Try 50 free Series 162 practice questions across the official topic areas, with answers and explanations, then continue with the full Securities Prep question bank.
This free full-length Series 162 practice exam includes 50 original Securities Prep questions across the official topic areas.
The questions are original Securities Prep practice questions aligned to the exam outline. They are not official exam questions and are not copied from any exam sponsor.
Count note: this page uses the full-length practice count maintained in the Mastery exam catalog. Some exam sponsors publish total questions, scored questions, duration, or unscored/pretest-item rules differently; always confirm exam-day rules with the sponsor.
For a compact topic review before or after this set, use the Series 162 Cheat Sheet on SecuritiesMastery.com.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Issuer | FINRA |
| Exam | Series 162 |
| Official route name | Series 162 — Supervisory Analyst Qualification Examination (Part II: Valuation of Securities) |
| Full-length set on this page | 50 questions |
| Exam time | 120 minutes |
| Passing score | 74 |
| Topic areas represented | 2 |
| Topic | Approximate official weight | Questions used |
|---|---|---|
| Data and Calculation Review | 32% | 16 |
| Reasonable Basis Review | 68% | 34 |
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst is reviewing a draft report that raises its price target on higher earnings and free cash flow.
Exhibit:
Forecast excerpt
Pretax income: 2025 $200m; 2026 $220m; 2027 $240m
EPS tax rate: 22% each year
Cash tax rate in FCF: 8% each year
Attached tax memo: NOL-related DTA supports reduced cash taxes in 2025-2026; no 2027 support shown
Draft report text: "Higher EPS and FCF are supported by sustainable tax assumptions."
Which supervisory analyst action is most fully supported by the exhibit?
Best answer: D
Explanation: The exhibit supports reduced cash taxes only through 2026, so applying 8% again in 2027 is not supported as shown.
The exhibit supports a difference between the EPS tax rate and the cash tax rate, but only for a limited period. The tax memo supports reduced cash taxes in 2025-2026, while the FCF model keeps the 8% cash tax rate in 2027 and the report calls the assumption sustainable. That 2027 extension needs support or revision.
In supervisory analyst review, the key question is whether the tax assumption actually supports the earnings and cash flow conclusion being published. Here, a 22% EPS tax rate and an 8% cash tax rate are not inherently inconsistent; book tax expense and cash taxes can differ when NOLs and deferred tax assets affect cash payments. The issue is the time period supported by the memo. The exhibit states that the NOL-related DTA supports reduced cash taxes in 2025-2026, but the FCF model applies the 8% cash tax rate in 2027 as well, and the draft calls that assumption sustainable. That makes the 2027 cash tax benefit unsupported on the record shown. The proper review step is to obtain support for 2027 or revise the model and report language.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst reviews this excerpt from an equity report on a software issuer. Which issue is the primary calculation-integrity red flag before approval?
Narrative: "We expect 2026 revenue to grow 15% year over year, supporting our higher price target."
Forecast table (USD mm)
2025 revenue (FY actual): 800
2026 revenue (FY estimate): 920
Valuation discussion:
"We derive our target from 6.0x EV/NTM revenue. NTM revenue is 920 and current LTM revenue is 860, which implies the same 15% growth used in our thesis."
Best answer: D
Explanation: The report labels both comparisons as 15% growth, but FY 920 versus FY 800 and NTM 920 versus LTM 860 are not comparable bases.
The main red flag is that one stated 15% growth rate is not calculated on a like-for-like basis. The table supports 15% only by comparing 2026 FY revenue of 920 with 2025 FY revenue of 800, while the valuation paragraph compares 920 with LTM revenue of 860, which is about 7% growth. That mismatch is the key approval issue.
Percentage-growth review requires the same period length and the same base definition wherever the report cites one growth figure. Here, the narrative and table imply a full-year to full-year comparison, but the valuation paragraph says the same growth rate is supported by NTM versus LTM revenue. Those are different denominators and different time bases, so the report is internally inconsistent.
\[ \begin{aligned} \text{FY/FY growth} &= \frac{920}{800} - 1 = 15\% \\ \text{NTM/LTM growth} &= \frac{920}{860} - 1 \approx 7\% \end{aligned} \]A supervisory analyst should require a reconciliation so the narrative, table, and valuation support all use comparable periods and base values. A missing sensitivity range or broader peer discussion may still matter, but those are secondary to a misstated core growth input.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst has already verified the market-share sources and confirmed that the revised price target reconciles to the model. In the draft report, the analyst upgrades a containerboard producer based on industry consolidation and improved pricing discipline, but the draft does not show how that industry view changes forecast assumptions or supports the recommendation. Before approving the report, what is the best next step?
Best answer: A
Explanation: The missing review step is to confirm that the industry thesis drives explicit model and valuation assumptions that justify the recommendation.
Once source support and mechanical model tie-out are complete, the next supervisory step is assumption review. Industry structure discussion provides a reasonable basis only if it is linked to specific forecast and valuation inputs that support the recommendation.
The key concept is that industry appraisal must do analytical work, not just add background. Here, the sourcing and model reconciliation steps are already complete, so the next step is to require the analyst to connect the consolidation and pricing-discipline thesis to the report’s actual conclusions.
More narrative about competitors does not solve the problem, and another arithmetic check is out of sequence because the missing issue is reasonable-basis support.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a report recommending a BBB industrial issuer’s 10-year bond as attractive relative value over a 12-month horizon. The report cites a 45bp yield advantage to a BBB peer basket, but the bond has modified duration of 8.1 versus 6.3 for the peers and debt/EBITDA of 4.7x versus a peer median of 3.5x. The report does not explain whether the extra yield reflects duration risk, credit risk, or mispricing. Which follow-up is NOT appropriate before approving the conclusion?
Best answer: D
Explanation: Shared rating and higher nominal yield do not show mispricing when the bond also has longer duration and weaker credit fundamentals.
When yield, duration, and credit evidence point in different directions, the supervisory analyst should require a risk-adjusted explanation. A shared BBB rating and a higher nominal yield are not enough to support relative value if the bond also carries longer duration and weaker leverage metrics.
The issue is whether a reasonable basis exists for the report’s fixed-income conclusion. A higher yield can reflect several things: greater interest-rate sensitivity, weaker issuer credit, or true undervaluation. Here, the bond has both longer modified duration and weaker leverage than the peer basket, so the report must separate compensation for those risks from any actual mispricing.
Useful follow-up work includes:
A broad rating category such as BBB is too coarse to resolve those differences by itself. The key takeaway is to reconcile yield pickup with duration and credit evidence before approving a relative-value call.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A research report describes a 5-year note that pays interest at 3-month SOFR + 120bp, resets quarterly, has a 2.5% minimum coupon and a 6.5% maximum coupon, and may be redeemed at par by the issuer beginning in year 3. Which characterization of the instrument is most accurate?
Best answer: C
Explanation: The coupon resets to a reference rate, is bounded by a floor and cap, and includes an issuer call feature.
The note is a floating-rate instrument because its coupon resets off 3-month SOFR. The minimum and maximum coupon create a collar, and the issuer’s right to redeem at par makes it callable.
The key review issue is whether the report correctly names both the coupon structure and the embedded option. A coupon tied to 3-month SOFR + 120bp and reset quarterly is a floating-rate note, not a fixed-rate or step-up security. The 2.5% minimum and 6.5% maximum are a floor and cap, together forming a coupon collar. The issuer’s right to redeem the note at par beginning in year 3 is a call feature.
A correct characterization must capture all three elements:
The closest distractors each miss or misstate one of those structural features.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a draft report dated September 18, 2026. The report states that all market data are as of the report date close.
Share price: $64.00
Annual indicated dividend: $2.24 per share
Shares outstanding used in the report: 250 million
Draft line: Dividend yield 3.1%; market capitalization $15.0 billion
Which replacement line is internally consistent with the report date data?
Best answer: A
Explanation: Using the report-date price, dividend yield is \(2.24 / 64.00 = 3.5\%\) and market capitalization is \(64.00 \times 250\) million = \(16.0\) billion.
The internally consistent replacement must recalculate both figures from the report-date share price. \(2.24 / 64.00 = 3.5\%\) for dividend yield, and \(64.00 \times 250\) million = \(16.0\) billion for market capitalization.
