Browse Certification Practice Tests by Exam Family

Series 27: Customer Protection

Try 10 focused Series 27 questions on Customer Protection, with explanations, then continue with the full Securities Prep practice test.

Series 27 Customer Protection questions help you isolate one part of the FINRA outline before returning to a mixed practice test. The questions below are original Securities Prep practice items aligned to this topic and are not copied from any exam sponsor.

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

Topic snapshot

ItemDetail
ExamFINRA Series 27
Official topicFunction 3 - Customer Protection
Blueprint weighting17%
Questions on this page10

Sample questions

Question 1

Delta Securities is a fully disclosed introducing broker that clears and carries customer accounts through Omega Clearing under a written clearing agreement. Delta has been treating itself as exempt from SEC Customer Protection Rule 15c3-3 based on its introducing relationship.

During a review, the FINOP learns that (1) some customers wire funds into Delta’s operating account before Delta transmits them to Omega, and (2) registered reps occasionally accept physical customer securities certificates at a branch and send them to Omega the next day.

Which FINOP action best aligns with durable exemption-analysis standards under Rule 15c3-3?

  • A. Document the exceptions and wait for the next annual audit
  • B. Keep the exemption but have Omega compute a reserve for Delta
  • C. Reassess exemption based on actual asset handling; stop or comply
  • D. Rely on the clearing agreement’s “introducing” designation and continue

Best answer: C

Explanation: 15c3-3 exemptions depend on what the firm actually receives/holds, not just the clearing agreement label.

Customer Protection Rule exemptions for introducing firms are driven by the clearing/carrying allocation and, critically, whether the introducing firm actually receives or holds customer funds or securities. Here, Delta’s receipt of customer wires and physical certificates indicates it is handling customer assets inconsistent with an “introducing-only” exemption posture. The FINOP should reassess the exemption immediately and either change processes so assets go directly to the carrying firm or implement full 15c3-3 compliance as applicable.

Under SEC Rule 15c3-3, whether a firm can rely on an exemption is affected by its clearing arrangement (who carries accounts and is responsible for reserve/possession-or-control functions) and by the introducing firm’s real-world handling of customer funds and securities. A fully disclosed agreement may support an introducing broker exemption only if the introducing firm does not, in practice, receive or hold customer assets in a way that makes it function like a carrying firm.

In this scenario, customer wires entering Delta’s operating account and physical certificates being accepted at a branch are strong indicators that Delta is receiving/holding customer property. The FINOP should perform a “facts-and-flows” review, align written procedures and the clearing agreement to the actual process, and promptly remediate by either rerouting customer assets directly to the carrying firm or transitioning to non-exempt 15c3-3 controls (including appropriate reserve/possession-or-control responsibilities) before continuing the activity. The key takeaway is that exemption analysis is substance-over-form and must match how customer assets move and are safeguarded.

  • Contract over substance fails because exemption status is determined by actual receipt/holding of customer assets.
  • Split the difference fails because keeping an exemption while doing reserve-like controls is internally inconsistent and may still leave gaps.
  • Delay remediation fails because customer protection controls and exemption status must reflect current operations, not the next audit cycle.

Question 2

A broker-dealer maintains separate reserve bank accounts under SEC Rule 15c3-3 for (1) customers and (2) PAB (proprietary accounts of broker-dealers). On Tuesday, the FINOP discovers last Friday’s reserve computations were prepared incorrectly: PAB credits were included in the customer reserve formula.

Exhibit (after correcting the computations):

Reserve accountRequired depositBank balance
Customer reserve$5,400,000$4,800,000
PAB reserve$1,100,000$1,700,000

Firm policy (for this question): any reserve account deficiency must be funded immediately and reported to FINRA (DEA) and the SEC, with escalation to senior management.

Which remediation plan best matches the required regulatory treatment of this exception?

