STC Training for Series 79

STC is a good firm. Much of Wall Street uses them to train their incoming analysts.

In all likelihood, if you need the Series 79, your firm will pay for it, anyways.

The problem with the 79 is that it's such a new test that they don't really know comprehensively what's on the test compared to the 63 or 7. From what I've heard they are constantly updating their materials with feedback they receive from people taking the test, so your best bet is to hold off as long as you can. The only issue in terms of STC I've heard is that they have you study so much more additional material that is not necessarily on the exam (to ensure you pass), which is not necessarily a bad thing, except you aren't focusing as much on the material that is 100% on the exam if you are trying to memorize a bunch of specific scenarios they come up with.

Studying for the 79 really makes me hate everything about wall street.

Does anyone know the passing rate of analysts using STC?

I'm doing well on the STC practice exams, but I just don't know how representative they are to the Series 79.

Is there anyone here who has used STC and taken the exam?

I was getting low 70s high 60s on the practice tests and ended up with a score in the 80s on the real one. Not as bad as people make it out to be. Make sure to take all of the STC online practice exams and focus on the chapters that cover regulation.

Knopman's programs are the best I'm aware of.

talked with a bank that had STC and heard that pass rate was ~70%

The test is almost identical to the STC Q&A exams. If you do all of these and read the explanations, you really have no reason to fail. I only read a few of the chapters and then studied for a good 3-4 days with the practice tests and easily passed. I don't know why WSO claims STC somehow isn't good material...I'm dead serious when I say the exam is basically identical to the practice exams.

Agreed youngblood. Scored in the 90's on the actual test after cramming using just STC's book and going through about 1/3 of their practice problems. STC lectures aren't usefule, but many of the questions on STC's practice test are IDENTICAL to actual questions on the 79.

My advice is to study chapters 7, 8, and 9 of the STC textbook, and do every Q&A problem for those chapters.

Is there anyone in the NYC area willing to part with their Series 79 and 63 study materials?

I agree - an insane # of questions from STC ended up on the exam. Almost word-for-word. I scored in the 70s on STC practice exams and in the 80s on the actual exam. In fact, I thought STC was much harder, especially for questions like valuation and fin statement analysis, which I think were unnecessarily overcomplicated in STC materials. On the actual test they're extremely easy.

Basically, your only problem is going to be questions on underwriting and general securities regs. M&A is a lot of new material, too, but at least it's useful and somewhat interesting that you should breeze through it. Definitely concentrate on chapters 1,7,8,9.

And those who complain about STC should know that there are banks who use much much much much worse vendors (Pass7Fast, for instance).

Anyone have a sense of what fall 2010 STC materials are like for the current exam? I was able to get a set of materials from fall 2010 and I sit for the 79 first week of January 2012. Thanks all.

nick_123:

What is your opinion on using STC to prepare for the Series 79?

What is the main reason some people are not satisfied with it? Are there not enough relevant questions on the practice exams or is the material too hard and comprehensive?

It cannot be that bad if most BBs are using them, right?

If you have the choice, DO NOT USE STC. I studied for the test for weeks, learning the concepts backwards and forwards. Then, THEN, I started on their exams. I was scoring in the upper 80's on almost all of them. It made me feel pretty confident about the exam, but I kept studying. Then, the day before I went to take the exam, my friend handed me a bullet list from Knopeman discussing key concepts to know on the exam. That alone got helped me to pass. I have NO idea why firms recommend STC. In all honesty,a substantial portion of the exam WAS NOT COVERED AT ALL in their material. And, in many cases, what was covered was extremely vague, and the actual exam dove in deeper than what they taught. I went through the exam before I submitted it, and memorized questions to review when I got to my car. Sure enough, it was not in the material from STC. I would recommend anyone to seriously consider another company.

This is not a fluke, either. I felt the same way for the Series 63 with STC. Much of the info was not included. That test was much easier, and I used logic for many of the questions. I ended up with a score in the high 80's. But still, it says something about a company that they are having issues on both exams. Don't believe me? Do a google search. Much of the material that helped me pass the exam was from past college courses. I would say that STC prepared me for maybe 55% of the exam. The rest was either past knowledge, the Knopeman guide, or pure luck.

DO NOT TAKE FROM STC!!!

I'll step off my post now. Thanks

I agree. STC is dogshit compared to Knopman. And it's more expensive.

Knopman all the way for Series Exams.

My bank tried to get me STC and I requested Knopman instead and they got it for me.

If you don't use Knopman then it is fail.