For market-data verification, the supervisory analyst should confirm that any reported yield and market capitalization reconcile to the same report-date share price. Here, the annual indicated dividend of \(2.24\) per share and the report-date price of \(64.00\) imply a dividend yield of \(3.5\%\). The stated share count of 250 million implies a market capitalization of 16.0 billion.
Because the draft line shows 3.1% and $15.0 billion, it is inconsistent with the data in the excerpt. The key review step is to recompute both figures from the current price before approving the report.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a relative valuation section for TargetCo, a regional industrial distributor. The report applies the four-peer median forward EV/EBITDA multiple to TargetCo’s forward EBITDA to support its price target.
TargetCo forward EBITDA: $200 million
TargetCo net debt: $800 million
Shares outstanding: 40 million
Peer Business type Fwd EV/EBITDA
Alpha Distribution Industrial distributor 8.0x
Beta Distribution Industrial distributor 8.4x
Gamma SaaS Platform Software platform 14.5x
Delta Marketplace Digital marketplace 13.8x
Report uses peer median: 11.1x
Before approving the report, what is the best follow-up?
Best answer: A
Explanation: Excluding the non-comparable software and marketplace issuers reduces the peer median to about 8.2x, materially changing the implied valuation.
The supervisory issue is peer comparability, not whether the reported median was calculated correctly. Using only the comparable distributor peers gives about 8.2x rather than 11.1x, so the analyst must justify the non-comparable issuers or revise the target-price bridge.
Relative valuation requires a reasonable basis for why selected peers are economically comparable. Here, the conclusion depends on including a software platform and a digital marketplace alongside industrial distributors, yet no support is given for that peer-set choice. A supervisory analyst should require either a clear comparability rationale or a revised valuation bridge based on a defensible peer group before approving the report.
That size of change shows the missing support is the peer set, not the arithmetic.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a draft report on an issuer after reading the Form 10-Q.
MD&A: 'Net cash from operations rose to $82 million from $18 million, driven partly by customer deposits and extended payment terms with suppliers.'
Debt footnote: 'Revolver borrowings increased to $150 million from $55 million. The issuer remained in compliance with its leverage covenant at quarter-end, with 0.1x headroom. Management expects covenant flexibility to remain limited over the next 12 months.'
Which draft narrative statement is NOT supported by the filing?
Best answer: D
Explanation: It overstates financial condition by ignoring temporary cash-flow drivers, higher revolver usage, and very limited covenant headroom.
The filing supports a balanced liquidity discussion, not an unqualified positive conclusion. Cash flow improved, but part of the increase came from customer deposits and delayed supplier payments, while revolver usage and covenant pressure remained elevated.
A supervisory analyst should check whether the report narrative fairly reflects the full filing context rather than highlighting only favorable language. Here, the Form 10-Q does show better operating cash flow, but MD&A explains that part of the improvement came from working-capital items such as customer deposits and slower supplier payments, which may not represent durable cash generation. The debt footnote adds further constraint: revolver borrowings increased sharply, covenant headroom was only 0.1x, and management expected flexibility to stay limited over the next 12 months. A fair summary can mention improved cash flow and quarter-end compliance, but it must also acknowledge the temporary drivers and ongoing financing pressure. The unsupported statement is the one that turns these mixed facts into a broad claim of strong liquidity and minimal pressure.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a draft report stating, “Operating cash flow increased 20% year over year, supporting our higher price target.” The model file includes:
Metric (USD mm) Prior year Current year
Net income 80 96
EBITDA 100 120
Cash from operations 90 87
Capital expenditures 30 27
Which supervisory analyst comment is most accurate before the report is approved?
Best answer: C
Explanation: The 20% growth rate matches EBITDA, while reported cash from operations declined from 90 to 87, so the cash flow claim is unsupported.
Cash flow conclusions must tie to the statement of cash flows, not to an earnings proxy. Here, cash from operations fell from 90 to 87, a 3.3% decline, while the 20% figure matches EBITDA growth from 100 to 120.
When a report claims operating cash flow growth, the supervisory analyst should reconcile that claim directly to cash from operations on the statement of cash flows. In this exhibit, both net income and EBITDA rise 20%, but reported cash from operations does not.
\[ \frac{87-90}{90} = -3.3\% \]So the draft appears to be labeling an earnings measure as cash flow. Capital expenditures are relevant to free cash flow, not to operating cash flow, and free cash flow here is flat at 60 in both periods. The report should clearly distinguish improved earnings from actual reported cash generation.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a report upgrading U.S. homebuilders to Buy. The report says a new deficit-financed tax cut will shift aggregate demand higher, producing faster GDP growth, lower inflation, and lower mortgage rates next year. The price-target thesis depends on higher order volume and gross-margin expansion, but the note identifies no improvement in labor availability, materials supply, productivity, or other aggregate-supply driver. Which is the primary red flag?
Best answer: D
Explanation: A demand-driven expansion does not ordinarily reduce inflation and borrowing costs without a supported supply-side offset, so the sector thesis lacks a reasonable basis.
The key issue is inconsistent aggregate demand and aggregate supply reasoning. A fiscal stimulus that lifts aggregate demand may support housing demand, but without evidence of better aggregate supply it does not logically support lower inflation and lower mortgage rates.
In supervisory review, the first question is whether the macro mechanism supporting the recommendation is internally consistent. Here, the report attributes a rightward shift in aggregate demand to a deficit-financed tax cut. That could support stronger employment and housing demand, but it would not normally produce lower inflation and lower mortgage rates unless the note also showed an offsetting rightward shift in aggregate supply, such as improved labor availability, lower input costs from greater supply, or higher productivity. Because the price target depends on both higher unit demand and easier financing, the missing macro bridge is the primary reasonable-basis problem. Modeling detail, peer-set refinement, and added source citations may improve the report, but they are secondary to the unsupported AD/AS conclusion.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst is reviewing a DCF price-target exhibit. The report states the exhibit is drawn directly from the model with no manual overrides. All amounts are in USD.
Model tabs
Debt schedule: $540m
Cash schedule: $90m
Tax schedule: 25%
Diluted shares: 120m
Valuation tab
DCF enterprise value: $2,850m
Net debt: $450m
Equity value: $2,400m
Value per share: $20.00
Report exhibits
Price target bridge: EV $2,850m - net debt $450m = equity $2,400m / 120m shares = $20.00
DCF assumptions: WACC 9.0%-10.0%, terminal growth 2.0%-3.0%, tax rate 22%
Which supervisory analyst review conclusion is INCORRECT?
Best answer: B
Explanation: A DCF report should not be approved when the report cites a different tax assumption than the model without reconciliation.
The key issue is assumption flow. Debt, cash, and diluted shares reconcile from the model to the valuation bridge, but the tax assumption does not: the model uses 25% while the report exhibit states 22%.
A supervisory analyst must confirm that core valuation inputs flow consistently from model tabs into report exhibits. Here, debt of 540 and cash of 90 produce net debt of 450 in both the model and the price-target bridge, and equity value of 2,400 divided by 120 diluted shares supports the 20.00 per-share figure. The only inconsistency is the tax assumption: the model tax schedule shows 25%, but the report’s DCF assumptions show 22%.
That mismatch matters because tax rate affects after-tax cash flow and therefore DCF value. If the report says the exhibit comes directly from the model with no manual overrides, the supervisory analyst should require reconciliation or correction before approval. A clean debt and share bridge does not cure an inconsistent tax input elsewhere in the valuation support.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a report that reiterates Buy on a utility stock. The report describes the shares as below-average risk with a beta of 0.55, but the 12-month price target plus dividend imply a 4% total return versus 6% expected from the firm’s utility coverage universe. The report gives no explanation for why the lower expected return still supports the rating. Which statement is most accurate?
Best answer: B
Explanation: A reasonable-basis review requires the recommendation to be reconciled with both expected return and stated risk, not just with a low beta.
The key issue is not whether the stock is low beta; it is whether the report explains why a lower expected return still merits a positive recommendation. A supervisory analyst should require a risk-adjusted rationale tying the return opportunity to the stated risk profile, or have the rating revised.