  • A. Recompute both reserves, immediately fund the customer deficiency with firm funds, notify regulators, and escalate
  • B. Net the two balances because the combined reserve cash exceeds the combined requirement
  • C. Leave balances unchanged and fix the formulas at the next scheduled reserve computation
  • D. Transfer the excess from the PAB reserve to the customer reserve and document the journal entry

Best answer: A

Explanation: A customer reserve deficiency must be cured in the customer reserve account (not netted), with prompt reporting and escalation per the stated policy.

Customer and PAB reserve computations and bank accounts are separate under SEC Rule 15c3-3 and cannot be “netted” against each other. The corrected exhibit shows an underfunded customer reserve, which is a deficiency that must be cured immediately in the customer reserve account. Under the stated firm policy, the FINOP must also notify FINRA/SEC and escalate to senior management.

Under SEC Rule 15c3-3, the customer reserve and the PAB reserve are distinct protections with separate computations and separate “exclusive benefit” bank accounts. When a review identifies that the customer reserve account is underfunded (a deficiency), the FINOP’s primary remediation is to correct the computation and cure the deficiency by depositing sufficient funds into the customer reserve account.

In this scenario, the corrected computation shows the customer reserve is short by $600,000 ($5.4MM required vs. $4.8MM on deposit), even though the PAB reserve has an apparent excess. That excess does not eliminate the customer deficiency because the two reserves are not interchangeable. Consistent with the stated policy, the FINOP should then document the correction, notify FINRA (DEA) and the SEC, and escalate internally.

The key takeaway is to fund the deficiency in the correct reserve account and treat it as an exception requiring reporting and escalation.

  • Inter-account “fix” is not the right first step because a customer reserve deficiency must be cured in the customer reserve account (you can’t rely on the PAB account to satisfy it).
  • Netting the reserves is not permitted because customer and PAB requirements are computed and maintained separately.
  • Waiting until next computation leaves an identified deficiency unremediated and fails the stated policy’s immediate funding and reporting expectation.

Question 3

A broker-dealer carries an omnibus clearing account for another registered broker-dealer. The account has a -.8 million net credit balance, but the FINOP included that balance in the Customer Reserve Formula and did not include it in the PAB reserve computation.

Which action best corrects the issue under SEC Rule 15c3-3?

  • A. Reclassify the account as PAB and recompute both reserves, adjusting deposits to the customer and PAB reserve bank accounts
  • B. Exclude the balance from any reserve computation because broker-dealer accounts are exempt from Rule 15c3-3 reserve requirements
  • C. Leave the balance in the Customer Reserve Formula because it is not the firm’s proprietary trading account
  • D. Keep it in the Customer Reserve Formula but add a memo disclosure that the balance is PAB-related

Best answer: A

Explanation: A carried broker-dealer account is PAB and must be captured in the separate PAB reserve computation with corresponding reserve bank funding.

A carried account for another registered broker-dealer is a proprietary account of a broker-dealer (PAB), not a customer account, for purposes of the reserve computations under Rule 15c3-3. The fix is to correct the classification and recalculate the customer and PAB reserve requirements, then fund the appropriate reserve bank account(s) based on the corrected computations.

Under SEC Rule 15c3-3, broker-dealers that carry accounts must segregate funds and securities for (1) customers and, separately, (2) proprietary accounts of other broker-dealers (PAB). A net credit in a carried broker-dealer omnibus account belongs in the PAB reserve computation, not the Customer Reserve Formula.

The appropriate high-level corrective action is to:

  • Reclassify the account population correctly (PAB vs customer)
  • Recompute the customer and PAB reserve requirements using the corrected inputs
  • Adjust deposits/withdrawals so each reserve bank account is funded to the corrected requirement

The key takeaway is that PAB is determined by the carried account’s status as a broker-dealer, not by whether the account is ‘proprietary trading’ for the carrying firm.

  • PAB vs firm proprietary confuses PAB (other broker-dealers’ accounts) with the carrying firm’s own proprietary positions.
  • Rule 15c3-3 exemption is incorrect because PAB balances are addressed through a separate PAB reserve computation, not excluded.
  • Disclosure-only fix does not correct the reserve computation inputs or required segregation funding.

