Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:08/13/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I registered for the *** Level II exam in June 2025, relying on the CMT Association's advertised passing benchmark of 70% raw score, as stated in their FAQ: "In the past, these exams had a fixed passing score of 70% of possible points. That amount is still a default target for exams." I prepared extensively, incurring significant time and expense, and sat for the exam on June 16, 2025. Upon receiving results on August 4, 2025, I was informed of a failure despite achieving a weighted raw score of *****%, calculated as follows based on domain weights ****************** 7%, Classical Techniques: 40%, Advanced Techniques: 40%, Application Technical Analysis: 10%, Ethics: 3%): This score exceeds the 70% benchmark, yet I failed due to a post-exam "scale score" adjustment, which the Association applies based on subjective assessments of exam difficulty. Their FAQ confirms: "With the post-exam review process, the actual cut score may vary. This process allows us to more effectively equate the difficulty of the current exam to a relevant benchmarka past exam or set of exams. This allows us to adjust scores depending on the degree of difficulty of each exam." These adjustments are not disclosed in advance, lack objective psychometric support, and are applied retroactively without candidate input or transparency. The Association's policy states that Levels I and II are machine-graded, followed by psychometric reviews, but provides no detailed breakdowns, independent audits, or substantive appealsonly fee refunds or subsidized retakes. This creates a forced retake cycle, as they note: "It is common to make more than one attempt to pass each level," which generates repeat revenue (retake fees up to $825) while harming candidates. Evidence of inconsistency: - I compiled examples from other candidates showing passes below 70% on Level I (e.g., weighted scores of *****%, *****%, *****%) and a Level II pass at *****%, while I failed at *****%.

  Business Response

  Date: 08/27/2025

  On behalf of CMT Association and in response to the complaint # ********, I am submitting the attached file, Complaint Response of CMTA (08-27-25) FINAL.docx. 

  Should you wish to reach us about this or any other consumer concerns, we can be reached via email at ************************************* and by phone at ************. 

  Sincerely,

  ******* *******

  ***** ** ***** * ******** *******
  
  *** ***********
  
  ************************************************************
  
  ***** ************

  Customer Answer

  Date: 08/28/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ********, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

  [Your Answer Here]

   Subject: Response to ***A's August 27, 2025, Statement and Request for Clarification on Grading Inconsistencies and Policy Transparency
  
  I am writing in response to the Chartered Market Technicians Association's (***A) formal statement dated August 27, 2025, regarding my complaint about the June ******************************************************************************* your response, particularly the inconsistencies in grading practices compared to the information publicly stated on your ********** a candidate who invested significant time, effort, and resources into preparing for and taking the exam, I seek a fair and transparent resolution.
  
  First, I request detailed clarification on the 70% benchmark prominently featured in the "Frequently Asked Questions" section of the **** website under "What is the passing score for each level of the exam?" The *** states that exams historically had a fixed passing score of 70% and that this remains a "default target," yet it also notes that the actual cut score may vary based on post-exam psychometric reviews to equate difficulty across administrations. This language implies that 70% is the standard expectation, with adjustments only in exceptional cases. However, my experience and evidence from prior exam cycles suggest otherwise. If 70% is merely a "default target" and not a reliable benchmark, why is it presented as such without clearer disclaimers about potential upward adjustments that could penalize candidates for an exam deemed "easier" than anticipated? Such phrasing risks misleading candidates who rely on it for preparation and performance evaluation. Please provide:
  
  The exact methodology used to determine the passing score for the June 2025 Level II exam, including the psychometric data, benchmark comparisons to past exams, and the final cut score applied.
  -Anonymized aggregate data for the June 2025 cohort, such as the distribution of raw scores, the average adjustment factor, and how many candidates scored above 70% but below the adjusted threshold.
  
  Second, I must elaborate extensively on the apparent inconsistencies in grading across exam cycles, which not only undermine trust in ****'s process but also raise serious questions about the equity,transparency, and potential motivations behind the psychometric adjustments. My weighted score of *****%which exceeds the 70% default target explicitly mentioned on your websiteresulted in a failing grade due to what appears to be an upward adjustment of the passing threshold. This adjustment seemingly penalized the entire June ******************************************************************************************************************* contrast, I have compiled substantial evidence from previous Level I and Level II exam cycles where candidates were granted passing grades with weighted scores significantly below 70%, including documented cases of *****%, *****%, 67.98%,and *****% (as detailed in the attached emails, screenshots from candidate reports, and public sources). These examples illustrate a pattern where the passing threshold was lowered (downward adjustment) for exams considered more challenging, allowing candidates with sub-70% scores to pass and progress toward their charter.
  
