Comparison between 2013 and 2016 SchweserNotes

[Shaz12]

I was comparing the 2013 and 2016 edition books for fixed income and more specifically the credit analysis part and I found a section in the 2013 edition which the 2016 one does not have and the concept is also there in 2016 CFA Institiute curriculum notes.The deleted concept just states that while calculating the return impact of change in spreads the convexity should have a order of magnitude of the modified durations’s square and there are solved examples on this.
Does Schweser randomly delete content like this inspite of it being covered in their old edition?.Is it necessary to study these portions from the old books?

 

[kienha93]

You mean there is a part in the CFA cirriculum, which is not covered in 2016 schweser book but appeared in 2013 schweser book. I believe Schweser always update their book to make sure it complies with the CFA cirriculum. If what you said is true, which is weird, I think you should study from the cirriculum because who knows how different that part in the current cirriculum could be compared with the 2013 schweser note.

 

[Shaz12]

kienha93 wrote:
You mean there is a part in the CFA cirriculum, which is not covered in 2016 schweser book but appeared in 2013 schweser book. I believe Schweser always update their book to make sure it complies with the CFA cirriculum. If what you said is true, which is weird, I think you should study from the cirriculum because who knows how different that part in the current cirriculum could be compared with the 2013 schweser note.

The 2013 Notes had a specific LOS for the concept in question “Calculate the return impact of spread changes.” .This was removed in the later version of the curriculum but they merged it into the previous LOS.Schweser removed it entirely which is pretty serious IMO because Wiley didnt delete it when I checked their 2016 notes

 

[cpk123]

1. DO NOT rely on a study provider completely.
2. Even if you do - look back at the curriculum + LOS + treatment in the CFAI books.
The study providers provide a condensed version of the curriculum (they are a short cut) - and many a time something the institute considers important (by looking at the different ways something is considered then reconsidered in different parts of the curriculum) may be considered unimportant by the provider.

 

[kienha93]

Shaz12 wrote:

kienha93 wrote:
You mean there is a part in the CFA cirriculum, which is not covered in 2016 schweser book but appeared in 2013 schweser book. I believe Schweser always update their book to make sure it complies with the CFA cirriculum. If what you said is true, which is weird, I think you should study from the cirriculum because who knows how different that part in the current cirriculum could be compared with the 2013 schweser note.

The 2013 Notes had a specific LOS for the concept in question “Calculate the return impact of spread changes.” .This was removed in the later version of the curriculum but they merged it into the previous LOS.Schweser removed it entirely which is pretty serious IMO because Wiley didnt delete it when I checked their 2016 notes

I understand now. At first, I thought Schweser don’t include a whole LOS, not just a concept. If you don’t see schweser include a concept that you found on the cirriculum, it is because they think it is unimportant and they automatically think you don’t need that concept to understand the other parts. When I take the level I exam, I also find that loophole and decide to ignore it ( probably because I don’t think it is important too). If you think it is important for you, I strongly suggest you to read the curriculum. I guess you don’t want to avoid that part and feel regret if they have a question about it in the exam, right.

 

[sydneyguy]

In such cases, CFA Institute Curriculum text books are source of truth.