Did you guys get a survey asking what we use for prepration? Questions were related to course material we use for exam preparatioin and it was very detailed. They were asking like what % of time we put for CFAI study, CFAI question, Sample, Mock, Other vendors material etc. It seemed as if CFAI wants us to read CFAI text rather than any other preparatory material. Btw, shcweser end of question are, more or less, useless
quiz? you mean an e-mail directing you to a survey?
yeah, from CFAI, I should have been precise 
yeah i got that e-mail it was a little less probing than last year, last year for L1 they asked me if i thought i was going to pass
prabhashverma Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did you guys get a survey asking what we use for > prepration? > Questions were related to course material we use > for exam preparatioin and it was very detailed. > They were asking like what % of time we put for > CFAI study, CFAI question, Sample, Mock, Other > vendors material etc. > It seemed as if CFAI wants us to read CFAI text > rather than any other preparatory material. Btw, > shcweser end of question are, more or less, > useless Your opinion, I thought end of chapter questions were great.
prabhashverma Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did you guys get a quiz asking what we use for > prepration? > Questions were related to course material we use > for exam preparatioin and it was very detailed. > They were asking like what % of time we put for > CFAI study, CFAI question, Sample, Mock, Other > vendors material etc. > It seemed as if CFAI wants us to read CFAI text > rather than any other preparatory material. Btw, > shcweser end of question are, more or less, > useless totally forgot that I needed to do that, although not mandatory. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear CFA candidate, You have been randomly selected to participate in this year’s pre- and post- exam candidate surveys. Please set aside approximately 10 minutes to complete the pre-exam survey, which asks for your study experiences and your thoughts on the CFA Institute assigned curriculum. Your feedback is critical, as it is used to help us make improvements in the CFA Program. To open the survey questionnaire, use the URL below or copy and paste it into your browser: http://vp-nri.com/take?i=149055&r=31998665&h=LOqF1hCTHDqIslySlg_Abw Because this is your private invitation to take the survey, please do not forward this e-mail or the link to anyone else. The survey will remain open until 11:59 PM PST on 29 May 2009. In mid-June, after the exams, you will receive an invitation for the post-exam survey. Again, your feedback is extremely valuable to us and we truly appreciate your participation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at marketresearch@cfainstitute.org. Thank you in advance for your time. Sincerely, Thomas R. Robinson, CFA Managing Director, Education Division CFA Institute
I think this reasoning is somewhat dumb. So if you fail it is because of Schweser. Then what if you pass? Is it also because of Schweser? How can the exact same reason be the explanation for two opposite things? It’s not Schweser’s fault. It is the candidate’s (and CFA Institute’s). You passed L1. You know how to study. You know that you need to know everything. CFAI will throw curveballs and no matter which prep provider you used (Schweser, Stalla, or CFAI), you would still have been surprised on exam day.
I think QBank is great for beating formulas and basic concepts in to your head but horrible for training you to take the actual exam. Ideally, we’d have more mocks and old exams to prepare us for all of the hidden items and trickery. It seems there is at least one thing in every vignette that needs to be uncovered.
Blaming Schweser is for weaks. You know CFAI is more compresensive, thus longer. You want shortcut, schweser is the shortcut, but obviously some details will be missed. It is the candidates responsibility to choose. Qbank is priceless, but it doesn’t claim to be alternative to real test or CFAI. It just helps you drill some concepts. Wise move would be to use schweser if you want “more for less”, but make sure you have enough knowledge for the exam… one way is to check with CFAI books or even end of chapter tests. If you do those twice, you will be ready for the real test for sure.
the show NY Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i dnt know if i passed or failed but i thought > schweser was excellent. im saying that now before > i get my results because i kno its true regardless > if i passed or failed. there was not a single > topic or term on that test which i hadnt seen in > schweser. Agreed, but I wish schweser had more complex examples in their books, and more of a variaty of questions to practice. I saw some crazy questions in Q bank that I would never expect on CFA, and feel like should not be wasting my time trying to figure them out.
Schweser covered everything ! YOu may have needed to make a few leeps of faith like using “Blume” beta adjustment etc… but come on.
I only used Schweser (CFAI texts still in the box), and I smoked that fugging exam. So maybe if you failed, it wasn’t Schweser’s fault. Just my 2bps.
If you want to spend twice amount of time studying (800 hour?) so not to miss any minutea, then go ahead. At least in that case, you have no one to blame. Let’s assuming there are 6 questions on the exam Schweser did not cover at all, you can still pass if you are solid on the rest(75% on 114Q, not an exactly tall order). There will always be one or two questions not covered by third party, but if THAT question make or break your level 2, then you are borderline to start with, bro.
i read all of CFAI and secret sauce. I never touched qbank or the schweser books. I did do 2 exams from book 6 though. Definitely even if you read all of CFAI book material, some of the minor stuff you will never remember…
the worst is incorrect formulae read one post on this forum that Price pf stock = E1/R + PVGO whereas Schweser says E/R +PVG0 … So you are screwed if you go by what schweser said … i am angry that the “schewser-gurus” cannot even proof-read their formulae …Guess thats a small risk of relying on them … but the option was using the Voluminuos books … So anways … 1 more to the list
I only used schweser…and I knew that it was E1/r+PVGO…so it must have been in there somewhere
On this topic: I haven’t checked the books but surely it is E0/r + PVGO We are trying to work out what a) The company is worth based on its current level of earnings - ie if the current level continues in perpetuity. This is going to give you a hypothetical E1 which is the same as E0. If you use the predicted E1 you are factoring in the company growing between now and the end of the year. b) the present value of growth opportunities is - ie the stock price minus the value of the current level of earning in perpetuity
guess thats what i thgt until that other thraed threw me off , apparenetly the CFAI book has the E1 formula , but the CFAI book also has a example which shows E0 being used … i would agree with E0/R . http://www.analystforum.com/phorums/read.php?12,1006254,page=2 so think we did it right … but lets see
No; you need to find the value of the firm today, and you do that by discounting next year’s earnings/dividends (one of the basic tenets of the curriculum). After finding out what the firm is worth today, you subtract that from it’s market price, and you have your PVGO. No doubt about it.
sidd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone else feel the same ??? > > I just went for schweser and I definitely feel now > that I did a big mistake by not reading the CFAI > text > > The morning session was good but got screwed in > the afternoon session I have to disagree. Schweser did an excellent job in cutting through the fat of the CFAI texts. I read the CFAI texts for L1 and I honestly did not retain much. The reading is simply too long and the practice questions are not sufficient. It’s a false pretense to assume that studying CFAI would’ve been better. It’s not like the areas in the CFAI text that are to be tested are highlighted in gold or something. It would probably be even more difficult to deduce what to focus on. I have to say that CFAI is mostly to blame on this one for being misleading. They do have the right to test whatever they want to in any way they want. But I don’t see the reason for giving sample exams that are not similar to the actual exam. I based most of what the real exam would be CFAI’s own exams. CFAI tested the major topics on its online exam and in the mock. What we got on Sat. morning was a turd sandwich. Afternoon session was a little better, but the second half of that was again just crap. For Level 1, I did see obscure material, but it was manageable. For L2, the amount of obscure material was just unnecessary and I fail to see how this would make me a star analyst.