Question 4

A carrying broker-dealer maintains a PAB reserve bank account under SEC Customer Protection Rule 15c3-3. The firm’s written election is to compute the PAB reserve requirement monthly.

Exhibit: PAB reserve control log (USD)

Election (PAB computation): Monthly
Last PAB computation date: January 31
PAB requirement per computation: $5,000,000
Balance in PAB reserve bank account on Jan 31 (after deposit): $5,000,000
Cash movement on February 10: Withdrawal of $800,000 (no new PAB computation performed)
Next scheduled PAB computation date: February 28

Which interpretation is supported by the exhibit and baseline Rule 15c3-3 concepts about computation frequency and reserve bank account funding?

  • A. The firm must compute the PAB reserve weekly; a monthly election is prohibited
  • B. PAB and customer reserve computations must be performed on the same frequency
  • C. The February 10 withdrawal is not supported without a new computation showing excess
  • D. The withdrawal is acceptable because only month-end balances matter under a monthly election

Best answer: C

Explanation: A monthly election ties permissible adjustments to the most recent documented PAB computation, so an interim withdrawal requires recomputing and documenting an excess.

PAB reserve computation frequency drives how often the firm must size and adjust the PAB reserve bank account based on a documented computation. With a monthly election, the last supported requirement is the January 31 computation, which required maintaining $5,000,000. An $800,000 mid-month withdrawal with no new computation is not supported by the firm’s documented reserve requirement.

Under SEC Rule 15c3-3, the PAB reserve requirement is established by a periodic computation, and the reserve bank account is funded/adjusted based on that computation. The key control is that any deposit or withdrawal should be supported by a current, documented computation (or recomputation) demonstrating either a deficit (deposit needed) or an excess (withdrawal permitted).

Here, the firm elected a monthly PAB computation and last computed a $5,000,000 requirement as of January 31, funding the account to $5,000,000. The February 10 withdrawal reduces the segregated balance without any new computation demonstrating an excess, so the action is not supported by the exhibit. The takeaway is that less frequent computations generally reduce opportunities to release funds because excess cannot be demonstrated without recomputing.

  • Month-end only mindset fails because withdrawals should be supported by a current computation showing excess, not merely by an upcoming scheduled computation.
  • Weekly-only requirement goes beyond what is provided; the exhibit shows a permissible monthly election framework for interpreting the control issue.
  • Matched frequency requirement is an unsupported inference; the issue shown is the unsupportable interim withdrawal, not a required linkage to a customer reserve schedule.

Question 5

A self-clearing broker-dealer is preparing its weekly reserve deposit under SEC Customer Protection Rule 15c3-3. The firm carries retail customer cash/margin accounts, institutional delivery-versus-payment/receive-versus-payment (DVP/RVP) accounts, an introducing broker-dealer “PAB” account, and the firm’s proprietary trading account.

Which statement about classifying accounts for reserve computation purposes is INCORRECT?

  • A. Institutional DVP/RVP accounts are always noncustomer and excluded.
  • B. Proprietary and affiliate accounts are noncustomer for the reserve formula.
  • C. Introducing broker-dealer PAB accounts are included in the PAB reserve.
  • D. Classification determines what goes into reserve credits and debits.

Best answer: A

Explanation: DVP/RVP accounts can be “customer” under Rule 15c3-3, so treating them as always noncustomer can understate the required reserve deposit.

For Rule 15c3-3 reserve purposes, the key is whether an account meets the rule’s “customer” definition, not simply whether it is institutional or settles DVP/RVP. Misclassifying customer activity as noncustomer can reduce customer credits in the computation and lead to an underfunded reserve deposit (a customer protection violation).

Under SEC Rule 15c3-3, a FINOP must ensure accounts are correctly classified because the reserve computation is designed to segregate cash (and certain credits) attributable to customers. “Noncustomer” items (such as proprietary and many affiliate-related balances) generally should not be included in the customer reserve formula. Broker-dealer accounts carried on a proprietary basis are not treated as “customers,” but if the carrying firm maintains a PAB relationship, those balances are addressed through the separate PAB reserve computation and deposit.

