Search results

Certified. They might start coming more consistently now.

Congrats! I submitted just 4 hours after you, so if they have a FIFO method going I could be approved anytime in 2018.

Whoever is in charge is likely watching this thread for their own amusement. I would be.

Since we are all still waiting... Here is a question for anyone that has been certified in the past or just might happen to know the answer through searching the Garp site... What size is the certificate when it comes in the mail? What size frame would someone need if they want to frame it...

No news yet.

I submitted around 9:30 AM est on the 3rd. I will post once I get approval.

Congrats! Did they e-mail you right away, or did you login and notice the change under "My Programs"? Still waiting here.. I submitted right away the morning results were officially posted.

Does anyone know whether or not you can be searchable in the GARP database without paying the membership fee? It seems like not paying the membership fee just takes away access to premium things like their news e-mails.

I passed. Looked at the quartiles and the letter... Now on refresh it says results coming soon. Garp is really messing with some of us.

Results are up!

Well..... 434 minutes until we find out.

It might just be a default message until they actually post results. I'm honestly more concerned with and hoping that the Patriots don't make it to another super bowl.

I see the message that enrollment expires in 2022.

I thought I'd check this forum today to see if anyone has received results. For some reason I read all comments from page 7 onward... Good luck to everyone.

@davidhn I calculated the same 1.589 on my first pass of the question. When I went back I didn't even view the situation as a hypothesis test. I think that is where the FRM can get you, you will think of a way to answer the question but there is the desired "correct" way to answer the question.

This is a question I went back to... You were back testing one day 99% VAR and realized exceptions 2% of the time. I went with the logic that you would expect exceptions just 1% of the time for the model to be correctly calibrated. So I narrowed it to the two answers that said it was incorrectly...

I don't remember volatility from the question. So I think I assumed standard deviation to be 0 and ignored that part of the equation. I just went with r0 - Drift/12 for each period. A fun mistake I guess. To clarify I used: dr = Lambda(t)dt + st.devDW I just remember st.dev or DW was not given...

Does anyone remember what they got for the Vasicek or Ho-Lee questions? In both, DW was not given and I assumed them to be 0. I don't remember what I got for Vasicek (But they gave us the formula), but I'm pretty sure I got 5.03 for the Down Down interest rate in Ho-Lee. Ho-Lee was what would...