After vomiting at the prospect of restudying material that I know so very well (except for the stuff that I failed on, damn you fixed income), I began reading one of the CFA provided books. After reading for a two or three days, getting through a third of the book, it occurred to me that I might be doing things backwards. If I operate under the assumption that the sections I passed (all the big, important topics) can be passed again (thats a fair assumption as I knew that material backwards and forwards), then shouldnt I use the study guides predominantly again, but use the CFA books only for the areas that I didnt understand well enough to pass? Meaning, I should just duplicate my study program from last time as I was and am totally confident in my understanding of “X” amount of material, but then use the CFA books to amplify and supplement the sections I had trouble with. Thoughts?
were you planning on purchasing study material regardless?
Caspian: Your attack is exactly how I am going about it. I am using only Schweser for FSA, equity, econ and fixed income (all either above 70% or above 50%) and I have just started with the CFA books on quant and will use the CFA books for derivatives (below 50%). Your ideas make sense to me, for what that is worth.
Thanks eleven. I mean, I passed the major sections so I dont really feel a need, at least right now, to read the books to explain to me about currency translation when I nailed that section. At the same time, obviously I didnt do well on statistics (since I failed it) so the books will serve as the primary source of information there. I just wanted to get your opinion on it, since it is, to some degree, a gamble.
I agree and I am planning a similar strategy. Due to time constraints last year, I only used Schweser. I did pretty well in all the major sections, however, I failed Quant and PM. I am currently finishing up the quant stuff using CFAI material and you know what…it isn’t THAT bad. I couldn’t grasp any of the information using Schweser last year and Frankly, I think they did a bad job with many sections. But spending a few nights reading the CFA material this year, I think it is well written and I actually understand the Quant concepts. I worked through the end of chapter problems, etc… and I already feel better prepared than last year (for the quant section). That said, however, there is no way I am re reading all asset valuations sections using CFAI. I feel I know that stuff just fine.
I really cant get upset that I failed PM when I feel like the section sucked from a Schweser point of view. Frankly, I think we should put together a class action lawsuit and sue them.
ok guys a little help for 2nd level first timers, which sections “would you say” were covered adequetly in Schewser’s notes and which weren’t? i.e. which topics would you recommend reading from CFAI books? Thanks.
I thought the “big” sections were just fine and the smaller less weighted sections were undercovered or explained not as well.
caspian, I’m also taking that same tactic (but using Stalla) although I’m going to go through all the Stalla videos just to make sure I have things down pat. I started with the CFAI texts for FI and have to admit they are great in some areas, lacking in others.
Im starting with Fixed Income as well. Im 100% confident with much of the topic (credit analysis, Term structure of interest rates, bonds with embedded options, Convertible Bonds, Duration and Convexity) but I definitely didnt have as good a handle on CMOs, PACs and OAS and I know I didnt get those questions correct on the test.
caspian (and others who failed), I think your problem is that you skip over sections that you’re uncomfortable with. That is, you read everything in fixed income and feel that you have a good idea on most of the topics but when you see something that you’re not 100% sure on (eg: CMO) you tell yourself that it probably won’t be on since it’s such minute detail. Change your mindset and you’ll be ok.
Rest assured that the people here (Houston, Turkish, 3 letters and myself) who failed know full well while we did. Ironically, before the test I wouldve put money on any one of those people passing, myself included. The second lowest pass rate in forty years or whatever didnt help.
apparently neither did I and given this fall’s fun in the market I’d put money on CMO’s and PACs showing up on the test again. caspian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Im starting with Fixed Income as well. Im 100% > confident with much of the topic (credit analysis, > Term structure of interest rates, bonds with > embedded options, Convertible Bonds, Duration and > Convexity) but I definitely didnt have as good a > handle on CMOs, PACs and OAS and I know I didnt > get those questions correct on the test.
maile Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > apparently neither did I and given this fall’s fun > in the market I’d put money on CMO’s and PACs > showing up on the test again. > > > caspian Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Im starting with Fixed Income as well. Im 100% > > confident with much of the topic (credit > analysis, > > Term structure of interest rates, bonds with > > embedded options, Convertible Bonds, Duration > and > > Convexity) but I definitely didnt have as good > a > > handle on CMOs, PACs and OAS and I know I didnt > > get those questions correct on the test. I think the test was long completed by the time the credit meltdown occurred. That said, I will be ready for anything.
Well, maybe it was. But its probably not that hard to come up with one new question given developments in the marketplace.
caspian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, maybe it was. But its probably not that > hard to come up with one new question given > developments in the marketplace. Plus, it makes the reading much more interesting given what has happened. I have to to turn lemons into lemonade.
I like most of you on this thread was so demoralized after feeling confident on so many of the topics. I think its a great idea to go through the text books for the areas of weakness and use the schweser for all else (except PM!!!). Lets kick some butt this time around guys!
goes to eleven Wrote: > > I think the test was long completed by the time > the credit meltdown occurred. That said, I will > be ready for anything. true, but they do try and focus on hot topics in the questions…when I wrote level 1 2 years ago they were all over mortgages. I work with 2 cfa charterholders and they said it was the same when they wrote about 6 years ago.
Still, the more important thing to root for is no Portfolio Mgmt repeat which probably is what pushed me over the edge into the red.
agreed, that PM was a humbling section!