Under a reasonable-basis review, the recommendation, expected return, and stated risk profile must fit together. A lower-risk stock can justify a lower expected return, but the report must show why that trade-off still supports a positive rating relative to relevant peers or benchmarks. Here, the report presents below-average risk but also a lower projected total return than the firm’s utility universe, and it offers no analytical bridge explaining why the recommendation remains attractive.
The proper follow-up is to require support such as a risk-adjusted return comparison, a clear alpha argument, or another defensible explanation for the favorable rating. Verifying the beta source or checking that the DCF is internally consistent addresses accuracy, but it does not resolve whether the conclusion itself has a reasonable basis. The same is true for looking only at dividend yield rather than total return.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst is reviewing an upgrade report on a listed closed-end fund. The new 12-month price target applies a 5% discount to current NAV. The draft used the fund price from a market-news site, NAV from an industry blog, and share count from the last quarterly fact sheet, even though the fund announced a secondary offering yesterday. Before checking the discount math or the recommendation logic, what is the best next step?
Best answer: B
Explanation: Source validation comes first because the target depends on current price, latest NAV, and post-offering share data.
The best next step is to validate the core inputs with authoritative sources for the security type being analyzed. For a closed-end fund, that means confirming market price, sponsor-published NAV, and updated share count before testing arithmetic or the recommendation.
In a supervisory analyst review, source verification precedes calculation review and conclusion review. Here, the report’s price target is based on a discount to NAV, so the critical inputs are the fund’s current market price, the latest published NAV, and the current share count after the announced offering. A market-news site, blog, and stale fact sheet are secondary or potentially outdated sources.
The proper sequence is to confirm those figures through appropriate primary sources, such as exchange pricing, fund sponsor data, and the official offering filing or issuer release. Only after the inputs are validated should the supervisory analyst recompute the discount and decide whether the higher target and upgrade have a reasonable basis. The closest trap is recalculating first, but accurate math on unreliable inputs does not support approval.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a report on a food distributor. The report says restaurant traffic is slowing and freight and labor costs are rising, so most peers are expected to face margin pressure over the next 12 months. The analyst nevertheless reiterates Outperform and raises the 12-month price target, stating the issuer can expand operating margin because “customer contracts reset quickly and include cost pass-through.” Before approving the report, what should the supervisory analyst confirm first?
Best answer: B
Explanation: This directly tests whether the issuer can avoid the industry margin squeeze within the report’s 12-month horizon.
The report’s favorable company conclusion conflicts with an industry backdrop of rising costs and margin pressure, so the first review step is to verify the specific company fact that could justify the exception. Contract coverage and repricing speed determine whether margins can realistically improve within the 12-month target horizon.
When a report describes industry-wide margin pressure but reaches a more favorable conclusion for one issuer, the supervisory analyst should first verify the issuer-specific mechanism that explains the difference. Here, the analyst’s stated reason is rapid contract resets with cost pass-through. The key question is whether those terms cover a meaningful portion of forecast revenue and whether the reset timing is fast enough for the 12-month price-target period. If only a small share of sales has that protection, or if repricing occurs too slowly, the margin-expansion thesis may lack a reasonable basis. Valuation details such as peer multiples or terminal growth matter only after the core operating exception to the industry trend is supported.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A research report maintains a 12-month Buy rating and a $48 price target based on DCF and peer multiples. The technical section says the 12-month target is confirmed by a breakout above the 20-day moving average and resistance at $41 formed over the past three weeks. No longer-term chart analysis is cited. As the supervisory analyst, which action best aligns with a reasonable-basis review before approving the report?
Best answer: B
Explanation: A 20-day average and three-week resistance are short-term signals, so they should not be presented as direct confirmation of a 12-month target without longer-horizon support.
The issue is time-horizon consistency. A 20-day moving average breakout and resistance formed over a few weeks are short-term technical signals, so they do not appropriately confirm a 12-month recommendation and price target by themselves. The report should either add longer-horizon chart support or recast the technical point as near-term commentary.
A supervisory analyst should review whether the evidence cited in a report matches the horizon of the conclusion it is said to support. Here, the report has a 12-month Buy rating and price target, but the technical discussion relies on a 20-day moving average breakout and resistance formed over only three weeks. Those indicators are typically short-term in nature. They may be useful for entry timing or near-term market sentiment, but they are not well aligned with a 12-month conclusion unless the report also includes longer-term trend, support/resistance, or other chart analysis consistent with that horizon. The proper review action is to align the technical discussion with the recommendation horizon or narrow the claim. Adding more short-term signals does not fix the mismatch.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
An equity research update raises a price target using an EV/EBITDA framework. In the valuation table, 2025E adjusted EBITDA and 2026E free-cash-flow margin appear under Our Estimates, but the analyst’s workpapers show both figures were copied directly from management’s investor-day non-GAAP targets, and the company deck already includes GAAP reconciliations. The analyst made no independent forecast adjustments. Before approving the report, what is the best supervisory action?
Our Estimates but add a footnote mentioning management guidance.Best answer: C
Explanation: Because the figures were taken directly from management with no independent analyst changes, they must be identified as company-provided non-GAAP data, not house estimates.
The key issue is source attribution, not valuation technique. If management’s non-GAAP targets are used without independent analyst adjustment, the report cannot present them as the firm’s own estimates; they must be clearly labeled as company-provided data and sourced accordingly.
A supervisory analyst must ensure that numbers in the report are accurately sourced and labeled. Here, the valuation table presents non-GAAP measures as Our Estimates, but the workpapers show they were copied directly from management’s investor-day targets and were not independently revised by the analyst. That makes the current labeling inaccurate.
The proper review response is to require that the report:
The fact that the company already supplied GAAP reconciliations helps with transparency, but it does not cure incorrect attribution. Reasonableness testing or more valuation support may still be useful, but neither fixes a mislabeled source.
Our Estimates in place still misstates the source of the figures.Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a report on Delta Controls.
Each element is plausible on its own, but the forecast, management appraisal, and valuation conclusion are not clearly mutually reinforcing. Which follow-up best matches the supervisory analyst’s next step?
Best answer: A
Explanation: The report needs a reconciliation showing how a not-yet-proven management team supports the forecasted margin gains and valuation conclusion.
The supervisory issue is a missing analytical bridge, not an obviously wrong model or unsupported valuation method. When management is described as not yet proven, the analyst should clearly connect that view to the margin-expansion forecast and the stated price target before the report is approved.
A Series 162 review looks for a reasonable basis across the full chain of analysis: management appraisal, forecast, valuation, and conclusion should reinforce one another. Here, the DCF and peer-multiple outputs are both plausible, and the peer set is already supported. The problem is that the narrative says management is still unproven, while the conclusion says improving management quality supports a higher valuation.
The best follow-up is to require a clear reconciliation of that logic, such as:
More sensitivity analysis or a mechanical averaging rule may be useful later, but neither fixes the missing linkage that supports the recommendation.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a fixed-income report with this excerpt:
Recommendation: Outperform a 12-year utility bond
Price target basis: 10-year Treasury yield declines 50bp over 12 months
Duration discussion: "Because long-term Treasury yields are likely to rise further, investors should favor shorter-duration bonds."
Which action best aligns with supervisory analyst review standards before approving the report?
Best answer: A
Explanation: The report lacks a reasonable basis until its interest-rate outlook, duration discussion, and recommendation are made internally consistent.
The excerpt uses falling long-term Treasury yields to support the price target, but the duration discussion says those yields will rise and investors should prefer shorter duration. Before approval, the supervisory analyst should require one consistent interest-rate view that supports the recommendation.
A supervisory analyst must confirm that the report’s conclusion has a reasonable basis and that key assumptions are aligned throughout the report. Here, the recommendation on a longer-maturity bond and the price target both rely on declining long-term Treasury yields, which generally favor longer duration because price sensitivity works more strongly when yields fall. The duration discussion, however, states the opposite rate view and recommends shorter duration.
That inconsistency is the core review issue. The analyst should revise the report so the macro view, duration implications, and recommendation all point in the same direction, or clearly explain a different dominant driver with support. A source check or added credit detail may improve the report, but neither fixes the mismatch in the investment thesis.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst reviews two pending market-data updates for equity reports. Assume no trading-price movement except any mechanical split adjustment.
