+1 CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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.
sidd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can confidently say now that if someone wants to > fail every year he can continue to rely solely on > schweser Wrong. I went 3/3 with only Schweser
Schweser isn’t flawless, but next time if you want try using CFAI material. Now that, my friend, is suicide. The only thing Schweser is a bit off about is the sample exams, which are way too computational in Schweser. But everyone on that board already new that.
skillionaire Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. I fear your right, but if your discounting a future CF that has implied growth built in, it really isnt theoretically correct. “earnings in place” should really be just that, the earnings for the year, quarter etc… and then PVGO would include and growth, by discounting to the current price. This was one of those questions I knew i should have used E1 by my logic ruled out my knowledge which blows. I think there is a case to be made for E0, because you really are implicitly assuming that this years growth is part of earnings in place. But whatevs. fuckers.
“I fear your right” Consider this your officialy notice that your fears have just been realized. Not going to get into a philosophical discussion about it, but my answer is marked “correct” by the scantron, whereas yours is “incorrect”.
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 Uh no, if you fail it’s because you decided to be lazy and took the easy route. The tests are based on CFAI materials. It is YOUR fault you went with a secondary source rather than the primary. Would you use Wikipedia for your thesis and then blame Wikipedia when you get a bad grade? Unreal.
I used Wikipedia for my thesis and now I am a doctor. Who wants an operation?
If I fail, the reason will be me… Then again, If I pass, the reason will be the same.
I will kill you skillionaire, and the reasoning will be sound !
El Matarife Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > Uh no, if you fail it’s because you decided to be > lazy and took the easy route. The tests are based > on CFAI materials. It is YOUR fault you went with > a secondary source rather than the primary. Would > you use Wikipedia for your thesis and then blame > Wikipedia when you get a bad grade? Unreal. This is such a poor statement. Just because you read the CFAI materials and do all the end of chapter questions is by no means a golden ticket to pass L2. As I said before, you could’ve just studied with CFAI and came to the same conclusion that Schweser lead you to. This was to focus on the MAIN topics such as Intercorp. investments, Pensions, Multinational, etc… Even in the CFAI books, all the vignettes focused primarily on the main topics. The online practice exams and the mock exam focused primarily on the main topics. The online exams in particular were focused on the main topics/visible topics. The mock did have some odd ball questions if I remember correctly, but they were manageable. If you did this (which is what I did) you would be screwed. What CFAI did IMO was a giant FU to everyone that relied on Schweser. Also IMO they did a giant FU to anyone who relied on CFAI’s own practice matierial. It was horribly misleading. Am I bitter? Of course. I just studied my ass off only to find that a large chunk of the exam were materials I briefly touched. If CFAI wants to test this way. Fine. Its their test, they can throw a question on quantum mechanics or 16th century french poetry for all I care. But, don’t mislead me through your own practice exams and practice vignettes.
I thought the same last year, but in reality you really need to master the main areas while also FULLY understand the narrow topics. Last year, I basically read 2 out of the 6 text and then use Schwesser fully including mock, sample, q-bank, video, etc and came out like a dumb@ss in the afternoon session (it was the same easy morning, hard afternoon this year). I know I made the mistake so I decided to read the text, all 6, page to page. In addition, anytime I have a problem when I did the sample questions, I went back and reread the whole chapter. On top of that, I spend 2 out of 7 days last week reading stupid topics like Alternative Investments, Earnings Quality, etc just because I don’t have full grasp of the material and I can’t quite remember everything that I read in the last 4 months (started studying in February). Is it a pain, hell yes, it is. Is it worth it, I won’t even need to wait until August to find out. So in the end, I tried the easy way out and paid 1 year of my life for it. So I blame myself and not the material. It is true that Schweser has some good material, but as they even indicated, they are providing supplemental materials, not replacement. Stalla got me out of Level I (trust me, their material is a joke compare to Schweser), but it really doesn’t mean that you can repeat the success at II and III. For next year’s level III, I’ll probably be looking for a study group where I can argue and argue and argue until we all finally understand the material that we can all be drunk and still be able to pass the exam.
Because you sound like you smoked it, was the answer mature or transitional? Also, was 10% wrong?
TheAliMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because you sound like you smoked it, was the > answer mature or transitional? Also, was 10% > wrong? lol. Nice with the 3 edits. I guess you couldn’t even decide yourself on what the answer was just now.
TheAliMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Qbank was a joke looking back now… yes it was but still i’d say it was not a complete waste of time.
TheAliMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because you sound like you smoked it, was the > answer mature or transitional? Also, was 10% > wrong? for me. 1. transitional 2. yes, put 3% if you are talking about econ