not the 7 so i'm sure you studied way more, but holy fuck the relief when i finished the 65. don't know if it was intentional or random but first 30 or so questions were easy af, then the middle got tough as hell and just knew i was going to fail. end of the test got pretty easy again, ended up with a 83. i got really drunk that night. good luck
I've gotten 5 80s and above on pass perfect tests in a row. It's supposed to be harder than the real thing so we will see.
Yea the tests are specifically designed that way. Brain is so fried right now. Hope I can get some decent sleep tonight
The practice tests are a very good indicator for success on the Series 7. I was getting 85-90% on the practice exams and got like 90-91% when I took the real thing. It was easier and I knew I had passed well before it was over.
I'm confident I've mastered the concepts. It's all the little rules that get me but my practice tests are brutal on that stuff and the test only has two sets of answers instead of four so hopefully I can just deduct and split those guys down the middle
I wouldn't worry too much. Options felt to be about 30% of the test and is simple addition and subtraction. If you get 50% correct on the rest of the test you are right on the threshold of passing.
I'm working on the 65 right now, and need to just get serious and start studying more than reading a couple hours a week. Any advice for those who have passed, spend more time reading or just practice test the shit out of it?
I bought the AGN 330 calls expiring December 4th. The merger talks between PFE and AGN are expected to be completed by late November if a deal gets done at all so I bought the options expiring the next week. This deal certainly may not get done but if it does the price for AGN will probably be at least 350 if not even higher so I think the risk is worth the potential reward.
i just passed the 65 last month. i studied for about 5 months (not everyday, have a full time job & kids). i read the entire book and did the end of the chapter quizzes (made copies of quizzes before). read the book again & took quizzes again. then i started taking the practice tests. took the first 10, was making anywhere from 65%-80%. skimmed through book again. retook the first 10 tests and was making all passing grades, mostly 80% or above. started taking the last 10 tests, by the final 5 i was making over 93% on all tests, realized all the questions were repeats at this point and i knew the answers (even if it was a, b, c, d, fuck you stc for not even bothering to change the answers). so this freaked me out i really didn't know my shit, just memorized the questions. read the book 1 more time over the last few days. like a said in a post a few up. beginning was easy, only marked 2 of my first 30 questions to come back for review, then the middle mentally kicked my ass, there were some questions that i'm positive were not covered in my study material. i was almost sick thinking i was going to fail. but it got easier towards the end and i made a 83%. here is the breakdown of my test: Economic Factors & Business Info: 19 Questions. this is the part that kicked my ass (63%), they asked some insanely specific questions about balance sheets, all i had remembered was a balance sheet had assets, liabilities & stockholder equity (and what could be computed with them) Invesment Vehicle Characteristics: 31 Questions. 80% on this part. wasn't too bad, i got some credit shelter trust questions wrong (i think) Client Investment Recommendations & Strategies: 40 Questions. 87%, was pretty straightforward Laws, Regulations & Guidelines. 40 Questions. kicked ass on this part, made 92% don't know what company you used, i ordered my stuff through maggie shine (but they all may be the same, they sent me a STC study guide). but if yours isn't STC i have a login to take all their practice tests you are welcome to use, think its valid through may 2016
there's not much point to holding a target retirement fund with two other large caps funds. There's lots of overlap there and while your target fund adjusts it's allocations the other two remain static, which will mess up your "target" goals. Either commit all the way to target style or create an AA of your own with domestic large cap, small cap, intl ...
The rumors are heating up that PFE may pay 370-380 for AGN. Needless to say this would be awesome for my 330 AGN calls expiring December 4.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/he...hed-and-now-i-owe-e-trade-10644556-2015-11-19 https://www.gofundme.com/jwctrek Dude lost ~$145k shorting a $2 stock and now is asking for money on GoFundMe. Make sure you donate
Got an 84 on the S7. BOM just took me to lunch to "celebrate" and told me he wants me to knock out the 66 by Christmas. Fuck.
I think I only had a week or two between the 7 and 66. The 66 has way less material than the 7 so you can knock the material out quickly and get on with the practice exams after a couple days. IMO, the 7 is easier though. The 65 portion of the 66 is easy and gives you free points to work with. The 63 portion (blue sky laws) is the stuff that sucked because it is a lot of memorizing legal definitions. (granted, this is my recollection from 13 years ago)
So, I saw that it was announced that this is happening at $363.63 per share. I get that the price wont immediately shoot up to that #, but can someone explain to me why shares of AGN have gone down today? I figured they would at the least go up a little bit with this seemingly good news.