DVP/RVP is a settlement method, not a blanket noncustomer label. An institutional DVP/RVP account may still be a “customer” account under the rule, meaning its free credit balances and related debits/credits may belong in the customer reserve computation. The practical impact of getting the classification wrong is a potentially deficient reserve deposit and required escalation/correction.

The key takeaway is to classify by Rule 15c3-3 status (customer vs noncustomer vs PAB), because that drives the reserve requirement and where funds must be segregated.

  • Proprietary treatment is consistent: firm and affiliate proprietary balances are generally noncustomer.
  • PAB handling is consistent: introducing broker-dealer PAB activity is addressed in the PAB reserve framework.
  • Why classification matters is accurate: it drives inclusion/exclusion in reserve credits and debits.

Question 6

An introducing broker-dealer marks itself as “exempt” under the SEC Customer Protection Rule (Rule 15c3-3) because it does not carry customer accounts and is supposed to promptly transmit all customer funds and securities to its clearing firm.

During a FINOP review, the exemption file contains only an old clearing agreement. There are no written policies describing the exemption basis, no periodic testing evidence that customer funds/securities are promptly transmitted, and no current representations or other support showing the exemption conditions continue to be met.

If this documentation and monitoring gap continues into the next FINRA examination, what is the most likely consequence?

  • A. The firm can wait to address documentation until the annual audit identifies a deficiency
  • B. The firm may be cited for failing to substantiate the exemption and be required to remediate and operate as non-exempt until support and testing are in place
  • C. The exemption is automatically valid if the clearing agreement states the clearing firm carries the accounts
  • D. No material issue exists as long as the firm has not had customer complaints

Best answer: B

Explanation: Without documented basis and ongoing monitoring evidence, the firm cannot reliably support an exemption claim under Rule 15c3-3.

Rule 15c3-3 exemptions must be supported by documented policies and a demonstrable basis, and they require ongoing monitoring to show conditions continue to be met. If a firm cannot produce representations and testing evidence supporting its exemption claim, regulators are likely to treat the claim as unsupported. That typically results in an examination finding and a requirement to remediate, potentially including operating as non-exempt until controls and documentation are established.

Customer Protection Rule exemptions are not “set-and-forget.” A FINOP should be able to evidence (1) the exemption basis, and (2) ongoing monitoring that the conditions are still satisfied. Practically, that means maintaining written procedures describing the exemption conditions, keeping current agreements/representations that support the firm’s operating model, and retaining periodic testing/reviews (for example, evidence that customer funds/securities are promptly transmitted and the firm is not carrying customer accounts).

If the firm cannot produce this support during an exam, the exemption claim is vulnerable because it rests on unverified assumptions. Examiners commonly cite this as a books-and-records/control deficiency and require prompt remediation; depending on what is uncovered, the firm may also be required to comply with the full customer protection requirements until it can substantiate the exemption on an ongoing basis.

  • Complaints are irrelevant because exemption support is based on meeting and evidencing rule conditions, not on customer feedback.
  • Contract-only reliance fails because an agreement does not replace current monitoring and evidence that operations actually conform to exemption conditions.
  • Defer to annual audit is weak because the firm must maintain current supervisory controls and records; waiting increases the likelihood of an exam finding.

Question 7

A carrying broker-dealer maintains two separate Rule 15c3-3 reserve bank accounts at a qualified bank: (1) a “Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers” and (2) a separate “Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of PAB” (proprietary accounts of broker-dealers).

Based on the firm’s most recent reserve computations:

  • Customer reserve requirement: $8,400,000; cash currently on deposit in the customer reserve account: $7,900,000
  • PAB reserve requirement: $2,600,000; cash currently on deposit in the PAB reserve account: $2,900,000

What action should the FINOP take to be in compliance with Rule 15c3-3?

  • A. Deposit $200,000 to the customer reserve account
  • B. Deposit $500,000 to the PAB reserve account
  • C. No deposit; combined accounts exceed combined requirement
  • D. Deposit $500,000 to the customer reserve account

Best answer: D

Explanation: Each reserve account must meet its own requirement and cannot be netted against the other, so the customer account deficit must be funded.

