Difference between TC and PassPerfect S7?
Can someone give me the difference between TC and PassPerfect for S7 books? Are there advantages or disadvantages to either. How about wording--I find Pass Perfect verbose.
Any input would be beneficial.
Pass Perfect probably has about twice as much information in their manual as Training Consultants. It is not a scientific comparison because I do not have the Training Consultants manual. Pass Perfect has about about 8000 questions in their online program. I am not sure how many questions Training Consultants has or how many Pass Perfect has in their physical books, which is what I think you have. Pass Perfect has a reputation for giving you a lot of information and challenging questions. Training Consultants markets their product as targeted.
When I took the CFA exams, I bought the physical textbooks as well as notes from Stalla and Schweser. I thought that more would be better than less.
I haven't used Pass Perfect, but I found Training Consultants to be very effective. Our offices required we use Fire Solutions, which didn't work well for myself and most co-workers.
mstudy is correct that other providers (Kaplan, Fire Solutions, and perhaps Pass Perfect) probably offer more material. Personally, i preferred Training Consultants.
You'll find a lot of people on this subject suggest using the Training Consultants test bank as an additional resource to your main provider.
Training Consultants gets right to the point - great course, great online exams. You may also want to supplement with Kaplan's online exams as well (Q bank).
Recently have been using TC for my series 65 as PP has let me down, their reason is that I have developed a "Cadence" with the questions. True or not, what I must note is that I have found serveral material differences in kepy concepts between the vendors.. example in TC if you are an IA with 25mm+ you must be registered as a Federal Covered Adviser..PP states at 25 you must, but past than up until 100mm its optional (either state or federal) past 100mm its manadatory... Literally complete differences in the book/online material. I contacted both vendors who argue the points.. be careful with some of the content.. Other examples included a key difference in the fee for registration... PP says entire year and not pro-rata (verbatum) and TC says pro-rata... so be careful.
Here is the rule based on the most recent law: Entities register as IAs with the SEC (Federal) or with one or more states unless excluded from the definition of investment adviser or exempt from registration. There is an asset test and the main one is 100 million. If an IA has 100 million in AUM it has the option of registering with the SEC or the states. At 110 AUM, it must register with the SEC. Fees cannot be generally pro-rated. I do not think this is specifically in the USA or related model rules but if you Google it, you will comes across several references to NO pro-rating of fees. Your point in the other thread about IRA max contributions: $5500 is the current max for someone under 50. The old max is $5000.
Exactly, it seemed that TC had material that is outdated and as I compared it to STC, I found that my old information was indeed correct. To me this is alarming for anyone taking the 66/65 with TC and not being aware of a large (20+ situations) of material that doesnt seem to line up with others, however people are still passing so its a bit odd.