Yea it was tough. I have zero background in finance and that almost kept me from getting the job. The guy Im working for overlooked that part of my resume because he knows me personally and knows I can get out there and get clients. It sounds dumb but I wanted to show him I could learn the concepts and pass the test easily. Plus I would get fired if I tried to be slick and take the test earlier and go for a 74 or whatever and somehow get a 70. I know thats the most impressive route but I just couldn't risk it.
They must not think that the deal will go through. There is always some discount to the ultimate price due to risk of it falling through but this is shocking. Figured it would at least be trading 340 or so and I would still have a nice profit but looks like a definite loss. I had a similar trade earlier this year in TWC. I bought the calls and they got taken over but the stock traded down like AGN did today due to regulatory risks. From everything I have read the government cant stop this deal but the price of the stock says otherwise.
Thanks for the response. I was wondering if it was due to some concern, but the articles I read made it sound like the deal was solid and done.... Guess that's what I get for scanning a few articles and not really doing research.
This guy is the investing version of a lib arts major with $100k in student loan debt out there protesting and demanding their loans be forgiven immediately and all college be given for free.
LONDON (Reuters) - The outlook for the global economy next year is darkening, with a U.S. recession and China becoming the first major emerging market to slash interest rates to zero both potential scenarios, according to Citi. As the U.S. economy enters its seventh year of expansion following the 2008-09 crisis, the probability of recession will reach 65 percent, Citi's rates strategists wrote in their 2016 outlook published late on Tuesday. A rapid flattening of the bond yield curve towards inversion would be an key warning sign. "The cumulative probability of U.S. recession reaches 65 percent next year," Citi's rates strategists wrote in their 2016 outlook published late on Tuesday. "Curve inversion will likely come more quickly than the consensus thinks." Normally, short-dated yields such as two-year yields are lower than longer-dated ones like 10-year yields, as investors demand a premium for taking on risk several years into the future. The curve has inverted before each of the last five U.S. recessions since the mid-1970s. In China, deflationary pressures and downside risks to growth will force Beijing to loosen fiscal policy, let the yuan depreciate and perhaps become the first major emerging market economy to cut interest rates to zero, Citi said. -- 2 things: 1. refi your student loans (pm my ass before this shit hit the fan) 2. we fucked 2a. it "has" been nearly 6 years now without a recession 2b. but we will never climb out of 2-2.5% growth due to dodd-frank and obamacare
Eh, there aren't a lot of bright spots right now. Anything that comes out of the ground is down significantly yoy, telecom is atrocious, somehow financials are skyrocketing because of rising interest rates when there is not a single person who can realistically claim they know how this rate hike cycle will play out, Oklahoma City is about to go under because CHK funds the entire city, the HY market is struggling and reluctant to fund M&A, and retailers are getting hammered. There aren't a lot of bright spots out there right now.
I think the risks are constrained. China will stabilize and Europe may bounce around after the Paris attacks, but it isn't a lingering concern. The dollar will be a factor but will only get better going into the middle of next year. Despite concerns about consumer spending numbers, they're probably better than they look as e-commerce, auto, and housing are really strong. I still see a pro-growth stance.
Since GDP growth is capped at 2-2.5% because of Obama, Dodd, and Frank, I don't know how one would be pro growth.
As noted here last week, based on a report by the Mercatus Center, "Dodd-Frank's 27,669 rules are five times more than any other law and more than the total number of new regulations 'for all other laws passed during the Obama administration put together.'" This regulatory siege under Dodd-Frank has created what Wallison calls a "bifurcated" economy. While big companies can still raise money in global financial markets, small companies depend on banks for financing. So despite the Fed's zero-interest rate policy, the new rules have severely limited credit to small companies — taking a huge bite out of our recovery. "Since most of the growth in the U.S. economy, and especially employment, comes from small firms, the economy is underperforming" and will keep doing so until the law is altered or repealed, Wallison said. Based on recent estimates, U.S. GDP today is about $1.8 trillion less than it should be with a normal recovery. So that may just be the price tag for Dodd-Frank. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-economic-growth-after-2010.htm#ixzz3tEKnp5Zv -- i dont really need to tell you the effects of obamacare on small business, do i? lawyers and accountants may win.. but that really isnt a solid foundation for long-term sustained growth.
pro growth relative to your aforementioned restrictions. mainly, i surely dont think we will be near a recession.
