Try 10 focused Series 82 questions on Private Placement Prospecting, with explanations, then continue with the full Securities Prep practice test.
Series 82 Private Placement Prospecting 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.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Exam | FINRA Series 82 |
| Official topic | Function 1 — Seeks Business for the Broker-Dealer from Customers and Potential Customers |
| Blueprint weighting | 50% |
| Questions on this page | 10 |
A broker-dealer is acting as placement agent in two exempt offerings:
A salesperson asks why the firm must spend time on issuer due diligence before a principal approves the slide deck and talking points for each offering. Which response best matches the purpose of due diligence across these two offerings?
Best answer: C
Explanation: Even in exempt offerings to sophisticated investors, due diligence helps ensure communications have a reasonable basis and helps manage antifraud liability exposure.
Due diligence is performed to develop a reasonable basis for what the firm communicates about the issuer and the offering. Exemptions like Regulation D and Rule 144A may affect registration and distribution mechanics, but they do not remove antifraud obligations or the need for fair, accurate communications. A documented diligence process helps identify and address red flags before materials are used with investors.
The core reason a broker-dealer performs due diligence in private offerings is to support truthful, not-misleading communications and to manage liability under the federal and state antifraud provisions. Whether the security is sold under Regulation D to accredited investors or under Rule 144A to QIBs, the firm still must have a reasonable basis for material statements it makes or distributes (e.g., business description, use of proceeds, key risks, financial highlights). A diligence review helps the firm validate issuer-provided information, surface inconsistencies, and ensure risks and limitations are fairly presented so sales communications are accurate and balanced. The key takeaway is that “exempt” does not mean “no diligence”; investor sophistication and legends/disclaimers do not substitute for a reasonable investigation and controlled communications.
A broker-dealer is acting as placement agent in a Regulation D Rule 506(c) best-efforts private placement of illiquid preferred units with no secondary market and an expected 7-year holding period. A prospective investor is a recently retired individual who says they will likely need most of the invested principal within 24 months; their accredited investor verification and investor questionnaire are not yet complete. The compensation to the broker-dealer includes a 7% selling concession paid from offering proceeds, a 1% dealer manager fee to an affiliate, and warrants in the issuer issued to the broker-dealer based on dollars sold.
What is the single best action for the representative to take?
Best answer: A
Explanation: The investor has a clear liquidity mismatch and, before any 506(c) sale, the rep must complete eligibility and provide full, fair disclosure of all compensation (including warrants) as conflicts.
This investor’s stated 24-month liquidity need conflicts with an illiquid, 7-year private offering, so the best decision is not to recommend it. In addition, a Rule 506(c) sale requires completed accredited investor verification, and the representative must clearly disclose material compensation (selling concession, dealer manager fee, and warrants) because it creates incentives that can bias recommendations.
Private-offering compensation commonly includes a selling concession/commission, dealer manager or marketing fees (sometimes paid to an affiliate), and non-cash compensation such as issuer warrants. These items create conflicts because higher or layered compensation can incentivize a representative to favor the offering even when it is not in the customer’s best interest.
Applied here, there are two gating controls before moving forward: (1) the investor’s accredited status must be verified for a Rule 506(c) offering, and (2) the investor’s profile (especially time horizon and liquidity needs) must support an illiquid 7-year holding period. Given the investor expects to need most principal within 24 months, the representative should not recommend the investment and should document the outcome after providing full, fair disclosure of all compensation, including warrants and affiliate fees. The key takeaway is that both eligibility and conflict-aware best-interest analysis must be satisfied before solicitation or acceptance of a subscription.
Which statement is most accurate about supervising communications used to market a private offering across email, social media, the firm website, and webinars?
Best answer: A
Explanation: Effective supervision requires retaining and reviewing communications across channels for consistency with approved private offering content.
Supervision of private-offering communications is a cross-channel control: the firm should ensure communications are captured, retained, and reviewed so messaging stays consistent with approved offering documents. Webinars and social media can create additional content (updates, posts, Q&A) that must also be surveilled under the firm’s supervisory system.
A broker-dealer’s communications supervision should be designed to cover all channels used in marketing a private offering—email, website content, social media, and webinars—so that what is said to investors is consistent with approved offering materials. In practice, that means using approved systems and tools to capture and retain communications (including edits/versions and webinar-related content such as slides, invitations, recordings, and Q&A/chat) and conducting supervisory review and surveillance to detect unapproved claims, omissions, or inconsistent messaging. Controls commonly include restricting business to approved channels, archiving and indexing content, and periodic testing/exception reports for high-risk phrases or content outside the approved corpus. A key takeaway is that “one-and-done” approval of a single item does not eliminate the need to supervise related channel content that may change or expand in real time.
A broker-dealer is acting as placement agent for a Reg D Rule 506(b) private placement (no general solicitation). A registered representative hosted a publicly advertised “Private Investing 101” webinar that discussed risks, liquidity, and how private placements work, but did not mention any issuer or terms.
