• Frm Exam Locations
• Frm Exam Pdf
• Frm Exam Part I Books

Taking FRM Part 2 in November and they’re slated to publish in July. Any one have any experience with the Part 1 material? I had and Bionic Turtle for Part 1. I actually wasn’t too fond of BT’s practice questions or notes except for its 150-page secret sauce style review notes. For Part 1 in Nov 2015, seemed to match up nicely on exam difficulty, but there seems to be large deviations of difficulty (or perceptions of difficulty), and many test takers finding too easy and BT just right, etc.

Wondering if so far is any good, otherwise I’ll resign myself to BT and suck up the buyer’s remorse. Hey @nickybad, I couldnt help but notice your reply from customer service and I want to clarify a few points. First and foremost, I know for a fact the notes have been wrapped up and at the printers. The most likely explanation for “end of august” is when videos, questions, and notes will all be available at the same time as a bundle or package. My recommendation is to spend time with my notes first, move to the questions, and use the videos to solidify intuition and refine test taking points with those. And that is the orders those are going to be released.

Barring an asteroid, the notes are shipping long before end of august. Hope that helps and I am certainly not going to push anyone until the end of August to start.

Hi All, I understand that it may be frustating to wait for the material to come, but honestly I think that it will be worth the wait. I would rather study from something that is very targetted and focussed rather than trying to study everything and not know what should be my focus for the exam. You need to understand that the FRM syllabus is very very vast and if someone can provide that material in a concentrated form and still not missing the soul of FRM, nothing can beat that. The questions and solutions by Christian Cooper are simply brilliant. I came aross a couple of questions/answers posted by Christian. I am sharing a small sample. Let know when do you think about this.

Junior analyst is reviewing credit decision rule and you want to spot check their understand of the relative impact of bad credit decision. You describe a scenario where there are only two states of the world, good firms and bad firms, and either the firm is classified correctly or not, leading to 4 potential states of the world. What type of decision rule does this describe? Minimax Decision Rule B.

Neyman-Pearson Rule C. Baysian decision tree D. Reject-rate rule. Answer: B The Neyman-Pearson focuses on the impact of type I and type II errors and that means a good company classified correctly or not and vice versa for bad companies. In this case, a Type I error is damaging to the bank because a loan is actually extended to a defaulting bad firm where a type II error would mean credit was not extended to a non-defaulting bad firm ( missed opportunity but not a credit loss) The others are all real decisions types we will get to later in the notes and other practice questions. During a risk committee meeting, there is a debate around the impact of type I and type II errors in the credit scoring models used by the bank. The problem arises between two different outcomes: when the bank makes a bad loan to a customer they thought were good or when the bank misses an opportunity to loan to a customer that was good but the model said was bad.

What is one of the problems of this type of performance measure in the credit modeling? This type of measure is a pure trade off between the type I and type II errors B. This measure of performance will work well when the relative classification of credit risks is correctly modeled.

Since these credit classes are symmetric (not skewed) there isn’t an asymmetric outcome between the type I and type II events D. This type of classification can be deficient where asymmetric payoffs matter. Answer: B One thing you should expect on the exam is a lot of material from other sections that seem like it could apply but you aren’t 100% sure. That is why this test is so difficult. For example, answer choice D applies to a completely different part of the reading and concerns the maximum likelihood decision rule. It is the correct problem for that question but not a question about whether we have classified a credit risk properly. Answer A is true statement about this type of performance measure but isn’t a drawback.

Answer C is opposite, these credit types are very skewed ( very few defaults out of the total population of customers) so this is a distractor that sounds right but is actually opposite: the risks are very asymmetric and skewed and there is asymmetric outcomes between type I and type II. When considering the choice of a model for credit risks, what is not a typical factor to consider? Performance B. Data Availability C. Class discriminability D. Calibration constraints Answer: C A, B, and D are all factors that sould be considered when chosing a model.

PW121 Certified in 1987 with a maximum continuous rating of 2044 eshp (1524 kW), can be converted to a PW120. PW121A Certified in 1995 with a maximum continuous rating of 1992 eshp (1465 kW). PW120 Certified in 1983 with a maximum continuous rating of 1787 eshp (1333 kW), can be converted to a PW121. PW120A Certified in 1984 with a maximum continuous rating of 1892 eshp (1411 kW), can be converted to a PW121. Pw127 engine manual.

For answer choice C, discriminability refers to the capacity to classify unseen data. It appears in the text but is unrelated to this question. Be prepared for answer choices to “sound” familiar because GARP will pull unrelated terms from the same readings as a way to throw you off. Always go with your first instinct if you are really guessing on a coin toss between which answer to pick. Just posting these three questions for now. Let me know what do you guys think. Will post more questions if I find them.