Under SEC Rule 15c3-3, the customer reserve and the PAB reserve are computed and funded separately. The customer reserve account is $500,000 short of its required deposit ($8.4 million required vs. $7.9 million on deposit). The PAB reserve account has an excess, but that excess cannot be used to offset the customer reserve deficit.

Rule 15c3-3 requires a broker-dealer that carries accounts to maintain a “special reserve” bank account for customers, funded to at least the amount shown by the customer reserve computation. If the firm also carries proprietary accounts of broker-dealers (PAB), it must perform a separate PAB reserve computation and maintain a separate PAB reserve bank account.

Here, compliance is assessed account-by-account:

  • Customer reserve deficit: \(8{,}400{,}000 - 7{,}900{,}000 = 500{,}000\)
  • PAB reserve has an excess ($2.9 million on deposit vs. $2.6 million required), but the PAB reserve is for the exclusive benefit of PAB and is not interchangeable with the customer reserve.

Key takeaway: PAB and customer reserve requirements cannot be netted; each reserve account must be adequately funded on its own.

  • Netting PAB excess fails because PAB and customer reserves must be maintained and funded separately.
  • Funding the wrong account fails because the shortfall is in the customer reserve account, not the PAB account.
  • Combined sufficiency fails because Rule 15c3-3 looks to each required reserve deposit, not a combined total.

Question 8

Which statement is most accurate about a broker-dealer’s Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers under SEC Customer Protection Rule 15c3-3?

  • A. It is primarily maintained to increase the firm’s net capital by converting customer credits into allowable assets.
  • B. It segregates customer reserve deposits from firm assets so the funds are available to customers and not usable for proprietary purposes.
  • C. Maintaining the reserve account eliminates the need to monitor possession or control of customer fully paid securities.
  • D. It can be held at an affiliated bank as long as the bank provides a lien in favor of the broker-dealer.

Best answer: B

Explanation: The reserve account is a segregated, customer-benefit deposit required by Rule 15c3-3 to protect customer cash/securities from firm use and creditor claims.

A Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers is central to Rule 15c3-3 because it requires the firm to segregate cash (and, as applicable, qualified securities) in a way that is dedicated to customers. The account is designed so the firm cannot treat those funds as operating cash, supporting customer protection if the broker-dealer fails.

Under SEC Customer Protection Rule 15c3-3, the reserve requirement is a segregation mechanism: when customer-related credits exceed customer-related debits in the reserve formula, the broker-dealer must deposit that net amount into a Special Reserve Bank Account titled for the exclusive benefit of customers (and, if applicable, a separate account for PAB). The core purpose is customer protection, not firm financing—these funds are walled off from proprietary use and structured so they are not intended to be available to the firm’s general creditors. For a FINOP, this account is central because it is the primary control that demonstrates the firm has set aside sufficient liquid resources to cover customer claims reflected in the reserve computation.

  • Net capital benefit fails because the reserve account’s purpose is segregation for customers, not boosting net capital.
  • Affiliate with lien fails because the account must be structured for the exclusive benefit of customers, not subject to arrangements that undermine segregation.
  • No possession/control monitoring fails because possession or control is a separate customer protection requirement that still must be monitored.

Question 9

A FINOP reviews a new marketing workflow at an introducing broker-dealer. A registered rep exports a spreadsheet containing customer names, account numbers, and Social Security numbers and uploads it to a personal cloud drive. The rep then emails the file to an outside marketing consultant that has not been through vendor security due diligence, and the file is not encrypted.

Under Regulation S-P, what is the primary risk/red flag the FINOP should escalate?

  • A. A possession-or-control deficit at a non-control location
  • B. Failure to safeguard and maintain confidentiality of customer nonpublic personal information
  • C. A net capital deficiency caused by an unsecured receivable from the consultant
  • D. An underfunded customer reserve account due to an inaccurate reserve formula input

Best answer: B

Explanation: Regulation S-P requires written safeguards and controls over NPI, including secure handling and oversight of service providers.

