Are schweser study notes enough alone

M

maddane

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2026
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

Im new to this and taking the CFA level one. I have an undergrad degree in accounting and banking & Finance.

Can anyone please tell me if they think that the schweser study notes alone are enough, cos i noticed they have all these packages.

Looking forward to your responses.

Thanks
 
use the search function. this has been discussed ad nauseam.
 
lola, you stole my line! Violation of Standard IC: Misrepresentation, hehe. No worries, I'll just be expecting those royalties :D

http://www.analystforum.com/phorums/read.php?11,580026,580031#msg-580031

maddane, you're probably fine at Level I w/ just notes (with the exception of Ethics and GIPS), but thereafter I recommend using the CFAI volumes to complement your notes, which you'll own anyway due to their automatic inclusion with test registration beginning in '08. Beyond that, as lola said, check out what's already posted.

Cheers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 02:40AM by hiredguns1.
 
rephrased...

lola, a Level I Candidate and analyst at Long Term AF Management, is approached by a prospective AF client who inquires as to what kind of return he can expect from his study-materials investment. Lola recalls a recent AF post written by a colleague that almost perfectly meets this prospective client's needs. Knowing that time is of the essence, lola quickly rearranges the sentence structure of his colleague's report and affixes his AF handle to the post, without crediting his colleague for the original post. Moreover, lola promises that the prospective client will find the answer to his question by using AF's search function. The prospective client is impressed with lola's credentials and proceeds to use AF's search function. Lola has most likely

A) violated Standard III(C): Duties to Clients: Suitability, because he didn't consider the suitability of AF's search function for the prospective client, who can't be assumed to have the time, inclination or risk tolerance for AF's search function.

B) NOT violated Standard II(A): Integrity of Capital Markets: Material Nonpublic Information, because he used both public information and material, non-public information which is permitted under Mosaic Theory.

C) violated Standard I(C): Professionalism: Misrepresentation, because he didn't credit his colleague with the original AF post.

D) violated Standard I(C): Professionalism: Misrepresentation, because he guaranteed a minimum return on the prospective client's investment in study materials which could be learned by using AF's search function.


... couldn't resist :/
 
I just received the Schwester books, they are quite small compare to the CFA ones.
So I really don t know if using only these books are enough. It is more focusing on the exercise and practice side of the studies.
Anyway there is a lot of blabla in the cfa books.
 
Hiredguns1, I have deeply enjoyed this post. It indicates the much deserved attention Ethics and Standards is getting after the stats from last Junes results.
 
Did someone succeed in June only with the Schwester Books ?
 
hahah, hiredguns1 you crack me up :))

I'd go with B, sort of. The info I'm disseminating is not proprietary, therefore I'm not obligated to cite sources :P

as for the search function remark, hey I've been saying that all along.
 
hehe lola, all along huh? Maybe I'm the one who should be paying royalties...

However, I regret to inform you that by selecting Answer B, you've fallen into the trap. Notice it says "material, non-public information" rather than "non-material, non-public information." Only the latter is permissible in Mosaic Theory.

Always guess C!

You'll thank me later when you crush Ethics this December :)
 
hiredguns1 , I'm thanking you already :) You've been great help so far.

As for selecting B, that's why I said sort of and it was also meant to be jocular.
In all honesty, I haven't covered Ethics properly yet, but I love the fun way of learning around here. Sometimes, we don't even realize how much we learn just by casually browsing posts.
 
I am. Schweser is good enough.
p.s. I got an MBA in finance........so.......enough for me, I am not sure for anyone else.
 
I must say after spending the last 3 hours reading about ethics, standards and the examples I found myself laughing out loud at this thread!!! Thanks.

On a more serious note - I recently took the 7, 63 and 24 NASD exams and found a lot of parallels between the CFA Ethics and Standards and what I learned recently. Do other people feel the same way?
 
hiredguns1, I just reread your post. Just for the record, I'm a female.

The constant usage of masculine pronouns in the third person singular in books, study notes, etc seems a bit archaic to me anyway and it's one of my pet peeves. Just an OT.
 
Maddane,

I recently graduated with a BS in Finance in May and used only the schweser notes and q-bank for my studying to pass this past June. I did read the first book (ethics, quant, tvm) from the cfai curriculum but decided my time would be spent better elsewhere.

With that being said, if you choose to rely soley on the studynotes you have to really know them inside out as they cut the curriculum down to a quarter of its original size. So be comfortable with the ideas, concepts, theories, etc. inside and out and you should be fine based on your background. The notes also give you a quick enough read that you have plenty of time to review them in their entirety a second time and refresh areas a third time as you work through q-bank. I'd also highly recommend CFAI tests although $50 a pop is steep, but there were at least half a dozen questions that I recalled from those exams come test day. That was my approach but to each his/her own. Best of luck.

Lakai
 
lola Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hiredguns1, I just reread your post. Just for the
> record, I'm a female.
>
> The constant usage of masculine pronouns in the
> third person singular in books, study notes, etc
> seems a bit archaic to me anyway and it's one of
> my pet peeves. Just an OT.

Ms. lola, now that I know your pet peeve, it's all over. I'm keeping a list.

In the meantime, you still get a Stephen Colbert "wag of the finger" for the "ad nauseum" post. When you get your PASS result in January, I'll upgrade you to "tip of the hat."

I'll also be more consciencious of my third-person singular pronouns. It seems my male chauvinism is die-hard :p

Cheers.
 
whoa mucho appreciation, hired. No need to watch your grammar though, that's not what we're here for. I just think it's an interesting observation, that's all. I'm not a die hard feminist (not in a psychotic way anyway). So there ya go, sans any hard feelings :))

looking forward to the brownie points in January :p that tip of the hat thing is a whole new motivation on its own. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top