It seems as if AF members are overly concerned with “calculation” questions… Is this just because most of you use Schweser and it is much more quantitative than the CFA curriculum? For level 1 I didn’t use Schweser and I thought the exam was much more qualitative which was very consistent with most of the LOS not being calculations but “define” “compare” etc. For level 2 I have not been using Schweser again and find the actual material to be very qualitative (with certain chapters notable exceptions) I am spending a lot more of my time on qualitative comparisons and understanding and would appreciate if any retakers could give their thoughts on whether they felt the exam was more qualitative similar to level 1
70-30 which way?
30% calculations and 70% qualitative
I believe Stalla’s statistic shows a 40/60 split.
Hi all, So based on these numbers, how do you rate schweser practice exams? Thanks
solarpower03 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi all, > So based on these numbers, how do you rate > schweser practice exams? > Thanks 5/10
see as many problems as you can… If you see numbers better and a qualitative question comes up about the effect on a ratio, just make up the numbers and plug them into a formula and see what happens. practicing quantitative helps me understand the qualitative better, as weird as that sounds…
I do concur with your views CFAdrreams.
I agree with you 100% CFAdreams
I would somewhat disagree. At least on level 1 I found a number of questions where they didn’t take out the 2x4 and say plug this into an equation and spit out a qualitative answer. And if it doesn’t explicitly say some buzzword you might not even know what formula to plug it into… for example: Analyst Bob is evaluating a mid-cap industrial company IND. He believes the Industrial Production & Capacity Utilization data is a good indicator for the company’s place (with a 1-2 month lag) in the business cycle. Both production and utilization are near historic lows. In its latest quarterly earnings the company barely maintained profitability, EPS was $0.10 down materially from the same quarter the year before. The analyst maintains his price target. He is likely valuing the stock using: A) Normalized earnings; trailing PE multiple increases B) Next FY earnings forecast; trailing PE multiple increases C) Normalized earnings; leading PE multiple maintained might trip some people up… as opposed to if I hit you in the head with the term (Molodovsky Effect)
i believe officially, the CFAI says 30-40% is quantitative.
Is the answer C?
I mean it isn’t a real cfa question I just made it up… but no the answer is A