did the angoff method hurt me?

This is my 2014 level 2 matrix (band 10 fail)

below 50%: quants, econ, fixed income

between 51 and 70%: corporate finance, derivatives, portfolio management, ethics

above 70%: equity, financial reporting and analysis, alternative investments

you think the angoff method could get to the point where if you missed a “key” question you get penalized more than if you failed a “regular” question?

I do not think that is the case at all. Although possible, I have yet to come across a case in which someone failed 3 subjects and passed the exam.

Also, if your conjecture is accurate, you scored above 70 on the two most important topics for level 2.

Its amazing dude rather quite ASTONISHING that you didn’t passed. just compare your result with my Passed Level 2 result.

Greater Than 70% in Equity Investments, Financial Reporting & Analysis, Fixed Income Investments

51-70% in Corporate Finance, Derivatives, Ethical & Professional Standards

Less Than or Equal to 50% in Alternative Investments, Economics, Portfolio Management, Quantitative Methods

What I feel is we don’t know where the actual result numbers are in the Ranges, For Example, Two persons got the same Asteriks in Result Cards, One got Failed and one got Passed now one gets 3 above 70% in same Areas but the actual numbers he got are 95% in Each and the failed candidate has 72% in the same Each 3 Areas. Never the less keep on working hard to pass next time as this the Beatuy and Worth of CFA Exams.


Your possible scores could be a combination of the above:

AI : 83% or 100%

CF : 58% or 67%

Der : 58% or 67%

Econ : 0% or 17% or 33% or 50%

Equity : 71% or 75% or 79% or 83% or 88% or 92% or 96% or 100%

Ethics : 58% or 67%

FRA : 71% or 75% or 79% or 83% or 88% or 92% or 96% or 100%

FI : 0% or 17% or 33% or 50%

PM : 58% or 67%

Quant : 0% or 17% or 33% or 50%

Translating the above to the number of correct answers (not scores) gives a minimum possible correct answers of 67 out of 120 (56%) and the maximum possible correct answers of 95 out of 120 (79%). The same in terms of scores is a min of 201 and a max of 285 out of 360.

The definite narrowest MPS range is 68 to 76 out of 120 (ie, 204 to 228 out of 360). In percentage terms it is 56.7% to 63.3%.

See below the following scores

Score A

@ msc2488

Msc248’s min possible number of correct answers is 68 out of 120 (56.7%) and maximum possible no of correct answers is 95 out of 120 (79.2%). msc2488 has a failed result.

Score B

A score posted in Page 10 in the official cfa level ii results thread (last post of the page) placed btwn quotes



Jul 29th, 2014 12:18pm

  • United States
  • 36 AF Points

It was a close call, but passed.

Q#TopicMax Pts<=50%51%-70%>70%-Alternative Investments18*—Corporate Finance36–*-Derivatives36*—Economics18-*–Equity Investments72–*-Ethical & Professional Standards36–*-Financial Reporting & Analysis72-*–Fixed Income Investments18-*–Portfolio Management36-*–Quantitative Methods18*–

Thanks Manuag



manuag’s min possible score is 55 and max possible score is 76 out of 120. He has a pass result.

Now take the minimum possible scores of the failed result (msc2488) and that of the passed result (manuag). This is the MPS range which comes to 68 - 76 out of 120. In % terms it is 56.7% to 63.3%

Will post if I am able to further narrow the MPS range.

Anyone who require the excel file that provides the min and max possible scores automatically can send a request to my mail scorpiomanoj73@gmail.com

Still chunck 40% of the exam got in the middle range between 51-70 probably you were in the low range

Give it a shot next year, All the best!!

The word “range” could be quite coy, thus leaving a whole lot to imagination. Hypothetically, Candidate A could have actually scored 51, while Candidate B scored 70, yet both would appear in the broad range of 51-70.

I stand to be corrected though, but I am tempted to believe that the CFAI results are based on absolute number of correct answers, as against the illusion that one must automatically appear on the upper class of whatever range one falls.

Simply put, Candidate A for instance would simply score 51/100, while Candidate B would crack 70/100, contrary to the misconception that both should ordinarily have scored 70/100, since afterall “they fall within the same range class”, which is an outright fallacy in reasoning!

Going further with my example above, if the MPS was set at 70%; obviously, only Candidate B would pull through not minding the sheer fact that initially, such a Candidate belonged to the same range with Candidate A.

So, once again, the word “range” is broad, coy, nebulous and leaves so much to imagination as far as the CFAI results are concerned!