After the webinar, an attendee emails: “I want in—please send me the term sheet and subscription documents for the deal you’re working on.” The attendee is not an existing customer and has not completed any investor questionnaire.
What is the best next step in the workflow?
Best answer: C
Explanation: Providing issuer- or terms-specific materials to a public webinar attendee could be solicitation, so the firm should first establish eligibility/relationship and controls before delivering offering documents.
The webinar was permissible educational content because it was general and not offer-specific. Once the representative starts sending issuer- and terms-specific materials, the communication becomes an offering communication and, in a 506(b) deal, raises general solicitation concerns. The proper sequence is to start onboarding/eligibility verification and apply firm controls before delivering deal documents.
Educational content can be broadly distributed when it stays general (e.g., describing how private placements work and their risks) and does not reference a specific issuer, security, or offering terms. The moment the representative sends a term sheet, PPM, or subscription documents for a particular deal, the communication becomes offer-specific and can be treated as solicitation.
Because the deal is Rule 506(b), the firm must avoid general solicitation and should not treat a public-webinar attendee like an immediately marketable prospect for that specific offering. The next step is to move the person into the firm’s controlled onboarding workflow (KYC/CIP as applicable, investor questionnaire, accredited verification per firm process, and use of only approved offering materials) before providing deal-specific documents. The key takeaway is that the educational-to-offer-specific shift triggers marketing restrictions and tighter controls.
On April 10, 2026, a dealer manager is reviewing an order in a Rule 144A offering that is limited to QIBs. The offering materials state that a QIB must own and invest at least $100 million in securities of unaaffiliated issuers.
Firm policy: a QIB certification letter must be dated within the prior 12 months of order entry.
Exhibit: Investor’s information provided
What is the most appropriate action before accepting the subscription?
Best answer: A
Explanation: The investor likely meets the $100 million unaffiliated-securities test ($40m+$55m+$12m=$107m), but the certification letter is outside the firm’s 12-month requirement so updated support is needed.
To assess QIB status at a high level, the firm looks for at least $100 million in securities owned and invested in unaffiliated issuers and obtains reasonable supporting evidence. Here, the unaffiliated securities total $107 million, so the investor is likely a QIB, but the provided certification is older than the firm’s 12-month policy and should be refreshed.
A QIB determination under Rule 144A is typically supported by evidence showing the institution owns and invests at least $100 million in securities of unaffiliated issuers (cash is not “securities,” and affiliate holdings are not counted). Using the exhibit, the qualifying securities are U.S. Treasuries ($40 million) plus unaffiliated corporate bonds ($55 million) plus unaffiliated public equities ($12 million), which totals $107 million—suggesting the investor is likely a QIB.
Even when the numbers indicate QIB status, the firm should document the basis. Common high-level evidence includes a written QIB certification letter, recent custodian/brokerage statements, or audited financials/investment schedules showing securities owned and invested. Because the certification letter date falls outside the firm’s stated 12-month window, the appropriate next step is to obtain updated QIB support before accepting the subscription.
A Series 82 representative is speaking with a prospective investor about a Regulation D private placement that is open only to accredited investors. The prospect says he is single, earned “about $210,000” in each of the last two years (including a variable bonus), expects similar compensation this year, and that his CPA has told him he is accredited—but he does not want to share “personal financial details.”
Which action best aligns with durable standards for investor eligibility determination and communications?
Best answer: B
Explanation: The representative should not imply eligibility is confirmed without obtaining and retaining enough information (e.g., income history/expectation or net worth excluding primary residence) through firm-controlled, secure documentation.
The prospect’s facts suggest he could be accredited based on income, but a firm still needs a reasonable, documented basis for that determination. The best action is to request the specific eligibility details needed (such as income history and expected current-year income, or net worth excluding primary residence) using secure, firm-approved processes before accepting a subscription.
A private offering limited to accredited investors requires the firm to have a reasonable basis for believing the purchaser is accredited, and to make communications that are not misleading by omission. Here, the prospect’s statements are incomplete (“about” income, variable bonus, and no documented expectation) and the CPA comment alone is not a substitute for the firm’s own records.
The representative should:
The key takeaway is to match the eligibility decision to documented, securely obtained facts—not verbal assurances or overbroad, insecure data collection.
In a private placement that uses a selling group, which statement best defines the role of a dealer manager?
Best answer: D
Explanation: A dealer manager coordinates the selling effort and helps ensure selling materials and processes support reasonable-basis and accurate communications.
A dealer manager is the broker-dealer that organizes and directs the selling group’s distribution efforts. In that role, it helps set sales procedures, coordinates selling concessions, and promotes controls that support reasonable investigation, accurate communications, and proper documentation in the offering file.
