Schweser explicitly stated that we wouldn’t have to calculate anything on contingent immunization - only told us to be familiar with the concept and be able to describe how it works. Low and behold…we had to calculate the safety cushion. Is it plausible to suggest that CFAI deliberately goes through schweser’s stuff and tests what they suggest wont be tested. Same thing happened on the 07 L2 exam I believed…with Treynor Black? ( i took it in 08…but i heard through the grapevine). Honestly though…from where I am standing…Schweser’s product is insufficient and they should not be making blanket statements about what will and will not be tested. The opposing view is that it doesn’t explicitly state “calculate” in the CFA LOS pertaining to contingent immunization. So one can argue we should have a bone to pick with CFAI.
the test is made before the schweser material is released…
i agree that that definitely doesnt happen but also agree that they should stop with the blanket statements 2-bond hedge, yikes
if you read the CI material, you would know how to calculate the cushion spread. It takes about 15 seconds to do and it is not a demanding calculation. You valued the guess of a prep course providor over the CFAI’s material. 2 bond hedge was similar; you only needed one of the weights and if you set up your equations properly, it would take only a few seconds more than the cushion calc
I used Schweser notes as well - but they did have an example that did do the calculation, no? I got the answer correct.
drs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the test is made before the schweser material is > released… How do you know that? I’m not disagreeing, I honestly don’t know. I also find myself in the conspiracy theory camp. It’s odd that Schweser covers 99% of the topics and the 1% they miss always creeps into the exam. When reviewing old exams in the last video of the behavioral finance video series the professor explicitly stated that ‘House Money’ wasn’t a part of the 2009 curriculum and low and behold it shows up.
engineer2finance Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if you read the CI material, you would know how to > calculate the cushion spread. It takes about 15 > seconds to do and it is not a demanding > calculation. You valued the guess of a prep course > providor over the CFAI’s material. > > 2 bond hedge was similar; you only needed one of > the weights and if you set up your equations > properly, it would take only a few seconds more > than the cushion calc I got the question right…chill your sac. I’m alluding to the principle of how it showed up at all. Secondly…i read CFAI texts and only skimmed Schweser.
jbisback Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > engineer2finance Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > if you read the CI material, you would know how > to > > calculate the cushion spread. It takes about 15 > > seconds to do and it is not a demanding > > calculation. You valued the guess of a prep > course > > providor over the CFAI’s material. > > > > 2 bond hedge was similar; you only needed one > of > > the weights and if you set up your equations > > properly, it would take only a few seconds more > > than the cushion calc > > > I got the question right…chill your sac. I’m > alluding to the principle of how it showed up at > all. Secondly…i read CFAI texts and only skimmed > Schweser. congratulations for having all that free time to fully read CFAI and only skim the prep course!
it took you 17 seconds to learn how to do a 2-bond hedge?
engineer2finance, Of course, everything is fair and easy, provided you know how to approach the question. I read the text. Given the volume of material, I feel it is only fair to be expected to pay close attention to the specific demands outlined in the LOS. So like jb, I am mildly annoyed at the open interpretation of command words. Is it fair game? Sure it is. Was it an easy calc? Some certainly are. All that aside, if that is how this is going to be… drop the explain, calculate, contrast command word vauge-ery and just say “know this.” LOS 32. e. Contrast a two-bond hedge that takes account of yield curve level and twist changes with a duration hedge. LOS 29. H. Explain the importance of spread duration;
Jscott24 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it took you 17 seconds to learn how to do a 2-bond > hedge? to learn, took more than 17 seconds, to do the calc, it takes realistically <30 seconds, -MBS = w2A + w10B
slouiscar Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > engineer2finance, Of course, everything is fair > and easy, provided you know how to approach the > question. I read the text. Given the volume of > material, I feel it is only fair to be expected to > pay close attention to the specific demands > outlined in the LOS. > > So like jb, I am mildly annoyed at the open > interpretation of command words. Is it fair game? > Sure it is. Was it an easy calc? Some certainly > are. All that aside, if that is how this is going > to be… drop the explain, calculate, contrast > command word vauge-ery and just say “know this.” > > > LOS 32. e. Contrast a two-bond hedge that takes > account of yield curve level and twist changes > with a duration hedge. > > LOS 29. H. Explain the importance of spread > duration; after reading the LOS, I agree with you guys. Absolutely, I agree that when you know it you know it. I felt like a dumbass looking some of the most basic questions for minutes and not knowing what to do (ie WACC calc in AM). Anyways, were all done for now, lets hope for the best in the end, but your point about the command words in the LOS is absolutely correct. Do they not do a review of the exam afterwards to check for errors/inconsistancies with curriculum and throw those incompliant questions out???
On an unrelated note: jb, did you sit in roc again? Only ~25 LIII takers. I thought the mood was a bit too relaxed overall. I mean, the joking around and volume of small talk caught me off guard. I know you are pretty serious so don’t take that the wrong way if you were there and knew people and were conversing. But I am just curious if you noticed it. I mean I felt pretty anti-social. No offense to the people in there, but I game planned to stay focused, I was there to end this sh*t, not make new friends. Carmen electra could have been dancing on my table and I wouldn’t have paused to lift my eyes.
i have never understood the popularity of schewer materials. The only thing remotely useful is the extra sample exams. Why would you ever prepare using a derivative of the source material, when the CFA makes it perfectly clear that the exam will come from the source material and it’s end of chapter questions. There were numerous examples of schweser materials being faulty or not updated correctly. This was the first exam I actually had the schewswer books and they pretty much collected dust.