I have pushed my PM scores as high as I can (in the time allowable), by which I mean through the magic 80 barrier. I still have a big issue on the morning exam. I can muster an answer of some kind for virtually all questions, but I have a pretty terrible time doing it. I have no idea how much to write. Will there be more room to write on the actual exam vs. Schweser? On the Schweser exam book I am really struggling to fit everything I want to say into the stupid boxes. To get a specific idea. Let’s say there is a three mark question asking one adv of performance fees and two disadvantages, what (EXACTLY) would you write?
Be precise and up to point. for example, if they are askignabout characteristics of alernate isntruments you can be crisp and say(1) good diversifier (2) return potential etc… you dont have to explain what a good diversifier means(meaning how the correilation is low and how it reduced the volatility of the portfolio and so on)…
Thanks. I am a little surprised.
yes the answers in schweser are really sparse. i try to write a little more than what they provide just to be safe.
I don’t get it. I had a course from a reputable training company and the guy was saying “write full sentences.” I think he even said that we should find that we are writing throughout the exam! One more question - Do we get any scrap paper or anywhere to map out responses?
I would write (exactly): Adv: Helps align interests of fund managers and shareholders, rewarding good performance Disadv 1: Can encourage excessive taking, especially if the performance level has not been reached Disadv 2: Can be more complicated than ad valorem based fees, and more difficult to understand (nb i think reason 2 is such a pathetic reason, but it seems to be in the course)
Useful. Thanks. nb I go for the “volatile remuneration to manager disadvantage”. This is something I can relate to better…