and continuous improvement rather than concealment. Here, the RI identified a potentially misleading presentation before it reached the client, which fits the WSP definition of a near-miss. The WSP then sets out the required actions: timely reporting to Compliance, documenting the circumstances and the control that prevented harm, retaining drafts and related communications, and completing a debrief to identify root causes (e.g., template defaults, review steps, training needs) and implement prevention measures. The key takeaway is that “no harm occurred” does not eliminate the obligation to report and learn when the WSP requires near-miss reporting.

  • “Fix and move on” is inconsistent with the WSP requirement to report all near-misses.
  • “No client impact” misreads the definition, which explicitly includes issues caught before reaching a client.
  • Deleting evidence conflicts with the WSP requirement to retain drafts and related messages for review.

The WSP requires reporting, documentation, record retention, and a debrief even when the issue is caught before reaching the client.


Question 5

Topic: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

A registered individual’s firm offers an internal sales incentive: if the advisor sells at least $2,000,000 of ABC issuer’s new issue during the offering period, the advisor receives a personal $1,500 travel voucher. The advisor recommends the new issue to several clients and does not mention the incentive to the clients or to the firm’s compliance department.

What is the primary conduct concern and the most appropriate mitigation?

  • A. Privacy breach; stop discussing the offering using normal email channels
  • B. Market manipulation; avoid concentrating client orders in the same new issue
  • C. A compensation-related conflict; disclose and manage it in the client’s best interest
  • D. Unauthorized trading; obtain written discretionary authority before soliciting

Best answer: C

What this tests: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

Explanation: The key red flag is a material conflict of interest created by a personal sales incentive tied to recommending a specific security. Client-first conduct requires the conflict be identified and escalated, then avoided or controlled and clearly disclosed so the recommendation is not influenced by the advisor’s benefit.

A personal benefit that depends on selling a particular product can reasonably be expected to influence an advisor’s recommendations, creating a material conflict of interest. Under a client-first standard, the advisor must put the client’s interest ahead of their own and cannot let compensation incentives drive advice.

Appropriate mitigation is to escalate the conflict to the firm and ensure it is addressed through avoid/control/disclose measures, such as:

  • Promptly disclosing the incentive to the firm (and to clients where material)
  • Ensuring the recommendation is based on the client’s KYC, objectives, and alternatives (not the contest)
  • Following firm controls (e.g., supervision, removing/declining the incentive, or not participating if it cannot be managed)

The core issue is the undisclosed incentive, not the mechanics of placing the orders or the fact multiple clients buy the same new issue.

  • Unauthorized trading is not indicated because the scenario describes recommendations, not trades placed without client authority.
  • Privacy breach is not supported because there is no misuse of client information or insecure transmission of sensitive data.
  • Market manipulation is not suggested because there is no intent to artificially affect price or trading activity.

The undisclosed personal incentive creates a material conflict that must be disclosed and controlled (or avoided) so recommendations remain client-first.


Question 6

Topic: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

A long-time client with a conservative profile calls at 3:45 p.m. and asks you to buy a high-risk junior issuer before “the market closes,” saying, “Just update my KYC to aggressive so compliance won’t block it.” The client also offers you premium event tickets if you “make it happen,” and asks that you not put the discussion in writing. Your firm’s policy requires accurate KYC and documentation of material client instructions and any potential conflicts/inducements.

What is the single best action you should take?

  • A. Process the trade immediately to meet the client’s deadline, then update KYC and notes after the fact.
  • B. Refuse to deal with the client going forward and take no further steps, since the request is inappropriate.
  • C. Update the KYC to aggressive as requested, place the order, and keep the tickets since the client offered them voluntarily.
  • D. Explain you cannot change KYC without truthful information, decline the tickets, escalate the inducement/conflict to compliance, and only consider the order after properly updating KYC and documenting the discussion and risks.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

Explanation: The ethical response is to put the client’s interests and market integrity ahead of time pressure and personal benefit. That means refusing to falsify KYC, declining/raising inducements as a conflict, and acting diligently by documenting and completing required due diligence before accepting or entering an order.

Core ethical values require you to be honest and act with integrity (no falsifying KYC or hiding records), fair (provide balanced risk disclosure and avoid self-interested influence), professional (follow firm policies and escalate issues), and diligent (take reasonable steps to verify and document before acting).

In this scenario, the client is pressuring you to misstate KYC and conceal the interaction, and is offering an inducement tied to a specific outcome—both are clear red flags. The best decision is to decline the inducement, escalate the conflict to compliance/supervision, and only proceed after KYC is accurately updated based on truthful information and the discussion and risks are properly documented. Time pressure does not justify bypassing controls.