  For instance, one passing result from a prior Level II exam shows sectional scores of 80% in Theory and History, *****% in Classical Techniques, *****% in Advanced Techniques, *****% in Application of Technical Analysis, and a notably low 60% in Ethicsyet the candidate passed overall.Another passing example includes 80% in Theory and History, 80% in Classical Techniques, *****% in Advanced Techniques, *****% in Application of Technical Analysis, and again 60% in Ethics, resulting in a pass. These cases suggest that even with weak performance in key sections (e.g., 60% in Ethics), the overall weighted score was adjusted favorably to meet a lowered threshold.However, in my case, with sectional scores of 80% in Theory and History, 78.33%in Classical Techniques, 60% in Advanced Techniques, *****% in Application of Technical Analysis, and 80% in Ethicsyielding a *****% weighted averageI was failed, implying an upward shift in the required score.
  
  This asymmetry in adjustmentsreadily lowering the bar for "harder" exams to enable passes below 70%, while raising it for "easier" ones to fail scores above 70%creates a perception of arbitrary and selective application. It appears designed to maintain a predetermined pass rate, potentially prioritizing institutional metrics over individual merit, and could be interpreted as revenue-driven, as failed candidates are compelled to re-register, pay additional fees, and delay their professional advancement. Such practices contradict the ***'s assurance of equating difficulty to a "relevant benchmark" and erode the foundational principles of fairness in a credentialing body like ***A. If the goal is true standardization, why do historical data show flexibility in one direction (downward) but rigidity in the other (upward), especially when it disadvantages candidates like myself who met or exceeded the publicized default target? This inconsistency not only misleads prospective charterholders but also jeopardizes the global reputation of the *** designation, which is intended to represent the pinnacle of disciplined, systematic technical analysis grounded in behavioral economics and market behavior.
  
  To address these discrepancies, please explain:
  
  How ***A justifies passing candidates with weighted scores as low as *****% in some cycles while failing those at *****% in others, despite the ***'s emphasis on consistent benchmarking?
  What independent oversight or safeguards exist to ensure adjustments are not influenced by factors such as desired pass rates or financial incentives from retakes?
   The specific psychometric factors (e.g., item response theory metrics, cohort performance distributions) that justified the upward adjustment in June 2025, along with comparative historical data demonstrating alignment across at least the past five exam administrations.
  
  These inconsistencies directly contradict the transparency and consistency promised on your website and fundamentally erode the credibility of the *** designation, which is meant to uphold the highest standards in technical analysis.
  
  Regarding your characterization of my communications, I regret if any frustration was interpreted as abusive or threatening. My intent has always been to seek accountability and resolution through factual dialogue.However, *** ***** **** offered a refund for my exam fees instead of addressing the grading issue substantively, which I perceived as dismissive. Subsequently,he attempted to strong-arm me by directing all further communication to the associations legal counsel and referring my case to the internal ***************** This approach feels punitive and has escalated my concerns about the associations practices. Emails from ******* ******* included the association's legal counsel. In his August 7, 2025, email, *** **** explicitly stated that due to the "nature and persistence" of my inquiries, my member ID and communications were referred to the **************** for review under the Code of Ethics a move that appears intended to intimidate and silence legitimate dissent rather than engage with the substantive concerns about grading fairness. By involving legal counsel (cc'ing ****** ****** of ******** ****)early in the process and instructing me to cease contact with staff, this shifted the interaction from collaborative problem-solving to an adversarial stance, potentially jeopardizing my future eligibility for membership or the charter itself. Such tactics suggest an effort to suppress scrutiny of potential systemic issues, as they prioritize protecting the association over addressing candidate grievances. These overtures were met consistently and strongly with my pursuit of formal complaints, as they failed to acknowledge the potential systemic flaws in the process. To date, parallel complaints have been filed with the Offices of the Attorneys General in 23 states where **** maintains associations or operations, including but not limited to ********,**********, *****, and others. These filings detail the grading inconsistencies, lack of pre-exam disclosure about adjustable thresholds, and potential consumer protection concerns. I urge ***A to engage constructively rather than defensively, as escalation benefits no one.
  
  In light of the above, I demand the following:
  
  1. A detailed, independent third-party review of my exam results, including a question-by-question breakdown and application of the psychometric adjustment.
  2. Full transparency on the June 2025 passing threshold and its calculation, shared with all affected candidates.
  3. Reinstatement of my access to the Reference Library and extension of Curriculum access beyond January 2026, pending resolution.
  4. A commitment to policy reforms, such as clearer pre-exam disclosures about variable scoring and an appeals process for psychometric adjustments.
  5. Quantification and compensation for damages, including direct costs (e.g., exam fees), lost time (over 500 hours of preparation),opportunity costs from delayed career progression, and emotional/reputational harm, with punitive damages considered in line with precedents such as the $11.1 million ETS settlement for scoring errors.
  
  I remain open to a mediated discussion to resolve this amicably and preserve the integrity of the *** program. Failure to address these concerns may necessitate further regulatory involvement.
  
  Thank you for your immediate attention.
  
  Sincerely, 
  *** ***** 
  
  

   

   

   

  In order for the BBB to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *** *****