Still crazy that people saying that feeling okay on the AM is around 55%? why would that be passing…but PM section was not that easy…if people felt it was supremely easy(above 85%) i feel like they fell for the obvious traps…
I found the AM quite challenging. Another 15 mins would’ve really helped me. That said, I was able to jump around and knock off the easy stuff first. I left a couple blank, maybe 10 points total which was unfortunate, but I doubt I would’ve gotten them anyway. It’s just such a tough exam, even if you’re prepared. You have to know the material inside and out and even then it’s not a sure bet.
I didn’t think the PM was bad, other than battling complete exhaustion for the last hour and a half. There were a few tough ones, but I thought it was fair overall.
I think that assumes a low/mid 60s MPS. Get 55% & 75% or vice versa and you have a good shot i think.
I thought both exams had a few points that went right into the weeds of the curriculum.
I had to sit the both the AM and PM with no calculator, since it did a vanishing act somewhere between home and the venue, gone, vanished.
So no matter how you are feeling you did, you have for sure bettered whatever score I get.
It’s interesting seeing everyone’s take on the exam. I’ve had some more time to reflect. I’m still feeling 50-50 in terms of pass/fail, but going back to the reason why I started the program in the first place, I would be okay to repeat level 3 next year. There’s really no point in passing if I don’t have a strong grasp of the material. The charter has no relevance to what I do for a living. While I have a basic-decent understanding of the l3 curriculum, it’s not as strong as I would have liked it to be. If it comes to that, I’ll definitely change a few things in my study routine. I’ll stick more closely to the curriculum, and focus less on practice questions. That style of learning worked well for L1 and L2, but for L3 (especially based on the exam experience on Saturday), you need to follow the curriculum like it’s the bible to score points on less core content and odd iterations of questions tested in prior exams.
I thought the AM was a LOT harder than the previous years, which I thought had been very general in nature and this obviously went into some dark corners of the syllabus, like the Schweser mocks did. That said I got something down for everything but a “know the formula or you’re stuffed” question so hopeful for 60+, fingers crossed the bar is lowered
The PM was OK (unless I walked into the traps you’re all talking about!!), I went through it and was pretty confident of 80% of it, so hoping to get 80-90% of this and some of the rest. Should see me through though unless I have been too generous on the morning marking.
is there an official date for results? I though it was going to be September for some reason…
well done to all, hope you’re enjoying it being over!
I threw most down a garbage shute off the 10th floor. Best sound i ever heard
Haha. My partner was complaining about a similar pile from the 1999-2018, fin quiz, IFT, CFA multi exams I printed off. I think I’ll go plant a tree to make up for it lol.
Thought AM was okay, but I’m an extremely slow writer (not to mention not being a native speaker as well), after leaving out perhaps 7-10 points I barely finished just in time, hoping to score at least 65%. As for PM, I find it relatively easy compared to mocks and practice questions provided on the CFAI website, think i’d fall in the range between 75% - 80%.
But what do I know anyway? This is just my first attempt and may likely be overconfident about my performance
…BTW, does anyone here also think that many of the practice questions were poorly structured or ambiguous?
Many candidates think that practice questions were ambiguous. Thankfully that was not the case on exam!
It was tough out there, now why would that be? Perhaps, % of re-takers ramped up significantly this year and thus a new way to test them, otherwise it would become too easy. Pass rates have been going up with last year’s being 56%. The debate has always been about all round ability to perform well under pressure and cover all topics, but now its about nitpicking minute details, not one or two but bulk of the topics. There was a higher level of skill required this time around, and my only belief is that the re-taker pile is getting bigger. This time though, there could be a lot of quitters.
It’s interesting, what you say. When I realized 2 weeks before the exam that I’m probably running out of study time, I changed my strategy, and instead of redoing the AM exams (I did 2012-2018 but just once), I made a thorough review of the material based on my notes and the EOC questions. (I did not write anything down though to spare time). And while probably everyone agrees that a thorough review of all formulas and all calculations (however “unimportant” and not core they might have seemed) was helpful, I attribute my sub optimal performance to insufficient AM exam answering routine.
Since I have read yesterday about the possible (more than possible?) reshaping of the level 3 material, I’m really down. I studied 800+ hours for this exam and apparently it was not enough. If next year most of the material is brand new, I should probably study 1,000? That’s literally not possible.
They can reshape all they want, but core topics ain’t goin’ nowhere. You’ll still have swaps and credit risk and all the other fun stuff in Derivatives, FI and Equity were just re-written in 2019 (although they should improve the carry trade section in FI). These three things represent 30-40% of the curriculum.
AM was terrible. Im expecting 50%. time management was bad a few curve balls thrown in there.
PM was good. expecting 70%. found most questions straightforward. a few guesses here but not much.
i hope for a pass but will be borderline.
Second time L3 retaker, the exam left me feeling extremely defeated and angry. There was so much content that they did not test on!!! WT actual F??
AM section seemed much harder than all previous years AM exams, and the PM exam was no better. It’s sad to spend so much time studying and sacrificing only to be hoodwinked on exam day. To be tested on what seems like only 60% of the entire curriculum is wholly unfair. It’s complete BS!
You are completely correct. You could have studied 50% of the curriculum and passed easy (being lucky you picked the correct sections), or studied 90% and failed miserably (being the unlucky person).
That is the most 100 thing I’ve ever seen posted in here. I totally agree with you. No matter what, I ain’t quittin. I’m not the give up when you don’t get what you want type.
Level 3 curriculum is easier to understand and definitely much less (1000 pages lesser than L2??), but L3 exam is much harder compared to level 1 and 2’s. Item sets that haunt us at level 2, feel easier in level 3. So, in my opinion at level 3, candidates should study using CFAI materials (Readings, EOC Questions, CFAI Website Questions along with previous years papers). That increases the chances to clear it.
You need to grow up if you’re complaining about the test being “unfair.” Are you joking? They can ask you whatever they want as long as it’s in the curriculum - it’s your job to learn the curriculum. If you had done that, you would have passed the exam. It’s completely within your control. If you argue otherwise, you were relying too much on luck going into exam day.
That’s pretty harsh taker19. Fairness has to do with being rewarded for effort. None of us are dumb at level 3 and we’ve all taken prep seriously to get this far. What’s ridiculous is that it’s easier to become a doctor than a financial analyst with a CFA charter. That’s what’s frustrating about the exam. In my view, CFAI should open the floodgates at level 3.