  • “Fix it later” processing fails because diligence and professionalism require controls and documentation before acting.
  • Client-directed KYC change fails because honesty and integrity prohibit recording information you know is inaccurate.
  • Walking away immediately misses professionalism and diligence expectations to escalate and document the attempted inducement and improper request.

This approach demonstrates honesty, integrity, fairness, professionalism, and diligence by refusing falsification/inducements, escalating conflicts, and ensuring accurate KYC and documentation before acting.


Question 7

Topic: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

It is quarter-end, and your branch manager is pressuring you to “move a few clients into our higher-fee proprietary fund” to help the branch hit a revenue target. One client tells you she is confused about the switch and asks whether there are any extra costs, and the manager says to “process it today and update the notes later.” What is the most appropriate next step?

  • A. Process the switch today and rely on the trade confirmation
  • B. Proceed if it seems suitable and document the discussion later
  • C. Pause; clarify and disclose, document, and escalate the pressure
  • D. Have the branch manager obtain consent while you enter the trade

Best answer: C

What this tests: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

Explanation: The facts show clear ethical red flags: sales-pressure driven advice, a confused client, and instructions to trade before documenting. The appropriate response is to stop the transaction until you have provided fair, balanced disclosure (including costs and conflicts), confirmed suitability and client understanding, documented the rationale and instructions, and escalated the improper pressure through compliance/supervision channels.

Under CIRO-style conduct expectations, recommendations must be made in the client’s best interest, with fair and balanced disclosure, and supported by complete documentation. Here, the manager’s revenue-target pressure creates a conflict of interest risk, and the client’s confusion means you do not yet have informed consent. You should not execute a switch simply to meet targets or “fix” the record later.

Appropriate steps include:

  • Pause the trade and re-explain the reason for the switch and alternatives
  • Disclose all material costs and the firm/representative conflict (proprietary, higher-fee incentive)
  • Confirm the recommendation is suitable and the client understands and agrees
  • Document the discussion, rationale, and instructions before proceeding
  • Escalate the manager’s improper direction to the appropriate supervisory/compliance channel

A trade confirmation is not a substitute for pre-trade disclosure, suitability work, and contemporaneous records.

  • Confirmation cures issues fails because post-trade confirmations don’t replace informed consent and documentation.
  • Document later is improper because “fixing notes” after the fact undermines recordkeeping and supervision.
  • Manager obtains consent is unacceptable because you remain responsible and it worsens the conflict/undue influence risk.

You must ensure informed consent with full disclosure and proper documentation, and escalate improper sales pressure rather than proceeding.


Question 8

Topic: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

You are a supervisor reviewing an internal message from a registered individual about an upcoming client meeting.

Exhibit: Internal message excerpt

I’m 100% confident ABC Mining will bounce back—I've pulled two bullish notes to show Mr. Patel.
Don’t include the downgrade report; it’ll just confuse him.
Also, if we move him from the ETF into our ABC Mining principal-protected note this week, it counts toward my Q1 “Structured Notes” bonus.

Based on the exhibit, what is the most appropriate supervisory response?

  • A. Intervene and escalate: require fair, balanced disclosure and address the bonus-driven conflict before any recommendation
  • B. Take no action because personal conviction is acceptable when supported by two research notes
  • C. Allow the meeting if the downgrade report is placed in the client file, even if not discussed
  • D. Allow the meeting because the note is principal-protected, reducing ethical and suitability concerns

Best answer: A

What this tests: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

Explanation: The exhibit indicates the advisor is filtering out disconfirming information and is motivated by a product-specific bonus. That combination can lead to unfair, misleading client communications and conflicted advice. A supervisor should intervene to ensure communications are fair and balanced and that any conflict is properly addressed before proceeding.

Cognitive biases and incentive conflicts often show up in how an advisor selects and presents information to a client. Here, the instruction to use only “bullish notes” and exclude a downgrade is classic confirmation bias (seeking/supporting only information that confirms a pre-existing view), and the “counts toward my bonus” line is a clear compensation incentive conflict. Supervisory action should focus on preventing potentially misleading, one-sided communication and on ensuring the recommendation is supportable on an objective basis (including suitability rationale) with conflicts identified, mitigated, and disclosed as required. The key takeaway is that principal protection or an advisor’s confidence does not remove the duty to be fair, balanced, and conflict-aware.

