Sign up  |  Log in

How many of you guys were shocked by the first question in AM?

hahaha 

Save 10% on a Schweser CFA Premium Package when you order by September 29, 2017.

googs1484 wrote:

Infidel Cash Flo wrote:

Imagine if every time you solved a question later in the test you knew how to solve one before it? Sounds delightful. 

Well let’s be clear, that’s not exactly the scenario we were in. We didn’t HAVE TO solve part ii before i. A better way to say it is that the answer to part ii was already solved for in part i. I would like a test where the answer to every next question was in the answer before it. 

hahaha yeah. if you go back, I’ve been one of the people saying that. I’m just saying, if you think “why does 2 help with 1?” well, that’s a positive externality to me.

I think the real qn here is whether there is additional info in qn stem of partii that is required to solve parti and similar info is not provided in parti. IMO the answer is NO - so the qn should be a fair1

ov25 wrote:

I think the real qn here is whether there is additional info in qn stem of partii that is required to solve parti and similar info is not provided in parti. IMO the answer is NO - so the qn should be a fair1

95 percent of us agree it was fair. I think we are simply saying it was a cruel way to try and throw us off early. I just answered the question as given. There isn’t time to sit there during exam and argue with CFAI. I am confident I got them right but also understand some people’s frustration with it. I wonder if anyone submitted an inquiry to CFAI to review it.

biuku wrote:

AndyG wrote:

googs1484 wrote:

Someone on this thread said there is a way to do part i without solving for part ii. Not sure of how, but if so then I guess its fair. No matter what, its fair, but confusing as heck. 

I was the “someone” :) Just write down the formula for the the two, substitute the part of the 1st formula with the 2nd one, and probably you will see what I mean. I doubt I can go into more details other than this

Based on what I recall, I disagree. I was very confident at the time – it was in a set of my visualized notes I posted to reddit 2 weeks ago. But not sure of anything now. I really do wish I could get a look at the question, or a decent recreation of it, before Aug.

CFA institute makes it very clear every year that each part of the exam are independent, and your answer in one question should not affect the outcome of another question. Meaning if your answer is incorrect in part X, you should NOT need to use your answer in part X to solve part Y.

This has been the backbone to every level in CFA, including level 3 AM section. 

However, if you don’t understand the fundamental concept in one question, it is very possible that you may not know how to answer another question in the same section, which is why i suggest candidates to study every section!

Best of luck!

NANA

Perhaps  what NANA just said is the most relevant and accurate post on this entire thread. Thanks NANA.

What I can conclude is that many candidates (including me) who have used output of answer Y in answering X without independently solving for question X separately will not get full credits. Neither shall we receive 0 credit because I am very sure logic and answer must be correct for all of us falling in this category. As far as I remember, and IMHO, all of us on this boat will at max lose 1 point as this was a 2 point sub question . Well I hope there is no violation here, if it is, moderators please delete my post :)  

Question is how costly this 1 point can be?? Lol. I hope it doesn’t make any difference :)

The first part was crap ( creepy). I did not care because I did not start there. I went straight to Econ. Although I could see people have issue with Econ as well. But I managed to answer it. The remaining parts were okay. Q-1 was the last Question I did. 

Band is 10 is ridiculously SUCKS

tibwa wrote:

The first part was crap ( creepy). I did not care because I did not start there. I went straight to Econ. Although I could see people have issue with Econ as well. But I managed to answer it. The remaining parts were okay. It was the last Question I did. 

How did you see people having problems with Econ during the exam exactly…?

“Could see” = possibility, not in the affirmative. Do you feel better? The reason i was able to answer the question was because CFAI had a similar question in a other topic 5 year ago. Not that people can answer the questions, usually you have a timing issue where you do not have a lot of time to think outsite the box. Level 3 seems to be Plug and Do. Either you know it or you don’t. If you are trying to reason,the time kills you. Been there, done that!

Band is 10 is ridiculously SUCKS

tibwa wrote:

“Could see” = possibility, not in the affirmative. Do you feel better?

Okay, thanks for the clarification ^_^

NANA

Viraj Swaroop wrote:

What I can conclude is that many candidates (including me) who have used output of answer Y in answering X without independently solving for question X separately will not get full credits. Neither shall we receive 0 credit because I am very sure logic and answer must be correct for all of us falling in this category. As far as I remember, and IMHO, all of us on this boat will at max lose 1 point as this was a 2 point sub question . Well I hope there is no violation here, if it is, moderators please delete my post :)  

In my opinion, it was not the question, where the question to one part is needed to answer the other part (i.e. it does not contradict the CFAI approach). You can think of it as a substep. 

I have seen many questions in practice test, where you could come up with the answer faster, BECAUSE you had calculated one of the components in the past. For example, one question could ask for an equity risk premium, and the other question could ask for expected return where you can use the earlier calculated ERP.

What the CFAI means by independent question, is that the scenarios presented in one question should not be held present when answering other questions (rather those help in the case itself).

I had even seen questions in ethics sections where question 5 could be answered quicker if you recall what the answer to question 1 or 2 was, because there was something in the text early on that had to be taken into account to answer question 5 (not just second to last paragraph as it usually is).

^+1

Cynical Man wrote:

Viraj Swaroop wrote:

What I can conclude is that many candidates (including me) who have used output of answer Y in answering X without independently solving for question X separately will not get full credits. Neither shall we receive 0 credit because I am very sure logic and answer must be correct for all of us falling in this category. As far as I remember, and IMHO, all of us on this boat will at max lose 1 point as this was a 2 point sub question . Well I hope there is no violation here, if it is, moderators please delete my post :)  

I have seen many questions in practice test, where you could come up with the answer faster, BECAUSE you had calculated one of the components in the past. For example, one question could ask for an equity risk premium, and the other question could ask for expected return where you can use the earlier calculated ERP.

Most of us already know this. We have taken all the same old AM exams. The reason we say this year it was an “odd” question is because, using your example, it’d be like having to solve for the expected return in question 1 and then question 2 asking for the ERP. Basically the opposite of what you said and seemingly “out of order”. Most of us also agree it was fair, just confusing and odd.

Is there a CFAI Social media guideline? smiley

It did caught me off guard for a sec, but I managed to figure it out and had no problems

kgsgp wrote:

Is there a CFAI Social media guideline? smiley

Guideline for what specifically?

Now i think i recall the specific question being discussed. 

Did throw me off for a good additional 5 to 10 min (a time i never made back :/) 

Is possible to solve i) without doing ii) but it’s not an instinctive method. 

After looking at the question more closely, I did ii) first and went back to do i) without using anything from ii) 

Calculations were actually extremely simple once you figure out what the question is asking (or at least i hope i figured out). 

googs1484 wrote:

kgsgp wrote:

Is there a CFAI Social media guideline? smiley

Guideline for what specifically?

You should be able to guess what i’m referring to. 

I didn’t see any special mention in Schweser’s and had trouble with a question. Wonder where the correct reference is.

Answer from ii) is not needed to solve for i).

Answer from ii) can be crossed out (minus + plus) if you think about extended equation to solve for i).

That’s how I solved, and don’t quite understand all these debate.

Am I missing anything?

I don’t think it works that way.

Viraj Swaroop wrote:

Question is how costly this 1 point can be?? Lol. I hope it doesn’t make any difference :)

You’re giving me chills now, I lost 8 mints in the AM! Dam*! Its haunting me every next moment.

The harder the struggle, the more glorious the triumph.