For those of you saying the PM was easy...

Can you please elaborate? Does that mean you thought that most of the PM questions were “easy” or that there were enough easy questions to get a passing score in the PM?

Again, as mentioned in another thread, there were so many obscure questions or ones that were tested in a way inconsistent with the curriculum examples. I wish I could make reference to specific examples, but obviously cannot.

I personally felt PM easy relative to AM… it was not that difficult even in absolute terms … except for few vague questions in the end…

I felt that the first half of the pm was easy ( easy as in like you know 70 % of the qs in an item set without guesses)

I honestly felt that AM was obscure and were tested in a way inconsistent with the curriculum examples… I NEVER felt that I was short on time when doing all the past exams and mocks, but Saturday although I did finish, felt that I had to hurry up towards the end… Also, some questions seemed off - as in I never expected it to be asked in such way or thought it wasn’t important enough to think about it in such detail until it was asked in the AM.

As for the PM, it was just as I expected it would be from all the mocks, and practice questions that I’ve done during the past few months. Yeah there were questions that were designed to trick you… And I’m not saying I got an AMAZING score, but it felt like a breeze especially after the AM.

I also thought PM was easy compared to AM. Would be surprised if i scored under 80% for PM. AM is a different story altogether…

PM did have some obscure content and “just guess the answer” type questions, but compared to AM it was far easier. AM was just chock full of stuff hardly mentioned in the curriculum and missing most of the important and prominent content.

We’re in the same timezone - bear in mind the North American AFers would have sat a different paper. On reflection I agree - PM seems to be relatively easy to previous years’ and sample/mock papers. At least I managed to get calculations that matched at least one option for all MCs (I didn’t in sample/mock). AM was average. I managed to at least have an attempt at everything but with only 5 minutes to spare…you?

Just finished with a few minutes to spare in the AM, although my answer to the last question was bad. Was quite a specific question that threw me. The other questions were ok, but I thought it was much tougher than past AM mocks

Finished on time in the AM, messed up a lot of parts cause i just wrote stuff hoping id get some partial grades… PM was easier in terms of “time” NOT in terms of tricks … It was full of tricks for those claiming that it was a breeze.

I thought the PM was very straight forward.

I don’t know if I had different version since I took the exam in South Korea.

But one thing I noticed differently from taking level 2 or level 3 last year was that when I punched in the numbers in the calculator, I could find the exact same number in one of the choices.

In previous exams, sometimes I got the numbers which weren’t even matched to any of the choices.

I could not complete my AM, missed out on 12 points or so.

I thought AM was tough.

PM was relatively easy, I do expect 80%

BTW any guesses on what MPS will be based on difficulty this year? asking cos If i can pass it will be borderline, as i missed 12 points in AM.

What does that mean?

I think almost certainly had different exams globally, I sat it in London and found the AM pretty easy compared with the mocks, certainly not trivia heavy. But the PM was extremely vague with some very poorly worded questions and was tougher than any of the mocks i’ve done.

I’m predicting a worst case scenario of 65% for the PM but hoping that the AM saves me with > 70%.

Don’t we sit different papers if we’re in different timezones? I think all candidates in HK sat 8080/8181, and I believe the Australians would have sat the same paper given we are currently only two hours apart. But for those of you in North America?

I completely agree. I sat in London and finished the AM paper in 90 minutes and had time for three full reviews. There were 2 of three people sitting arond me that were resitting and they didn’t finish their papers which baffles me as I would have thought they would come into it better prepared.

When I started the afternoon session, I was completely distraught with the ethics and thought the paper was going to be horrible but then it turned out ot be OK. There were some definite tricks and I didn’t nail the FRA Commodity calculation but in all honesty, it wasn’t of an unexpected dificulty.

I would avoid mentioning specific topics that were tested , because that is clearly a violation , even when you don’t reveal details . There is an example in Ethics Reading addressing this .

Example 4 page 135 : Rossi " by revealing specific portions of the CBOK covered on the exam etc, however , she did violate Standard VII(A) and the Candidate Pledge "

Yes. There were clearly different exams with different questions. Not suggesting every question was different but looks like N. America had a few more obscurities thrown in for good measure. Explains why Asia is seeing the most new charters. I think CFAI wants more penetration there as US financial services is in decline and probably oversaturated.

I found PM tough and not close to what Mock provided for practice. It was more closer to Sample test ($40 paid tests).

Note to self - if I fail - fly to Asia to sit for Level III next year.

I thought the PM was tougher for me simply because I couldn’t recall how to do certain calcs and the sections I’m weakest showed up. But a good portion of that section I feel good about just about 10+ or so that I’m not sure I ended up with the right answer after narrowing down or guessing.