标题: Areas of the syllabus not covered by Schweser [打印本页] 作者: Bluetick1010 时间: 2013-8-13 15:51 标题: Areas of the syllabus not covered by Schweser
Are there any glaring omissions from the Schweser notes?
I’m sure most people that have taken the 2013 paper will have said to themselves “wtf is the Taylor Rule?” (unless I’m missing something!)
I’ve also read on AF that there’s a 3rd party mock exam that focussed on inverse floaters in fixed income, I don’t recall seeing anything on them in schweser.
Are there any other areas that Schweser missed completely or didn’t focus on enough?作者: malbec 时间: 2013-8-13 15:51
One that comes to mind is the economic growth theories - Schweser gives cursory summaries and they’re important.
Unrelated update: I still hate Econ.作者: torontoanalyst 时间: 2013-8-13 15:51
Oh, did they? I haven’t looked at any videos.作者: ASSet_MANagemen 时间: 2013-8-13 15:52
I agree the the Schweser notes didn’t cover the growth theories very well. I’ve not used the videos so they may well have done a better job explaining them there.
I also still hate econ! It’s probably the only topic that I haven’t found at all interesting. I’ve even learned to like FRA but most of econ just pisses me off. I’ve scored ok in econ in mocks though.作者: soverby 时间: 2013-8-13 15:52
I’ve come across a few things (ibbotson chen, types of reits, blume method). For the most part though, I doubt it’s that they forget to mention things but just deem them quite insignificant in the big picture.
As for the OP, i have ZERO idea about the taylor rule and inverse floaters on FI, so I’m going to agree that they were probably left out as well.作者: tango_gs 时间: 2013-8-13 15:52
The CF reading about cost of capital, where you have the MM propositions, is very poor covered by Scheweser in my opinion. I have read it from CFAI and is much clearer.
I have read only 2 full readings from CFAI, the other one being Pension, which was not clear for me after reading from schweser.作者: AndyNZ 时间: 2013-8-13 15:52
Schweser left out all areas of the syllabus that aren’t refered to in the LOS, quite rightly in my opinion.
Overall I think Schweser did a good job of covering level 2.作者: mp3bu 时间: 2013-8-13 15:53
ok the whole they did a good job but there are definitely areas they could improve.
I’m quite sure CFA deliberatly set a few questions a year that schweser haven’t covered作者: d2rockstar 时间: 2013-8-13 15:53