The activity involves customer nonpublic personal information being stored and transmitted through unsecured, non-firm-controlled channels and shared with a third party without oversight. Regulation S-P’s safeguards and confidentiality requirements focus on preventing unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of customer information. The key control concern is implementing and enforcing written administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, including service-provider controls.

Regulation S-P is designed to protect the confidentiality and security of customer nonpublic personal information (NPI) and to reduce the risk of unauthorized access or disclosure. In this scenario, exporting NPI to a personal cloud drive and emailing it unencrypted to an unvetted third-party consultant creates a clear safeguards breakdown.

At a high level, a firm’s safeguards program should include:

  • Controls to limit access to NPI to authorized personnel and firm-approved systems
  • Secure transmission and storage (e.g., encryption and secure file-transfer methods)
  • Oversight of service providers (due diligence and contractual protections)
  • Policies, procedures, and monitoring to enforce these controls

This is a privacy/safeguards issue rather than a customer-securities possession/control or reserve funding problem.

  • Possession/control issue focuses on where customer securities are held and whether they are in control locations, not how customer data files are stored or transmitted.
  • Reserve underfunding relates to cash/securities segregation computations and funding, which is not implicated by a marketing file transfer.
  • Net capital deficiency would require a balance-sheet capital impact; the main red flag here is unauthorized disclosure risk and weak information security controls.

Question 10

A carrying broker-dealer maintains a Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers under SEC Rule 15c3-3 and performs a weekly customer reserve computation each Friday close. Firm policy (consistent with its 15c3-3 controls) requires that any reserve deficiency be deposited by the close of the next business day.

Exhibit: Customer reserve computation summary (as of Friday close)

  • Reserve requirement: $12,500,000
  • Reserve bank account balance: $11,900,000
  • Difference: $(600,000) deficiency

On Monday morning (the next business day), the CFO asks the FINOP to wait until midweek for expected incoming wires rather than making a deposit today. What is the best FINOP decision?

  • A. Do not deposit as long as net capital remains above the firm’s minimum requirement
  • B. Wait until midweek and deposit only if a new computation still shows a deficiency
  • C. Withdraw $600,000 from the reserve bank account to the operating account until wires arrive
  • D. Deposit $600,000 into the reserve bank account today

Best answer: D

Explanation: A reserve computation deficiency must be funded promptly, and the reserve bank balance must be brought up to at least the computed requirement.

The reserve computation shows a $600,000 deficiency, meaning the firm’s reserve bank account balance is below the required amount under Rule 15c3-3. The appropriate action is to fund the deficiency by making a deposit so the account holds at least the computed reserve requirement within the firm’s required timeframe.

Under SEC Rule 15c3-3, a carrying firm must maintain cash (and/or qualified securities) in a Special Reserve Bank Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers in an amount at least equal to the customer reserve requirement from the reserve formula. When the computation shows a deficiency, the firm cannot “wait for expected inflows” or treat the reserve as a liquidity buffer; it must bring the reserve bank balance up to the required level within the required timeframe established by the rule/control process.

Here, the computation requires $12.5 million but the reserve bank holds $11.9 million, creating a $600,000 deficiency that must be cured by a deposit. Net capital compliance does not eliminate a customer reserve funding obligation.

  • Delay for expected wires fails because the reserve deficiency exists as of the computation date and must be promptly funded under the firm’s stated control requirement.
  • Temporary use of reserve cash fails because the reserve bank account is for the exclusive benefit of customers and is not an operating liquidity source.
  • Net capital substitute fails because reserve funding and net capital are separate financial responsibility requirements; meeting one does not waive the other.

Continue with full practice

Use the Series 27 Practice Test page for the full Securities Prep route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.

Free review resource

Use the Series 27 Cheat Sheet on SecuritiesMastery.com when you want a compact review before returning to the FINRA Series 27 Practice Test page.

Revised on Sunday, May 3, 2026