Any fellow Analyst Forum members take this in Boston last Saturday? I found there were several egregious errror with the exam, and am wondering what anyone else thought of it. -mc
I found some problems myself when I went back to review it.
I took it. 72 am 78 pm Can you share the errors?
Sorry adwilk, didn’t check the board prior to posting. I recall a certain justified P/S ratio using (1-payout ratio). It’s the payout ratio, or 1- the retention rate (b). I don’t have the test in front of me, but I though there was a problem with the FCFF problem as well. WC increased by 2000, meaning there was an investment of 2000. But in the answer key there was a -2000, which was then added -(-2000). There were more too. There was a blantant incorrect quotient for price per share on a problem. FSAS multinational problem, the answer is in dollars, but they were actually looking for the currency of the financials were in. There’s probably more I’m forgetting. Overall, good expierience taking it in a stressful setting with little desks and a 3 hour limit with a mock proctor, but the test itself wasn’t that great.
I agree 100%. The quality of the test was underwhelming, especially with the quantity of obvious errors. It can definitely mess with your timing throw you off a bit if the “right” answer is not included in the options (pm #29), or if its poorly worded (pm #56). Also, the shoddiness with which the answer key was put together (answer key) isnt helping much now. Does anyone know when they’ll get the addendums up?
Yup I saw the same issue with the P/S in the same formula they also used 1-g instead of 1+g. The other problem I saw and maybe it was just me was with the single stage residual income problem they didn’t add the book value to it. Also in a bunch of the answers they kept referencing the WACC when they were valuing equity although I think they actually used r in the problems.
This exam was way too easy - got 85 though I’m averaging 73 on Schweser!! What was with the Derivatives section of the AM though??? Haven’t seen a lot of that before
drgonzo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This exam was way too easy - got 85 though I’m > averaging 73 on Schweser!! What was with the > Derivatives section of the AM though??? Haven’t > seen a lot of that before Did the AM today and have to say, “what is with the derivatives section 5 questions on using BSM?”. I got all 6 wrong of the derivs wrong, even with that I pulled I think a 73%. Back to the Library to do 2nd half. I do think it is good to use a different source to see how other authors write questions less of a chance at getting hit with a curve ball next week.
I thought it was very poorly done as well. There was a conversation about it before just in case it helps one way or another. http://www.analystforum.com/phorums/read.php?12,1136018,1148345#msg-1148345
I found it very, very frustrating at times and yet it parts it kicked my ass and reminded me or things I need to sharpen. I got a 75% while missing every derivs ? in the AM. I would have been pissed if I took this proctored somewhere. Does someone have the actual link to the Errata?
does anyone know where the ERRATA REPORTING is for this?
This is it: http://www.bsas.org/BSAS_CFA_Exam_Preparation/PDF/S10PEaddendum.pdf The more I think about it the more this test pissed me off. It is loaded with ERRATA. It fails to mention that on the PM section once you can’t get the CF correct it destroys basically the whole item set. I could have spent the day doing questions that actually make sense. Both Derivs parts sucked AM was all BSM. The PM part when they said " the frf is .24% and the index yield is 2.16% “don’t worry about continuously compounded rates” I wanted to throw the test in the trash. How thin can you slice a piece of bread? 45 day rate on .25% per year. I’m so pissed off that I destroyed a day of study to do this I can’t even sleep.
me toooo, and even the errata reporting doesnt include all the mistakes , The vignette with FCFF is alomost all wrong, i know that P/S is = (profit margin (1-b)(1+g)) / (r-g) and instead of 1-b they used the divident payout ratio, i still dont understand how they got the answer to question 50 , fsa had some mistakes too, u get 2 different answers when u try to calculate economic pension expense, THATS ALL I REMEMBER NOW… anyway it was a good practice its OK!
They had me starting to second guess myself when the errata showed up with the formula for P/S with (1-payout ratio) in the numerator instead of just the payout ratio.
answer should be 3.82 right?
yes 3.82