A dealer manager is typically the broker-dealer engaged to manage the distribution mechanics for an offering sold through multiple broker-dealers (a selling group). While specific contracts vary, the dealer manager commonly coordinates the selling process and supports supervisory controls around how the offering is presented and sold.
This role ties to placement-agent/selling-group liability themes because firms involved in distributing a private offering must have a reasonable basis for the offering and must ensure communications are fair, balanced, and not misleading, with appropriate documentation (e.g., due diligence records, approved materials, and investor paperwork). A dealer manager often centralizes or coordinates these distribution and communication processes across the selling group. It does not automatically “underwrite” or guarantee sales, and it is not the issuer’s lawyer or the escrow bank.
A Series 82 rep is marketing a Reg D private placement on a best-efforts basis. The PPM states the purchase price is expected to be between $9 and $11 per unit and will be set at closing.
Before any investor commits, the rep emails prospects: “We locked in $9 per unit—buy now and you’ll at least make 20% when we list next year.”
What is the primary risk/red flag the firm should address?
Best answer: B
Explanation: The email conflicts with the PPM’s pricing terms and improperly implies a guaranteed outcome.
Private-offering communications must be consistent with the offering materials and fair and balanced. Stating a “locked in” price when the PPM says pricing will be set at closing is inconsistent and potentially misleading. Promising an investor will “at least” earn a specific return improperly implies a guaranteed outcome.
The core control issue is misleading marketing tied to pricing and performance. In a private placement, the PPM/term sheet controls how price is determined; sales communications should not change or “firm up” pricing terms unless the offering materials are updated through the proper process. Communications also must not imply certainty of future results (for example, a minimum return, a guaranteed profit, or “you can’t lose”), especially where outcomes depend on future events like a potential listing. The firm should require principal review of retail/prospect communications and ensure any pricing discussion mirrors the current offering documents and avoids promissory language.
A broker-dealer acts as placement agent for a Regulation D private placement. To build a book, the firm runs paid social media ads that invite investors to “Invest Now” through an online portal. The portal requires each investor to sign an accredited investor questionnaire with a check-the-box representation, but the firm does not collect any third-party evidence (e.g., income/net worth documentation) and does not perform any other steps to confirm status.
After the offering closes, regulators ask the firm to demonstrate how it verified that purchasers were accredited.
What is the most likely outcome of the firm’s approach?
Best answer: B
Explanation: Using general solicitation triggers a need for reasonable verification, and a check-the-box representation alone is typically insufficient evidence of those steps.
Investor representations are what the investor says about their status; verification is what the seller does to take reasonable steps to confirm it. When an offering involves general solicitation (typical of Rule 506(c)), the seller generally needs more robust verification than a self-certification. Failing to verify can jeopardize reliance on the exemption and create remediation and enforcement risk.
The key distinction is between (1) an investor’s representation in a questionnaire or subscription agreement and (2) the firm’s verification process—its reasonable steps to confirm accredited status. In offerings that use general solicitation, the compliance expectation shifts from relying mainly on representations to performing and documenting a more robust verification process.
Here, the paid social media campaign and “Invest Now” portal access indicate general solicitation, so regulators will expect evidence of reasonable verification steps, not just a check-the-box certification. If the firm cannot demonstrate verification, the offering’s exemption may be challenged, increasing the risk of rescission offers, enforcement exposure, and supervisory findings. A close alternative is a non-solicited offering where reliance on representations may be more defensible absent red flags.
A broker-dealer is acting as placement agent in a best-efforts private placement with a stated minimum offering amount. To reduce the risk of commingling investor proceeds and to ensure prompt refunds if the minimum is not met, the firm wants a control where investor funds are held by a third party under written instructions until the contingency is satisfied.
Which offering feature/function best matches this control?
Best answer: D
Explanation: A third-party escrow with clear release/refund terms keeps proceeds segregated and returned if conditions aren’t met.
Holding subscription funds in a third-party escrow until a stated contingency is met addresses key proceeds-handling risks. It helps prevent commingling of investor money with firm or issuer funds and provides a defined mechanism for releasing funds at closing or refunding them if the offering fails to meet its conditions.
A core control for private offerings with contingencies (such as a minimum amount) is using an independent escrow account governed by clear, written escrow instructions. This structure helps ensure investor checks/wires are segregated from the broker-dealer’s and issuer’s operating accounts, reducing commingling risk. It also clarifies exactly when funds may be released (only upon satisfaction of the stated condition) and how/when funds are returned if the condition is not met, reducing the risk of delayed or disputed refunds.
Key elements at a high level include:
By contrast, investor eligibility/suitability documentation and confidentiality controls are important, but they do not control custody and timing of offering proceeds.
Use the Series 82 Practice Test page for the full Securities Prep route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.
Use the Series 82 Cheat Sheet on SecuritiesMastery.com when you want a compact review before returning to the FINRA Series 82 Practice Test page.