Each report cites current share price, shares outstanding, market capitalization, dividend yield, and 52-week high/low. Which update treatment is most accurate?
Best answer: C
Explanation: A share-count increase without a split changes shares outstanding and derived market cap, while a pure 2-for-1 split restates per-share prices and dividends proportionally without changing market cap or yield.
The key distinction is between a pure share-count change and a split adjustment. More shares outstanding affects shares outstanding and, with price unchanged, market capitalization, but it does not mechanically reset quoted price data. A pure 2-for-1 split restates per-share prices and dividends proportionally, leaving market cap and dividend yield unchanged.
Supervisory review of market data asks whether the event changes total equity value or only the per-share presentation. In the follow-on offering scenario, there is no split and no price move, so the items that must update are shares outstanding and the derived market capitalization. The current share price, 52-week high/low, and dividend yield are not mechanically restated just because the share count increased.
In the 2-for-1 split scenario, the unit of measurement per share changes. Current price and historical price references such as the 52-week high/low should be split-adjusted, and shares outstanding should double. Because the dividend per share was cut proportionally for the split, dividend yield is unchanged, and market capitalization is unchanged absent any other market move. The common error is treating dilution like a split or treating a split like a loss of firm value.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A draft research report supports a price target with an EV/EBITDA multiple. The valuation table shows 2026E Adjusted EBITDA, taken directly from management’s non-GAAP guidance in an investor presentation, and the analyst made no independent adjustments. Which statement is most accurate?
Best answer: A
Explanation: The number remains company-provided because it came directly from management and was not independently changed by the analyst.
The issue is source labeling. Because the adjusted EBITDA figure comes directly from management and the analyst did not modify it, the report should identify it as company-provided non-GAAP guidance. Using the number in a valuation model does not by itself convert it into an independent analyst estimate.
A supervisory analyst reviewing valuation support must confirm that each input is labeled according to its actual source. When a non-GAAP measure such as adjusted EBITDA is taken directly from management guidance or company materials, it remains company-provided data unless the analyst develops a different figure through independent adjustments and clearly supports that work. Simply importing the number into a model does not make it a proprietary estimate, and a source footnote does not cure a table that still mislabels the figure. Non-GAAP measures are not automatically inappropriate for valuation analysis, but their origin must be clear and consistent throughout the report. The key takeaway is that attribution and estimate labeling must both be accurate.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
As a supervisory analyst, you review two draft equity reports on large-cap issuers.
Which review conclusion is most appropriate?
Best answer: D
Explanation: Beta can support a CAPM cost-of-equity input, but high beta alone does not establish positive alpha or justify an Outperform conclusion.
Beta measures market sensitivity, so using it in CAPM to set a DCF discount rate can be reasonable. But beta does not, by itself, indicate positive alpha, so it cannot alone support an Outperform conclusion.
The key distinction is between market risk and excess return. Beta measures how sensitive a stock is to broad market movements, so it is relevant when an analyst uses CAPM to estimate cost of equity in a DCF. In that setting, a higher beta can justify a higher required return, assuming the beta estimate is well supported.
Alpha is different. Alpha is return above what would be expected for the stock’s risk exposure. A high-beta stock may rise more than the market in an up market, but that is market sensitivity, not proof of positive alpha. For an Outperform rating, the report needs support such as mispricing, catalysts, estimate revisions, or superior fundamentals.
The common error is treating higher beta as evidence of superior risk-adjusted performance.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst is reviewing a report in which DCF is the primary support for the price target. The model summary states that projected free cash flow to the firm for 2026-2030 is in nominal dollars, the discount rate is an 8.6% WACC built from a nominal Treasury yield, and terminal value uses a 3.0% perpetual growth rate described only as “long-run GDP growth.” Before approving the report, what should the supervisory analyst confirm first?
Best answer: C
Explanation: Terminal growth must be on the same nominal-versus-real basis as the projected FCFF and the WACC for the DCF to be internally consistent.
The key missing fact is whether the perpetual growth assumption is on the same basis as the cash flows and discount rate. Because the model explicitly uses nominal FCFF and a nominal WACC, the terminal growth input must also be nominal for the DCF to be internally consistent.
A DCF is internally consistent only when the forecast cash flows, discount rate, and terminal assumption are measured on the same economic basis. Here, the report already tells you the projected FCFF is nominal and the WACC is derived from a nominal risk-free rate. The unresolved item is the 3.0% perpetual growth rate, because a label such as “long-run GDP growth” could refer to either nominal growth or real growth.
The supervisory analyst should first confirm that the 3.0% input is a nominal terminal growth assumption intended to be applied to nominal FCFF discounted at a nominal WACC. If the terminal growth rate were real while the rest of the model were nominal, the terminal value would be misstated. Other review items may still matter, but they are secondary until this core DCF consistency point is resolved.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst is reviewing a draft report on Alpha Retail after it sold 70% of its captive finance unit on April 1 and now accounts for the remaining 30% under the equity method. The draft raises the price target to $42 and says leverage and free cash flow have improved.
2025 sales forecast: excludes finance-unit revenue
Net debt: excludes $600 million finance-unit debt
Free cash flow table: includes $55 million finance-unit operating cash flow
Valuation appendix: applies peer EV/EBITDA to 2024 EBITDA that still includes a full year of finance-unit results
Which action is most appropriate before the report can be approved?
Best answer: A
Explanation: Mixed consolidated and deconsolidated inputs make the revenue, leverage, cash flow, and price-target analysis internally inconsistent.
The draft mixes post-sale treatment for revenue and debt with pre-sale treatment for cash flow and EBITDA. Before approval, the supervisory analyst should require a sourced reconciliation and an updated valuation bridge so the price target rests on one consistent accounting basis.
Deconsolidation is not just a disclosure issue; it changes the analytical base for revenue, EBITDA, debt, and cash flow. Here, the report excludes the finance unit from the 2025 sales forecast and net debt, yet still includes the unit in operating cash flow and in the EBITDA used for the peer multiple. That mix can overstate free cash flow improvement, understate leverage, and distort the EV/EBITDA support for the target price. The supervisory analyst should trace the transaction to the company filing, confirm the equity-method treatment, and require a consistent bridge from historical results to forecast and valuation inputs. A note describing the transaction is not enough if the numerical analysis remains misaligned.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a peer-multiple report on a specialty retailer. The price target rises from $36 to $43 after the analyst replaces reported LTM EBITDA of $180 million with “comparable EBITDA” of $215 million for the issuer and makes similar peer adjustments, but the report includes no bridge from reported figures to adjusted figures and no item-by-item support for the peer adjustments. Which follow-up is NOT appropriate before approval?
Best answer: B
Explanation: Common use of adjusted EBITDA does not replace reconciling material adjustments that drive the valuation.
When comparability adjustments materially move the price target, the supervisory analyst needs a clear bridge from reported results to adjusted results and consistent treatment across the issuer and peers. Accepting adjusted EBITDA just because it is commonly used in the industry would leave the valuation unsupported.
The core issue is reconciliation. If comparability adjustments materially change the valuation output, the supervisory analyst must be able to trace reported financial results to the adjusted figures used in the model and confirm that the same adjustment logic was applied across the peer set. Here, adjusted EBITDA increased the issuer’s valuation enough to raise the price target, yet the report provides no bridge and no support for the peer adjustments. Before approval, the reviewer should require support showing what was removed or added back, why each item improves comparability, and how the changes affected the valuation range and target price.
Industry practice does not cure missing support; a customary non-GAAP metric is still inadequate when the report cannot reconcile it to reported results.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst is reviewing a report that justifies a higher EV/EBITDA multiple for a specialty retailer by stating that the issuer generates more revenue from its operating base than peers. The issuer recently completed large share repurchases, leaving book equity unusually low. Which statement is most accurate?
Best answer: C
Explanation: Asset turnover better matches an enterprise-level operating-efficiency claim, while repurchase-reduced equity can artificially inflate equity turnover.
The report is making an enterprise-level operating-efficiency claim, so asset turnover is the better supporting ratio. Equity turnover uses book equity in the denominator, which can be heavily distorted by leverage or buybacks and may exaggerate efficiency without any operating improvement.
The key review question is whether the ratio matches the valuation claim. Here, the report argues for a higher enterprise-level multiple because the company generates more sales from its operating base than peers. Asset turnover fits that logic because it relates revenue to total assets, a broader measure of the resources used to produce sales.
