This concept seems easy at first, but can be tricky. IMHO it seems the variable to watch for is whether or not the unexpected occurrence was included as part of the original analysis. If the reason the analyst is wrong is because one variable they considered in their analysis was not accurate and this played a significant role in their incorrect analysis, it is the “if only” defence (like that “c” there?). However, if there was an unexpected variable that led to the inaccurate analysis, then it would be considered Ceteris Paribas (that “if, then” reasoning can throw people off I think). Fin Ninja claims in this thread (http://www.analystforum.com/phorums/read.php?13,1232721,1233100#msg-1233100) EDIT: referencing EOC 1 reading 13 Start Quote- "The “If only” defense claims the analyst would have been right “if only” the analyst had been listened to, whereas the Ceterus Parabus defense implies that the analyst was right but something else happened that threw off the results. In the cheif economist’s analysis the forcasted GDP was strong because he thought interests would be low, but instead GDP was not strong because the fed raised int. rates. the cheif economist blames the inaccuracy on the fed’s decision to raise rates. " -End Quote To SkipE99 (me), It makes sense this would fall under “If Only” under the previous assumption since the analyst forecasted low interest rates, but the Fed raised rates. In other words, he was right if only the Feds would not have raised rates. He was right “if only” the variable he took under consideration was correct. OR “I would have been right if only that variable was supposed to act the way my analysis indicated it should react” Wikipedia gives the following description of Ceteris Parabus- Start WIKI quote “So, for example, if I say “If the current month is February—ceteris paribus—then it will last only 28 days,” then the ceteris paribus clause is added in order to exclude the possibility that it is a leap year. Since there is a fixed set of rules that define whether or not the present year is a leap year, one could (in principle) eliminate the ceteris paribus clause from the analysis by rephrasing the sentence to “If the current month is February, and the current year is not evenly divisible by 4, then it will last only 28 days.” (Actually the rules for determining a leap year are more complex than that; but there is a finite number of rules, and you could in principle include them all in the sentence.) Another example of this would be: if the exchange rate of Jamaican dollars to US dollars is 1 USD = 88 JMD, and a telephone service provider provides coverage at $1.30 per minute, then ceteris paribus the telephone service provider’s coverage is $114.40 JMD per minute in Jamaica.” End WIKI Quote TL:DR= If Only= Considered variable(s) did not respond; Ceteris Parabus= Not explicitly considered in original analysis or CFAI description of due diligence considered before reaching conclusion. I think…lol
I think Schweser explains this well. If only - the “level” of the variable was not expected. Ceteris Paribus - the variable was not expected.
i think schweser must have copied my TL;DR