Exercise 2: Two Brands Can Share One Real Authorisation — Possible Solution
====================================================================

This reasoning overlooks the chapter's own real, practical trap:
FSCS protection applies per authorised firm, not per recognizable
banking brand. Several familiar banking brands actually operate under
a single shared underlying authorisation - so if the two brands this
person is using happen to share that same authorisation, their
combined £140,000 (£70,000 + £70,000) would in reality sit under one
single £120,000 protection limit, not two separate £120,000 limits as
they're assuming.

If that's the case here, £20,000 of the total £140,000 would actually
be unprotected in the event that shared firm failed - a real,
meaningful gap between what this person believes is protected and
what genuinely is. The real fix is to check which actual authorisation
each banking brand operates under (not just the brand name each one
uses) before assuming two accounts held under two different-looking
brands are automatically covered by two separate real limits.

ANSWER: This overlooks the fact that FSCS protection applies per
authorised firm, not per banking brand - if the two brands this person
uses actually share the same underlying authorisation, their combined
£140,000 would sit under a single £120,000 limit, leaving £20,000
genuinely unprotected rather than the two separate £120,000
protections they're assuming. The real fix is checking each brand's
actual authorisation, not just its name.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This correctly identifies the chapter's own specific real trap - a
shared authorisation behind different-looking brand names - and
applies it concretely to the numbers given, rather than assuming brand
name alone determines separate protection.