Equity turnover is less suitable in this fact pattern because book equity can be reduced by share repurchases, leverage, or accumulated losses. That means equity turnover may rise even if the firm’s operating efficiency does not improve at all. In the stem, unusually low equity from buybacks would make equity turnover look stronger for a financing reason, not an operating reason.
For a reasonable-basis review, the denominator should align with the level of the valuation claim and avoid obvious capital-structure distortions.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
An analyst proposes a Buy with a 12-month price target of $48 for a medical-device company using 14x next-year EBITDA, versus a disclosed peer median of 11.5x. The report says the new management team has a sound strategy but limited operating history together, and that a plant-transfer program creates meaningful execution risk over the next 12 months. The analyst says the premium multiple reflects “better execution and margin expansion” but provides no timing bridge. Before approving the report, what should the supervisory analyst confirm first?
Best answer: D
Explanation: A premium 12-month multiple needs support showing when near-term execution risk is expected to fall enough to justify that premium within the target horizon.
The missing fact is the time-horizon bridge between the report’s risk narrative and its premium valuation. If execution risk is described as meaningful over the next 12 months, the report must show why a premium multiple is still appropriate within that same 12-month price-target period.
A supervisory analyst should first test whether the valuation logic matches the management and execution-risk discussion. Here, the report assigns a premium forward EBITDA multiple even though it also says the management team is relatively unproven together and that execution risk will be meaningful over the next year. That is not automatically wrong, but it requires a clear bridge: what specific milestones, and by when, will reduce that risk enough to support trading above peers within the 12-month target horizon.
Without that timing support, the valuation conclusion is not adequately tied to the report’s own management appraisal. Updated guidance, refreshed market prices, or broader industry commentary may improve the report, but they do not resolve the core inconsistency between stated near-term risk and a premium near-term multiple.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst is reviewing a draft equity report before approval. Which approval response is best supported by the excerpt?
Exhibit: Valuation summary excerpt
Recommendation: Buy
Price target (12 months): $48
Narrative:
"At the April 3 close of $40, the shares offer 20% upside."
Comparable-company exhibit note:
"Share prices and market capitalizations as of March 28 close."
DCF exhibit note:
"Implied value range of $44-$50 versus current price of $37."
Best answer: D
Explanation: The excerpt uses April 3, March 28, and an undated “current price,” so the report should not be approved until those market-price references are made consistent or explicitly reconciled.
The excerpt shows inconsistent market-price references across the narrative and valuation support. A supervisory analyst should not approve a report when recommendation language and exhibits rely on different price dates or levels without clear reconciliation.
This is a market data verification and internal-consistency issue. The narrative uses the April 3 close, the comparable-company note uses March 28 prices, and the DCF note refers to a different “current price” without a matching date. Because the report uses share price to frame upside and to compare valuation outputs with the market, those references must be current, accurately labeled, and consistent across the report.
Before approval, the analyst should either update the exhibits to one reference date or explicitly reconcile why different dates are used and how each comparison remains accurate. Simply having one dated note in one exhibit is not enough if other sections still use conflicting or undated price references. The key takeaway is that valuation support and recommendation language must rest on the same verified market-data foundation.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
While reviewing a valuation support file, the supervisory analyst sees this memo:
Report narrative: 'Liquidity improved materially, easing near-term
financial-condition risk.'
Cited 10-Q text: 'We ended the quarter with $420 million of cash and
revolver availability.'
Same 10-Q elsewhere: covenant waiver expires in 2 quarters; $350 million
of debt matures within 12 months.
Before approving the report, which review step is most important?
Best answer: A
Explanation: The key gap is verifying that the report fairly characterizes financial condition using the full filing context, not just a favorable excerpt.
The decisive issue is whether the report narrative fairly reflects the filing’s complete discussion of liquidity and financial condition. A favorable MD&A quote is not enough when the same filing also discloses near-term maturities and a temporary covenant waiver.
A supervisory analyst must confirm that report language is balanced and supported by the full filing, especially when the narrative describes financial condition. Here, the quoted sentence about cash and revolver availability is incomplete because other parts of the same 10-Q materially qualify liquidity through a temporary covenant waiver and significant debt due within 12 months.
The needed review step is to reconcile the narrative to all relevant filing sections, including:
If those disclosures weaken the “improved liquidity” conclusion, the report must be revised to present a fairer characterization. Checks on peers, share count, or trading volume may improve the package, but they do not address the core risk of a selective excerpt.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a revised research note on a trucking company. The analyst cut 2026 revenue and EPS estimates on March 12. The estimate-change memo says the revision was driven by management’s March 28 investor-day disclosure of weaker shipment volumes and lower margin guidance. The revised model, valuation, and price target are internally consistent, and no earlier company-specific information is cited. What is the primary reasonable-basis risk that should be resolved before approval?
Best answer: D
Explanation: A forecast revision needs contemporaneous support; information first disclosed on March 28 cannot justify a March 12 estimate change.
The key issue is chronology. If the analyst changed forecasts on March 12 but says the change was driven by information first disclosed on March 28, the stated reason does not support the timing of the revision. Without earlier documented support, the estimate change lacks a reasonable basis as presented.
For estimate-change support, the supervisory analyst must verify that the cited reason existed when the forecast was actually changed. Here, the analyst revised revenue and EPS on March 12 but attributes that revision to a March 28 company disclosure. That is a timing mismatch and therefore a reasonable-basis red flag. The later disclosure may be consistent with the lower forecast, but it cannot be the stated basis for the earlier change unless similar information was already available and documented before March 12.
A practical review is to:
Better narrative detail or added valuation support may improve the note, but they do not cure a misdated rationale for the forecast revision.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a draft report that justifies a higher price target with stronger 2026 free cash flow.
Exhibit: Forecast excerpt
2026 operating cash flow: $310 million
2026 capital expenditures: $95 million
Working-capital assumption: increase of $20 million
Stated 2026 free cash flow: $235 million
Which supervisory action is most appropriate before the report is approved?
Best answer: C
Explanation: Operating cash flow usually already includes working-capital effects, so free cash flow must reconcile to operating cash flow less capex unless the model clearly shows a different construction.
The key review issue is reconciliation. With operating cash flow of $310 million and capex of $95 million, the stated free cash flow of $235 million does not clearly tie out, and the separate working-capital assumption may already be reflected in operating cash flow. Before approving a higher price target, the supervisory analyst should require a clear bridge.
For valuation-review purposes, free cash flow must be internally consistent with the report’s cash-flow definitions. If the model starts from operating cash flow, working-capital changes are usually already included in that figure. In that case, free cash flow should generally reconcile to operating cash flow less capital expenditures unless the analyst explicitly shows a different convention.
Here, the exhibit shows operating cash flow of $310 million and capex of $95 million, which implies $215 million before any separate adjustment is justified. A stated free cash flow of $235 million creates a reconciliation gap and raises the risk that working capital was omitted, double-counted, or inconsistently defined. The supervisory analyst’s best action is to require a sourceable bridge and confirm how the working-capital assumption flows through the model before accepting the valuation support.
A sensitivity range or alternate valuation method does not cure a broken cash-flow build.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst is reviewing a report on the U.S. wireless industry. The report says the industry should be modeled as a competitive market because no carrier has more than 40% share.
Exhibit:
Which conclusion is most reasonable before the report can be approved?
Best answer: A
Explanation: The top three firms hold 91% of the market, and repeated matched price changes are consistent with oligopoly behavior, not competitive-market pricing.
The industry data support oligopoly, not monopoly or a competitive market. Adding the top three shares gives 91%, and the rapid matching of price changes shows interdependent pricing among a few dominant firms.
The key review issue is whether the report’s market-structure logic matches the industry facts. Here, the concentration is very high: the top three firms account for \(36\% + 31\% + 24\% = 91\%\) of market share. That is inconsistent with a competitive-market framework, where many firms are typically price takers and one firm’s price move does not usually trigger quick matching by just a few dominant rivals.