  • Principal protection shortcut is incorrect because product features don’t eliminate conflicted advice or disclosure/communication obligations.
  • “File it but don’t say it” is unacceptable because omitting material negative information can still be misleading.
  • Confidence as a defence fails because selective research use plus a bonus incentive creates an ethical risk that requires supervisory intervention.

The message shows selective use of information (confirmation bias) plus a compensation incentive conflict that must be mitigated and disclosed.


Question 9

Topic: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

A registered individual at an investment dealer accidentally buys 1,000 shares for the wrong client account, creating an unrealized loss of $1,200. The client has not noticed, and the registered individual considers placing an offsetting trade and covering any remaining loss personally so there is “no need to involve anyone.” Using a test of transparency (comfortable explaining it to the client, a supervisor, and a regulator), what is the best next step?

  • A. Wait to see if the client complains
  • B. Execute the offsetting trade, then notify supervision
  • C. Escalate to supervisor/compliance and follow the error process
  • D. Reimburse the client personally and do not document it

Best answer: C

What this tests: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

Explanation: The transparency test points to handling the mistake in a way that is defensible to the client, supervision, and a regulator. That means escalating immediately and using the firm’s documented trade error correction process, including appropriate client communication. Quiet fixes or personal reimbursement create undisclosed activity and weak controls.

A “quiet” correction or personal make-whole may feel client-friendly, but it typically fails the test of transparency because it bypasses supervision, weakens the audit trail, and can turn an operational error into a conduct issue. The ethical next step is to stop and escalate so the firm can apply its approved error correction workflow and determine what disclosure and remediation are required.

Practically, the sequence is:

  • Notify your supervisor/compliance immediately and document the facts.
  • Follow the firm’s trade error account/correction procedures.
  • Communicate with the client as directed and keep complete records.

The key takeaway is that doing the “right thing” includes using the right controls, not just achieving the desired outcome.

  • Fix first, report later is premature and can compound the error before supervision reviews the facts.
  • Personal reimbursement creates an undisclosed arrangement and undermines firm books-and-records and supervision.
  • Wait for a complaint ignores the duty to address errors promptly and transparently.

Transparency requires prompt escalation, proper documentation, and a firm-approved correction and client communication.


Question 10

Topic: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

A registered individual’s client says, “I’m on the board of ABC Inc. Earnings next week will be far better than expected. Buy 20,000 shares today—and don’t tell anyone.” You suspect the client is providing material non-public information. Your firm’s policy requires suspected market misconduct to be escalated to Compliance, who determines any external reporting.

Which action best aligns with ethical standards on confidentiality and duty to escalate?

  • A. Decline the trade and escalate promptly to Compliance
  • B. Decline the trade and warn other clients to avoid ABC shares
  • C. Decline the trade and report the client directly to CIRO
  • D. Execute the order and keep the client’s request confidential

Best answer: A

What this tests: Conduct, Ethics, and Decision Making

Explanation: Client confidentiality does not permit you to assist suspected misconduct. When you suspect material non-public information is being used, you should not accept the order and you must escalate the concern through appropriate internal channels. This protects the client’s information from improper disclosure while meeting your duty to report and supervise appropriately.

Confidentiality is a core ethical duty, but it is not absolute when there is suspected wrongdoing. Here, the client’s statement creates a reasonable suspicion of trading on material non-public information. The ethically appropriate response is to avoid participating in the potentially improper activity (do not take the order), and to escalate the concern through the firm’s supervisory/compliance process, documenting what was said and done.

Escalating to Compliance is consistent with:

  • protecting client information (limited, need-to-know sharing)
  • supervision and escalation expectations
  • avoiding tipping or spreading rumours

A key takeaway is to keep information contained to authorized internal channels while ensuring suspected misconduct is addressed.

  • Follow the client’s request fails because confidentiality does not justify facilitating suspected improper trading.
  • Warn other clients is improper tipping and a misuse of confidential information.
  • Go straight to CIRO ignores the stated firm escalation protocol and risks unnecessary external disclosure of confidential information.

You must not facilitate trading on suspected material non-public information and should report internally per firm policy while keeping the information confidential outside the escalation channel.

Continue with full practice

Use the CPH Practice Test page for the full Securities Prep route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.

Open the matching Securities Prep practice page for timed mocks, topic drills, progress tracking, explanations, and full practice.

Free review resource

Read the CPH guide on SecuritiesMastery.com, then return to Securities Prep for timed practice.

Revised on Wednesday, May 13, 2026