The CII AF4 March 2026 Exam in Review

It’s now time for us to turn our attention to the March CII AF4 exam. The following will be useful reading for those preparing to sit AF4 in the near future.  

This article is correct as at 26 May 2026.

You can find the exam guide here.*  

The March AF4 exam looks as challenging as ever, so a successful candidate would need to have not only studied the relevant CII manuals and case study workbook, but also been fully up to speed with current industry activity and economic thinking.

Section A 

Question 1

The first case study introduced us to Mihail, who was aged 52 and employed in the public sector.  He had various investments and we had a table of performance figures related to his ISA.

The questions started nicely with seven marks available for outlining client-related factors in relation to Mihail’s objectives that the adviser would establish in their initial meeting.

From here it moved into testing knowledge around client-related risks that could arise from a service outage caused by a platform’s technology upgrade or migration.  This would have tested candidates’ ability to use knowledge not necessarily gained from text books but from keeping abreast of current platform developments; it was only for four marks so would not have meant an overall fail if candidates struggled with an answer here.  The second part of the question tested due diligence so these four marks should have been more attainable.

Mihail had a Green Savings Bond so the next question tested the factors he should be aware of at maturity (for three marks) and for twelve marks a comparison was needed of the main product features of Guaranteed Growth Bonds and Premium Bonds.

Next came some familiar calculations; firstly for nine marks, time-weighted rate of return and for four marks, the reasons why TWR is a better measure of performance than MWR.  A Sharpe ratio calculation followed for four marks, commentary on the Sharpe ratio answer for a further three marks and finally why Sharpe ratio would be used rather than alpha to measure risk-adjusted returns.  This was also for three marks.

The next question tested the diversification rules for an OEIC and the borrowing rules for both an OEIC and an investment trust.  Overall the question gave nine marks and was a reminder that products should be revised in full before attempting this exam.

The questions continued with gearing within an investment trust; a two-part question which overall offered ten marks and finally came the question around economics; this time it was three ways in which a current account deficit may be balanced and five macro-economic consequences of a current and capital account being in deficit over the long-term.  Overall this last question offered eight marks.

As expected question 1 tested various aspects of the AF4 syllabus, some much more challenging than others.

Here's a review of the Mar 26 #CII #AF4 exam. Share on X

Section B

Question 2 

Onto question 2 where we met Dominic, aged 45, who also had various investments, such as direct equities, an OEIC, an investment trust and a regular savings plan.

Five questions followed which started with a five mark question asking for the main differences in the characteristics of companies contained in the FTSE 100 Index compared to those in the Small Cap Index.  This is something that may not have been tested before so may have proved challenging.

Next, a much more comfortable question, as candidates had to identify the main benefits of Dominic retaining his equities portfolio compared to investing in a collective and then the main benefits of him selling his shares and reinvesting into a collective.   For nine marks overall, most of these should have been easily attained.

Next candidates were asked to outline the main benefits of him adding Japanese smaller companies to his portfolio and then outline three main investment-related risks that he should take into account.

Next a general question on stamp duty and SDRT (for three marks) and for a further seven marks, a calculation of SDRT and the PTM levy.

Finally candidates had to describe the main characteristics of a GARP investment strategy; another well tested area which should have been familiar to candidates.

Question 3 

The last question introduced us to Lorene who was an investment analyst within an authorised advisory firm.  She was undertaking research of one company of which we had various pieces of data from recent financial information.  She was also looking at two corporate bond funds where we were also provided with detail of credit ratings, annual coupons, maturity, price information and duration.

Firstly candidates had to calculate return on equity for the company and comment on the answer.  Overall this was for 11 marks and as ROE has been tested multiple times in the past, should not have been a surprise to candidates.

Next came a question on the main features of an MPS and state the main types of fund that it would hold, as well as the main benefits to an advice firm of using a third-party MPS and lastly three main drawbacks to an advice firm of using an in-house MPS.  Overall this question offered 11 marks.

Next candidates had to compare the characteristics of the two corporate bonds and describe what could be deduced from the information; this has also been tested before and anyone using past exam guides should have recognised the format of this question.

Another calculation was next, this time of modified duration, and finally candidates had to state reasons why a fund  manager would hold high yield bonds within a fixed interest fund and why they might increase their exposure to investment grade bonds within a strategic bond fund.

Overall it felt as if some very familiar topics were tested as well as some new angles on other areas.  However, anyone that had revised in a structured manner, covering all of the learning outcomes and using the supporting text books should have scored well on the standard questions, which means that if marks were lower on the more unexpected questions, it would not have meant a fail.

Comparison with the September 2025 Exam Paper 

Let’s look at what was tested in September 2025’s paper. This question paper can be found here. 

The topics covered were: 

• Modern Portfolio Theory
• Dividend cover, earnings after tax and EPS
• Information ratio
• Main characteristics of a momentum investment strategy
• Structure and pricing of an OEIC and an investment trust
• Meaning and objective of ‘financial investment’ within an economy
• Impact upon the economy and businesses of a sustained rise in inflation
• Drawbacks of an EIS and deferral relief
• Behavioural finance
• Differences between ‘nominal return’, ‘real return’ and ‘absolute return’
• Additional Permitted Subscription
• ISAs, CTFs and with-profit funds
• Why returns from ETFs differ from the underlying index
• Passive vs active investment
• Benefits of a platform
• Drawbacks of taking capital as regular withdrawals from a portfolio since inception
• Mitigating effects of sequencing risk and capacity for loss
• Standard deviation calculation
• Differences between conventional gilts and index-linked gilts
• Yield curves
• Drawbacks of relying upon dividends from equity income funds as long-term income

Most of the topics tested are covered in the J10 manual (Discretionary Investment Management) and the AF4 case study workbook, although as we can see it is also necessary to keep up to date with the current economic climate too.  For most advisers this would form part of their normal day so shouldn’t cause too many issues.

Anyone planning to sit AF4 in the future must study past exam papers; these provide invaluable help with the format of the exam and the style of questions and can help focus on some of the more technical topics that have been tested before.

A detailed study plan is important and this should be followed carefully before the exam is attempted.

Grab the resources you need!

* The CII has updated their retention policy and now only provides the last two exam papers. Older papers referenced in this article may no longer be available on the CII website.