This is also not a monopoly, because no single firm controls the market. Instead, the facts fit an oligopoly: a small number of large firms, high concentration, and observable interdependent pricing behavior. A supervisory analyst should require the report’s margin, pricing, and recommendation logic to be aligned with oligopoly reasoning before approving the report.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
An analyst’s report raises its price target by using a lower effective tax rate, higher leverage, and several pro forma EBITDA add-backs. The report does not explain or source those adjustments. What is the supervisory analyst’s best follow-up?
Best answer: A
Explanation: A reasonable-basis review starts with reconciling reported results to adjusted figures and validating the tax, leverage, and add-back assumptions.
When adjustments make valuation look better, the supervisory analyst should not accept them without support. The best follow-up is to require a clear reconciliation to adjusted figures and evidence that the tax, leverage, and add-back assumptions are justified.
The core concept is reasonable basis. When tax, leverage, or pro forma adjustments materially improve EBITDA, free cash flow, or the price target, the supervisory analyst must verify that the adjustments are analytically justified, not merely favorable to the conclusion. The strongest follow-up is to require a bridge from GAAP or reported figures to the adjusted valuation inputs and documentation for each assumption. That review should show why the lower tax rate is sustainable, why the issuer can support the added leverage, and why each add-back is truly nonrecurring rather than a normal operating cost. Peer comparisons, management presentation, or a sensitivity table may be useful supplements, but they do not replace support for the adjustments themselves.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a homebuilder update. The forecast package shows the analyst cut 2025 EBITDA and lowered the price target on May 2, 2025. The DCF, share count, and peer table all reconcile. The estimate-change memo says the cut was based primarily on “April housing starts confirming a demand slowdown.”
Exhibit: Support file
Model revision entered: May 2, 2025
1Q earnings call transcript: April 24, 2025
Census Bureau April housing starts release: May 16, 2025
Company guidance: unchanged
Which review deficiency is most important to resolve before approving the report?
Best answer: D
Explanation: The memo cites a release dated after the forecast change, so the chronology of the stated support is deficient.
The key issue is whether the stated reason for the estimate cut existed when the cut was made. Here, the memo relies on April housing-starts data released on May 16, but the model revision was entered on May 2, so the support timing does not match the forecast-change timing.
A supervisory analyst must confirm that an estimate change is supported by information that was actually available when the analyst made the revision. In this file, the main reason cited for the May 2 EBITDA cut is the April housing-starts release, but that source was not released until May 16. That creates a direct chronology problem: the report attributes the forecast change to information that could not have informed the decision at the time.
The proper review step is to require one of two fixes:
Valuation presentation enhancements do not cure a broken estimate-change support trail. The key takeaway is that the cited catalyst for a forecast revision must be time-consistent with the revision date.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews two estimate-change memos for comparable industrial issuers. In both cases, next-year EBITDA is raised 7%, and the revisions appear directionally plausible.
Exhibit:
Memo 1: Volume +2%, price +1%, freight cost lower; memo includes a prior-to-revised EBITDA bridge and cites company guidance plus channel checks.
Memo 2: Revenue, margin, and EBITDA are all raised; memo says only "demand is improving and execution is stronger," with no bridge showing price, volume, mix, cost, or timing effects.
Before approving the second report, what is the best follow-up?
Best answer: C
Explanation: The missing issue is causal support, so the analyst must show which forecast drivers changed, when they changed, and what evidence supports them.
When revised projections look reasonable but the memo does not explain what actually changed, the supervisory analyst should require an estimate-change bridge. The problem is not the direction of the revision; it is the missing causal link from old assumptions to the new forecast.
Under Series 162 review, a plausible revision is not enough by itself. The report must show a reasonable basis for the estimate change by identifying the operating drivers behind it. In the second memo, EBITDA is higher, but the narrative does not say whether the change comes from price, volume, mix, costs, or timing, and it does not quantify any effect.
A stronger quote from management, a valuation sensitivity, or movement toward consensus does not fix the missing explanation for the forecast revision.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A bond report recommends purchase because the issuer’s spread is expected to tighten over the next 12 months. The same model projects higher leverage and weaker interest coverage over that period, and the report gives no offsetting reason for tighter spreads. Which supervisory issue is most clearly present?
Best answer: D
Explanation: The report’s spread-tightening conclusion conflicts with its weaker credit assumptions, so the recommendation lacks internal analytical consistency.
The problem is internal inconsistency in the report’s credit thesis. If the model shows weaker credit quality over the same horizon, citing spread tightening as support for the recommendation requires a clear reconciliation or other offsetting explanation.
In a reasonable-basis review, the supervisory analyst must confirm that the report’s conclusion matches the assumptions in the model. Higher leverage and weaker interest coverage generally point to weaker credit quality. Without a stated countervailing factor, weaker credit quality would normally be more consistent with spread widening than spread tightening.
That makes this a consistency and support problem in the recommendation logic, not a duration, sourcing, or yield-calculation issue.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
Your firm defines Outperform as expected 12-month price appreciation above 15%, Market Perform as -10% to +15%, and Stable outlook as no material likelihood of an estimate or price-target revision over the next 6 months. In a draft report on shares trading at $40, the analyst reiterates Market Perform, raises the 12-month price target from $44 to $50, and writes that backlog and margin trends are running ahead of plan and could lead to upward estimate revisions next quarter. No offsetting risk or horizon qualifier is included. What is the best supervisory analyst action before approval?
Best answer: B
Explanation: A $50 target on a $40 stock implies 25% upside, and the stated likelihood of upward revisions conflicts with Market Perform and Stable outlook.
The supervisory issue is consistent use of the firm’s own labels. A $50 target on a $40 stock implies 25% expected appreciation, which falls outside Market Perform, and the text signals likely upward revisions, which conflicts with Stable outlook.
A supervisory analyst should confirm that the report’s rating, outlook, thesis, and price target all use the firm’s defined meanings consistently. Here, they do not. Moving from $40 to $50 implies 25% expected 12-month price appreciation, which fits Outperform, not Market Perform. The narrative also says backlog and margins are ahead of plan and could lead to upward estimate revisions next quarter, which is inconsistent with a Stable outlook if the firm defines that term as no material likelihood of a near-term estimate or target revision.
Better sourcing or extra sensitivity analysis may strengthen support, but they do not cure misuse of the firm’s rating and outlook terminology.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
As the supervisory analyst, which interpretation is fully supported by the exhibit before the report is approved?
Exhibit: Draft recommendation support
Recommendation: Buy
Price target: $42
Stated support: "We expect all major profitability margins to improve in FY2026,
supporting our higher price target and Buy recommendation."
Selected profitability ratios
FY2025E FY2026E
Gross margin 38.0% 37.8%
Operating margin 12.1% 13.4%
Pretax margin 9.0% 9.6%
Net margin 7.1% 7.0%
EBITDA margin 15.4% 15.5%
Best answer: B
Explanation: Gross and net margins decline, so the exhibit does not support a claim that all major profitability margins improve.
The exhibit does not support the draft claim that all major profitability margins improve. Gross and net margins decline, while operating, pretax, and EBITDA margins rise, so the supervisory analyst should require the rationale to match the actual mixed margin pattern.
When a report uses profitability ratios to support a recommendation or price target, the supervisory analyst should verify that the narrative matches the ratios actually shown. Here, the report says all major profitability margins improve in FY2026, but the exhibit shows mixed results: operating, pretax, and EBITDA margins rise, while gross and net margins fall. That means the recommendation language overstates the profitability trend.
The key issue is consistency of support, not whether one weaker ratio automatically invalidates the recommendation.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a DCF-based report on a mature consumer staples issuer. The report says category demand should grow 1%-2% annually, the issuer’s market share has been stable for three years, and management guides to low-single-digit sales growth. The model assumes 6% sales growth for five years and 5% terminal free-cash-flow growth, with no support from acquisitions, new categories, or share gains. Which supervisory analyst comment is INCORRECT?
Best answer: B
Explanation: Management quality may support execution, but it does not by itself justify a long-run growth rate that materially exceeds the report’s own business and industry context.
Growth assumptions need a reasonable basis in the report’s own business and industry discussion. Here, the narrative describes a mature 1%-2% growth market with stable share and low-single-digit company guidance, so the higher forecast and terminal growth rates require specific support rather than general confidence in management.