Trust me GARP is mean. They leave no stone unturned to throw you completely off gaurd during the exam. And I would love to find a course that teaches me to think the way GARP wants us to think. A couple of my colleagues from China swear by Christian Cooper’s study material. Hi @ChristianHCooper. I am happy to hear that, but my question to Customer Service was quite clear and purely on the availability date for the Notes, which I intended to use as primary material to prepare. This was what I thought of purchasing first, followed by the practice questions. I wasn’t even considering the videos.

I can wait till the end of June, first week of July at most, but I wouldn’t like to wait more than that. I have a family with kid and a full time job, so starting early for me is a must. The FRM Exam Review books are completely rubbish!

First of all, they do not cover all the Learning Statements, if so, they are covered very briefly and in the words of the author (who makes recommendations what is likely to show up at the exam - these recommendations should definitely not be followed). Furthermore, no detailed information is given what’s mentioned in the original text books (Hull, Tuckman, Amenc, Dowd, Bodie etc.).

The quantitative and product sections are extremely bad (inferior), there is no information how certain formulas are derived. Various sections give the impression that they have been hastily cobbled together (even spelling mistakes here and there) just to get the book printed in time. Even does a much better job, but still by far can’t compete with BIONIC Turtle! I think it is important to note that I - and I alone- write the entirety of the program. To say that all Learning objectives are not covered is materially false. I personally know that each are covered because I wrote them.

Further, there are 6 errata that are known in part I and shared with students. From my pen, there is a peer review and entire teams of editors in multiple time zones that review and edit all content.

To say the process is rushed is also materially false. For the video production I spend 5 hours per recorded hour of lecture on editing and scripting. There is also an entire video production team in place to edit and produce best in class programs taken directly from my experience as head of derivatives trading. Lastly, any mention of original textbooks is a waste of anyone’s time. At no time will you be asked what John Hull thinks about the binomial tree. It is fundamentally is immaterial. Look at the old exams, it’s not what you are going to see on the test day.

Anyone can DM me at anytime if they have any concerns. quote=ChristianHCooper I think it is important to note that I - and I alone- write the entirety of the program. To say that all Learning objectives are not covered is materially false. I personally know that each are covered because I wrote them. Well, even the first sentence is wrong: I just need to open the Study Guide Part I (Crouhy, Chapter 2 - “Learning objective: Evaluate some advantages/disadvantages of hedging risk exposures) and find that this “LO” is not covered at all. Then, as another example Part II (Caouette, Chapter 6 - Rating Agencies) - all learning objectives (8 in total!) have been covered within 1.5 half pages - this is simply riducolous.

Two sentences for each learning objective will not do for a chapter which was heavily tested this time! This reading does not cover anything about the different rating grades between Moody’s/S&P (rating transition matrices etc.) - could not be worse! Next example Part II (Dowd, Chapter 2 - Measures of Fin. Risk) - covering (perhaps the most important concept of FRM Part I - VaR and ES) within 3.5 half pages is a complete No-GO. Only 3 coherent risk measures have been mentioned ( translation invariance was obviously forgotten!).

Only two sentences about spectral risk measures - the same holds for scenario analysis. On top of it, the explanation (one sentence to be precise) why VaR is not a coherent risk measure shows how bad Dowd’s chapter is covered! This list could be extended to infinity! Again, what @pastormaldonado is saying is 100% false.

For the Crouhy reading, there is a double line between the learning objective and the answer to that LO. Every LO is 100% covered because I wrote them. For the rating agencies, There are no fewer that 27 references to credit ratings, rating migrations, the probability density functions that are derived from those tools, etc across all elements of notes, lectures and problems. Not sure who this person is working for but my personal email is if anyone has any questions or concerns. The opposite is true and the pure evidence is given on page 9 of the WILEYY FRM Exam Review booklet where the LO “Evaluate some advantages and disadvantages of hedging risk exposures” of Crouhy’s chapter 2 is empty. It might be well true that you have written the LO’s, but they are terribly bad and this is then even more embarrassing for you.

How on earth could someone liying like this? Next one, I am explicitly referring to the FRM Exam Review booklet, NOT lectures etc. You can defend whatever you want - it is evident how bad “rating agencies” have been covered.

If you like, I can post a picture of this LO as well in order to show everyone that you are not right here. What’s about translation invariance in Dowd’s chapter? It is simply not there under the 4 coherent principles!