From JP morgan this morning. My sentiments exactly ... fade the SPX 2100 level US macro update. For the tape overall, the set-up for the SPX still doesn’t seem great. Periodic anxiety about missing a year-end Santa melt-up rally can squeeze the FANG+MSFT complex at times (such as occurred Tues) but ex out those five stocks the underlying price action is decidedly more mixed. The obstacles of earnings + multiples still makes 2100 a level to fade and it continues to feel like the SPX will end the year not much better than flat.
If that report above is saying the probability of a US recession next year is 65% then I think that is too high (I'd personally put it closer to 30-35%). I'm confused though because it says the probability will reach 65% next year which to me is forecasting the 12-month forecast, meaning that there is a 65% chance of a recession by 2017. That seems totally reasonable to me but I could be totally overthinking it.
Ag commodity prices are way down so large equipment retailing is garbage. Land is somehow still staying afloat but I have no idea how. Metal commodity prices are down because of China's decline so the steel/scrap/recycling industries are all hurting. At this point, there's a ton of stuff going on that points to a decline in a bunch of major industries...most of which are directly tied to commodity prices.
Help me out here guys as I will be a first time home owner in the next 6 months. When the economy blew up 7 years ago and there was this housing crisis, I heard about all these people being affected with their mortgages, but answer me this.... If I have a fixed rate mortgage, don't lose my job and continue making monthly payments on time, how would a drop in the appraised value of my house have an immediate negative impact on me? I could be wrong, but in that scenario I see it just like a paper loss in stocks, as long as you don't try to sell it at a low, there is no realized loss, right? So if that's true (maybe it isn't?) why did everybody have so much trouble with mortgages 7 years ago? Was it the people with second mortgages and things like that?
The problem was people bought houses they couldn't afford due to lax lending standards at the outset. There were also some more exotic mortgage products that contributed to issues. You get a fixed rate mortgage on a house that you can afford and it shouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately both those things were issues for lots of people in 2008.
Yea that makes sense. I guess the thing I never understood was, if you kept your job and income stayed the same, why would the economy dropping and house prices dropping have any effect on your ability to pay a bill, unless the interest rate went up dramatically. Going through the mortgage pre approval process though,I do understand how people could easily get in over their heads. I ran conservative numbers and decided about $280K house was the max I'd be comfortable with but the banks approved us for like $450K. That's insane.
The economy went to shit and many people couldn't make their mortgage payments because they lost their job. I forget the exact number but the unemployment number jumped from ~4% to like 10% (not sure what the peak unemployment level was.) People were allowed to buy houses with no money down etc and when they went to sell their houses they could not because they were underwater on their loans. So imagine going to the table to sell your house and having to take $20k with you.
The first pocket of weakness was subprime loans that had teaser rates. Unemployment ticked up which caused issues and even those that kept their job were ill prepared when their 3% loan started charging 9% after 2 years. The default rate on those were ticking up a full year in advance of a lot of the carnage. The unemployment rate ticked up further and mortgage issues carried through to the exotic mortgages like reverse amortizers (pay less than is due and the shortfall just gets added to the principal outstanding), IOs (Interest only), ARMs (Adjustable Rate) and people that were overleveraged either buy buying too much house or adding a HELOC and taking their equity out in cash to fund other things. In markets like Florida you also had a lot of people buying second and third homes to speculate on housing price appreciation. And people definitely did lose their job and had to stop paying which contributed to a tick up in foreclosures and a decline in housing prices. In your example none of those thing would effect you because you have a job and your rate is fixed. However, the problem when housing prices fell 20% or more, is that people like you that can afford their payment are confronted with the moral and financial dilemma of whether they should continue to pay for a house that is underwater or walk-away. For instance, if you paid $800k for your house with no money down and then your neighbor with a nearly identical house just went through foreclosure and had their house sell for $500k, are you going to continue paying the $800k mortgage or are you going to stop paying, live free for a year while the bank puts you through foreclosure (or short sale), and then rent with a full year of no house payments in your pocket?