A supervisory analyst should test whether projected and terminal growth rates are consistent with the report’s narrative, industry outlook, and company-specific facts. In this scenario, the report describes a mature business with 1%-2% category growth, stable market share, and low-single-digit management guidance. A model using 6% sales growth for five years and 5% terminal free-cash-flow growth therefore needs a clear analytical bridge showing why the company can sustainably outgrow its market, such as documented share gains, acquisitions, or new product categories. Without that support, the valuation, price target, and recommendation may lack a reasonable basis. The key takeaway is that favorable management commentary can support execution, but it cannot substitute for evidence when growth assumptions exceed the stated business context.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a report that raises estimates after an announced acquisition and says the deal supports a higher price target. Two model summaries are attached:
Model A: Adds target revenue and $20 million synergies; EPS rises 5%.
Missing: purchase price allocation, amortization, inventory step-up, tax bridge.
Model B: Adds target revenue, new debt interest, and shares issued; GAAP EPS falls 2%.
Missing: schedule tying fair-value write-ups, amortization, deferred taxes, and cash flow to revised model.
Before approving the report, which follow-up is most appropriate?
Best answer: B
Explanation: Both models omit the reconciliation of acquisition-accounting effects to forecast outputs, so a bridge to revised results is required.
The key issue is not whether the models show accretion or dilution; it is that neither shows how the acquisition’s accounting effects flow into the revised model. Before approval, the supervisory analyst should require a bridge from purchase-accounting assumptions to EPS, cash flow, and per-share results.
When a report discusses an acquisition and revises estimates, the supervisory analyst must be able to trace the transaction’s accounting effects into the model. Here, the two models reach different earnings outcomes, but both share the same critical deficiency: neither reconciles the deal’s accounting treatment to the revised forecasts.
A proper follow-up is a transaction-accounting bridge showing how key items affect reported results, including:
Without that tie-out, the revised estimates and price-target support cannot be checked for accuracy and consistency. More sourcing on synergies or more valuation discussion may help the report, but neither solves the missing accounting reconciliation.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst is reviewing a report update before approval. Based on the exhibit, which action is best supported?
Exhibit: Model review note
Issuer: ABC Industrial
DCF method: after-tax free cash flow
Changed assumption: 2026-2028 effective tax rate cut to 18% from 24%
Other DCF inputs: unchanged
Report text: "Lower taxes raise EPS and free cash flow."
Outputs shown in report:
2026 EPS: $5.10 (prior $4.82)
2026 free cash flow: $420 million (prior $420 million)
DCF price target: $58 (prior $58)
Best answer: B
Explanation: Because the DCF uses after-tax free cash flow and no other inputs changed, the lower tax rate should flow through to FCF and valuation before the report can be approved.
The exhibit shows a model-link problem. The lower tax rate changed EPS, but the DCF is based on after-tax free cash flow, and free cash flow stayed unchanged even though other DCF inputs did not change. That means the report does not yet have a reasonable basis for approval.
This tests assumption flow and internal model links. When a report states that a lower effective tax rate raises EPS and the DCF uses after-tax free cash flow, that tax-rate change should affect both earnings and cash-flow-based valuation outputs unless a documented offset exists. Here, EPS changed, but free cash flow did not, even though other DCF inputs were unchanged. That is strong evidence that the assumption did not flow through all dependent outputs or that the report tables were not updated consistently.
A supervisory analyst should withhold approval until the model and report are reconciled:
A narrative edit or a sourcing request does not fix a broken linkage problem.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst is reviewing a draft report before checking the price-target section. The analyst says the FY2026 EPS used in the valuation model is the firm’s forecast, but the table label was copied from an old template.
Exhibit:
Report table label: FY2026 EPS (consensus) = 3.40
Underlying inputs:
- Revenue: midpoint of company guidance
- Operating margin: firm's model
- Tax rate: firm's model
- Diluted shares: firm's model
Vendor consensus EPS: 3.05
What is the best next step?
Best answer: C
Explanation: Because 3.40 is the firm’s model output, it is a proprietary estimate; only the revenue assumption should be attributed to company guidance.
The displayed EPS is not consensus because it comes from the firm’s own model, even though one input uses management guidance. The supervisory analyst should first verify the source trail and correct the label everywhere the figure appears before moving to price-target or sensitivity review.
Estimate labeling must match the actual source of the displayed number. A consensus estimate is a third-party aggregated market figure, company guidance is management’s stated outlook, and a figure produced by the firm’s model is a proprietary estimate even if it incorporates guidance as one input. Here, the 3.40 EPS comes from house assumptions for margin, tax rate, and share count, so the EPS itself must be labeled proprietary.
The proper sequence is:
The closest error is swapping in vendor consensus, which changes the analysis instead of fixing the attribution problem.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst is reviewing an estimate-change memo for an equity report. The analyst says a reversal of a deferred tax valuation allowance justifies a higher 2026 EPS estimate and a higher DCF value. All other forecast line items are unchanged.
Exhibit: Estimate support
2026 projected pretax income: $150 million
Prior effective tax rate: 25%
Revised effective tax rate: 5%
Diluted shares: 100 million
Memo claim:
- EPS increases by $0.30
- Free cash flow increases by $30 million
- Cause: valuation allowance reversal
Which supervisory analyst conclusion is best supported?
Best answer: A
Explanation: A 20-point tax-rate drop on 150 million of pretax income gives a 30 million earnings lift, or 0.30 per share, but a valuation allowance reversal is non-cash.
The EPS bridge is numerically consistent. Reducing the effective tax rate from 25% to 5% on 150 million of pretax income lowers tax expense by 30 million, which equals 0.30 per share on 100 million shares. But a valuation allowance reversal is a deferred, non-cash item, so it does not by itself increase free cash flow.
This item turns on the difference between reported tax expense and cash taxes. A valuation allowance reversal can lower book tax expense and boost reported earnings, so the EPS effect can be real for the period, but the reversal itself is not a cash source and should not automatically be used to raise DCF cash flow.
The key review point is whether the report separates a book-tax benefit from actual cash generation.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
An analyst’s report on a homebuilder reiterates a Buy rating and sets a 12-month price target using a DCF. The narrative says the shares should be valued on “mid-cycle earnings,” but the model projects 7% annual revenue growth and a 24% gross margin in each of the next five years based mainly on current order trends. The company’s results have swung sharply across prior housing cycles, management gives guidance only one quarter ahead, and the report includes no downside or normalized-cycle case. What is the single best supervisory analyst action before approving the report?
Best answer: A
Explanation: A cyclical, low-visibility homebuilder needs forecast assumptions tied to cycle outcomes or normalized performance, not a smooth multiyear projection from current orders.
The core problem is forecast suitability, not just data sourcing or a minor valuation-input change. For a cyclical business with limited visibility, a smooth five-year forecast based largely on current orders does not provide a reasonable basis without normalization or scenario analysis.
A supervisory analyst should test whether the forecasting method fits the business. Here, the report claims a mid-cycle valuation framework, but the model uses straight-line growth and steady margins for a homebuilder whose revenues and profitability have historically moved sharply with the housing cycle. That mismatch means the valuation lacks a reasonable basis unless the analyst supports why visibility is unusually high or revises the model.
The best review action is to require a forecast approach that reflects cyclicality, such as:
Verifying the order data helps accuracy, and changing terminal growth or valuation method may change the output, but neither fixes the unsupported forecast structure.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a report on a branded snack producer. The report says the issuer will gain market share and expand gross margin because “competitive pressure is easing,” but the support discusses only fewer promotions by branded snack peers and does not address private-label or adjacent substitute products. Which statement is most accurate?
Best answer: C
Explanation: A reasonable-basis review requires the report to separate direct-rival pressure from substitute-product pressure when those forces support different share or margin claims.
The key review issue is whether the evidence matches the competitive mechanism in the thesis. If a report ties easing competition to both share gains and margin expansion, the supervisory analyst should confirm that the support addresses direct rivals and substitute products whenever each could affect those outcomes.