Next example if you like the list to be extended: “McDonald’s Chapter 6 “Commodity Forwards & Futures”: three LO’s (1.) Define carry markets and illustrate storage costs 2.) Describe an arbitrage transaction in commodity forwards 3.) Compute the forward price of commodity) have been taken together within half a page. Awful, only the formulas from Mc Donald’s book have been copied incl. A murky comment. Next example, Fabozzi “Corporate Bonds” (Chapter 12): LO “Define recovery rates and describe the relation between recovery rates and seniority”: just two sentences to cover this reading.

Everyone who is a sentient being could easily understand that such a bad coverage of each LO is definitely not the way one should prepare for the exam. Pastormaldonado wrote: The opposite is true and the pure evidence is given on page 9 of the WILEYY FRM Exam Review booklet where the LO “Evaluate some advantages and disadvantages of hedging risk exposures” of Crouhy’s chapter 2 is empty. It might be well true that you have written the LO’s, but they are terribly bad and this is then even more embarrassing for you. THow on earth could someone liying like this?

Next one, I am explicitly referring to the FRM Exam Review booklet, NOT lectures etc. You can defend whatever you want - it is evident how bad “rating agencies” have been covered. If you like, I can post a picture of this LO as well in order to show everyone that you are not right here. What’s about translation invariance in Dowd’s chapter? It is simply not there under the 4 coherent principles! Next example if you like the list to be extended: “McDonald’s Chapter 6 “Commodity Forwards & Futures”: three LO’s (1.) Define carry markets and illustrate storage costs 2.) Describe an arbitrage transaction in commodity forwards 3.) Compute the forward price of commodity) have been taken together within half a page. Awful, only the formulas from Mc Donald’s book have been copied incl.

A murky comment. Next example, Fabozzi “Corporate Bonds” (Chapter 12): LO “Define recovery rates and describe the relation between recovery rates and seniority”: just two sentences to cover this reading. Everyone who is a sentient being could easily understand that such a bad coverage of each LO is definitely not the way one should prepare for the exam. While some of this may be true, it doesn’t explain why you are being such a douche bag. Pastormaldonado wrote: The opposite is true and the pure evidence is given on page 9 of the WILEYY FRM Exam Review booklet where the LO “Evaluate some advantages and disadvantages of hedging risk exposures” of Crouhy’s chapter 2 is empty. It might be well true that you have written the LO’s, but they are terribly bad and this is then even more embarrassing for you.

Frm Exam Locations

How on earth could someone liying like this? Next one, I am explicitly referring to the FRM Exam Review booklet, NOT lectures etc.

Frm Exam Pdf

You can defend whatever you want - it is evident how bad “rating agencies” have been covered. If you like, I can post a picture of this LO as well in order to show everyone that you are not right here. What’s about translation invariance in Dowd’s chapter? It is simply not there under the 4 coherent principles! Next example if you like the list to be extended: “McDonald’s Chapter 6 “Commodity Forwards & Futures”: three LO’s (1.) Define carry markets and illustrate storage costs 2.) Describe an arbitrage transaction in commodity forwards 3.) Compute the forward price of commodity) have been taken together within half a page.

Awful, only the formulas from Mc Donald’s book have been copied incl. A murky comment. Next example, Fabozzi “Corporate Bonds” (Chapter 12): LO “Define recovery rates and describe the relation between recovery rates and seniority”: just two sentences to cover this reading. Everyone who is a sentient being could easily understand that such a bad coverage of each LO is definitely not the way one should prepare for the exam. I appreciate your intent to make everyone aware from several sources i have read, it appears that is one of the best for FRM. You may be true about the LOs you are mentioning but I would go with the majority of the comments and trust Mr.

Frm Exam Part I Books

Cooper for his ability to provide notes that are adequate to understand the concepts and pass. I am not really looking for detailed notes as I will definitely not be interested to study every LO in detail. I will refer to more sources like videos or specific books published on any particular LO if I am interested more and that too only after exam. Right now, the objective is to learn adequately and pass and this objective can be achieved by using materials.

Copyright © 2018 Kaplan, Inc. GARP® does not endorse, promote, review, or warrant the accuracy of the products or services offered by Kaplan Schweser of FRM®-related information, nor does it endorse any pass rates claimed by the provider. Further, GARP® is not responsible for any fees or costs paid by the user to Kaplan Schweser, nor is GARP® responsible for any fees or costs of any person or entity providing any services to Kaplan Schweser. FRM®, GARP®, and Global Association of Risk Professionals™ are trademarks owned by the Global Association of Risk Professionals, Inc.