REG – Property Transactions Wiley v. Becker

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #168476
    Tina82
    Member

    Wiley has a section on property transactions (lots of mortgage/deed questions) that don’t seem to be covered in Becker. Am I missing something?

    R - 74;88
    A - 84
    B - 74;89
    F - no study = 67; May 15 = 87 & done

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #334396
    PistolPete
    Member

    Becker drops the ball on some of the smaller areas in REG. I've seen some people say that Property is no longer tested…but I can assure you that it is. Know it…and any other material listed ancillary in Becker.

    FAR - 68, 79
    AUD - 82
    REG - 71, 71, 80
    BEC - 76

    CMA
    Part 1: October 2013
    Part 2: January 2014

    #334397
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Becker does have bit info. on deed and stuff like that, but not much as MCQs as Wiley.

    I used Becker and Wiley for REG. I did Becker MCQs at least 4-5 times and SIMS 2-3times. However, for Wiley, I only used it for Tax purposed. I didn't have enough time to go over all the MCQs, but did tax MCQs and SIMS.

    I didn't see anything (besides one or two questions) on my exams that I didn't cover during my studying…meaning property tran wasn't a huge deal for my exam. I'm not saying it's not important, but just wasn't for my exam.

    #334398
    Tina82
    Member

    PistolPete thanks.

    It's definitely listed in the content outline, and I think most of it is covered Becker in one way or another, the one section in wileytestbank (I only have that, not the book) is just called “property,” which is mostly the mortgage/deed questions I referenced above. This I have not seen in Becker anywhere.

    CPA628 I'll look for it for completely don't recall deed from my first round. Probably will just use the wiley mcqs for that topic.

    R - 74;88
    A - 84
    B - 74;89
    F - no study = 67; May 15 = 87 & done

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • The topic ‘REG – Property Transactions Wiley v. Becker’ is closed to new replies.