A Series 162 reasonable-basis review looks for alignment between the thesis and the evidence used to support it. Market share is commonly driven by rivalry among direct industry participants, while margins can be affected by both direct rivals and substitutes that limit pricing power. In the stem, fewer promotions by branded peers is evidence about intra-industry competition, but the report does not analyze private-label or adjacent substitutes. If those substitutes materially constrain pricing or product mix, the margin conclusion is not fully supported. A valuation method such as peer multiples does not cure that gap, because the operating assumptions behind the recommendation and price target still need support. The key takeaway is that one general claim of “easing competition” is not enough when different competitive forces support different parts of the thesis.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a draft research report that carries forward consensus EPS estimates from a version prepared three weeks earlier. For those figures to remain appropriate for inclusion as consensus data, they should be
Best answer: A
Explanation: Carried-forward consensus numbers are acceptable only if they remain properly labeled and have been verified as still current.
Consensus estimates can be used only if they are both properly attributed and reasonably current at the time of publication. A supervisory analyst should verify the source and date and confirm that no newer market revisions have made the carried-forward figures stale.
The key concept is that consensus data in a report must be accurately labeled and still current when the new draft is reviewed. Numbers carried forward from an earlier version do not remain acceptable just because they were previously published, resemble the firm’s own forecast, or align with company guidance. The supervisory analyst should confirm the figures are identified as consensus, tied to a reliable source, dated, and revalidated against current market expectations. If intervening estimate changes may have occurred, the consensus numbers should be updated or removed until verified. The closest distractors confuse similarity or prior use with current source support, but reasonable inclusion requires current, attributed consensus data.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst has already verified the revenue assumptions and refinancing terms for an industrial issuer. The draft report states, “The refinancing lowered operating leverage, reducing earnings risk.” The model note shows:
Fixed operating costs: unchanged
Interest expense: down 30% after refinancing
Sensitivity case: Sales +5% -> EBIT +10% -> EPS +15%
Before moving to the price-target review, what is the best next step?
Best answer: D
Explanation: Refinancing affects financial leverage through interest expense, so the leverage discussion must be reconciled to the sales-to-EBIT-to-EPS sensitivity before valuation review.
Operating leverage comes from fixed operating costs and affects EBIT sensitivity to sales. Financial leverage comes from financing costs and affects EPS sensitivity to EBIT. Because refinancing changes interest expense while fixed operating costs are unchanged, the supervisory analyst should first reconcile the narrative to the model and confirm the total leverage discussion is labeled correctly.
The core issue is misapplication of leverage terms. Operating leverage reflects how fixed operating costs make EBIT more or less sensitive to changes in sales. Financial leverage reflects how fixed financing costs, such as interest, make EPS more or less sensitive to changes in EBIT. Here, the refinancing changes interest expense, so it may change financial leverage, but it does not by itself lower operating leverage because fixed operating costs are unchanged. The supervisory analyst should therefore reconcile the narrative to the model before reviewing the price target.
\[ \begin{aligned} \text{Operating leverage} &\approx 10\% / 5\% = 2.0 \\ \text{Financial leverage} &\approx 15\% / 10\% = 1.5 \\ \text{Total leverage} &\approx 15\% / 5\% = 3.0 \end{aligned} \]The required next step is to ensure the report describes these sensitivities correctly; peer comparisons or valuation review come later.
Topic: Data and Calculation Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a draft equity report. The valuation section sets a $44.80 price target using 14x projected 2026 EPS of $3.20. Elsewhere, the model shows projected 2026 net income of $384 million, 120 million basic shares, and 12 million incremental shares from in-the-money options under the treasury stock method. Before approving the report, what should the supervisory analyst confirm first?
Best answer: C
Explanation: The stated EPS matches basic shares, so the key approval issue is whether option dilution was excluded or the per-share figure is unsupported.
The first issue is internal consistency of the per-share input. $384 million divided by 120 million shares equals $3.20, but the report also cites 12 million dilutive option shares, so the supervisory analyst must confirm whether the valuation used basic or diluted shares.
A supervisory analyst should first verify that any per-share valuation input uses the same share-count and dilution assumptions applied elsewhere in the report. In the stem, projected net income of $384 million divided by 120 million basic shares equals the $3.20 EPS used in the price target, which suggests the valuation may be using basic shares. But the report also states that in-the-money options add 12 million shares under the treasury stock method, implying 132 million diluted shares and diluted EPS of about $2.91. Before approval, the missing fact is the reconciliation from net income to the per-share figure: was dilution intentionally excluded, or is the EPS inconsistent with the rest of the model? Peer multiples, target horizon, and sensitivity analysis matter, but only after the core per-share calculation is internally consistent.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
An analyst’s report cites an ascending-triangle breakout above $48 and says the move “was confirmed by strong volume,” supporting a 3-month tactical Buy. The support file includes the chart pattern, the resistance level, and a market-data page showing XYZ’s 3-month average daily volume of 900,000 shares, but it does not show the stock’s actual volume on the breakout session. Which review step is most important before the report can be approved?
Best answer: A
Explanation: A volume-confirmation claim is unsupported unless the breakout session’s actual volume is compared with normal recent trading volume.
The report makes a specific technical claim: volume confirmed the breakout. Before approval, the supervisory analyst needs evidence that the breakout session had materially stronger trading than normal. Average daily volume by itself does not show whether participation expanded when price moved through resistance.
The core issue is support for the report’s stated technical conclusion. If a report says a breakout above resistance was confirmed by volume, the file should show the issuer’s actual breakout-session volume and compare it with a relevant recent baseline, such as 20-day or 3-month average daily volume. That review step tests whether the move had broad participation or whether ordinary/light volume would weaken the pattern’s reliability.
A price chart without day-specific volume, or a quote page showing only average daily volume, does not substantiate the claim. Momentum or sentiment indicators can be helpful context, but they do not verify the particular assertion that trading volume confirmed the cited pattern. The key takeaway is to match the support file to the exact analytical statement made in the report.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews a report upgrading a cyclical industrial issuer to Buy with a 12-month price target of $62. The support memo cites improving market sentiment, a rising NYSE advance-decline line, positive 6-week momentum, and large money-market balances “available to move into equities.” The file contains sourced charts for each indicator, but no discussion of why these market-wide measures support this issuer-specific conclusion. Before approval, which missing support is most important?
Best answer: B
Explanation: The key gap is the missing analytical bridge showing why broad sentiment and technical measures support this stock’s specific recommendation and price target.
The charts may be properly sourced, but sourcing alone does not create a reasonable basis. The missing item is support explaining why broad sentiment, breadth, momentum, and available-funds measures are relevant to this issuer or sector and how they support a 12-month Buy call and price target.
The supervisory analyst’s main task is to confirm that the report’s conclusion is analytically supported, not just that data points are present. Here, the cited indicators are broad market measures, and the file already includes sourced charts for them. What is missing is the rationale connecting those measures to this issuer or its sector and to the report’s stated time horizon.
A reasonable-basis review should confirm:
Without that bridge, the commentary is only market color. Extra valuation sensitivity or added technical detail may help the file, but they do not cure the core support gap.
Topic: Reasonable Basis Review
A supervisory analyst reviews an update on a cyclical industrial company. The analyst raises next-year revenue growth from 5% to 8%, EBITDA margin from 13.0% to 14.2%, and the 12-month price target from $36 to $43; the draft states only that ‘demand is normalizing’ and provides no sourced explanation of which forecast drivers changed or how the revisions support the higher target. What is the best follow-up before approving the report?
Best answer: C
Explanation: A sourced estimate-change bridge shows which assumptions changed and how they support the revised valuation conclusion.
The supervisory analyst should require explicit support for the estimate change, not rely on numbers that merely look reasonable. A sourced bridge from revised operating drivers through valuation and price target is the clearest way to establish a reasonable basis and internal consistency.
The core review issue is estimate-change support. When projections are revised, directionally plausible numbers do not by themselves establish a reasonable basis for publication. Before approval, the supervisory analyst should see a concise, sourced explanation of what changed in the forecast—such as volume, price, mix, margin, or capital spending—and how those revised assumptions flow through earnings or cash flow, the valuation method, and the 12-month price target. That creates traceability between thesis, model, and conclusion and helps confirm that the report is internally consistent. Without that causal chain, the higher target is only an unsupported output, even if the new estimates seem sensible.
Use the Series 162 Practice Test page for the full Securities Prep route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.
Review weak areas with the Series 162 Cheat Sheet , then continue with the complete Securities Prep route from the FINRA Series 162 Practice Test page.