Any Feedback on FRM 2009 Exam ?
- Thread starter simhan
- Start date
panasonic_chai
New Member
From Singapore,
I feel AM was a shock to me, way too many qualitative and wordy questions
wasnt really prepared for tat.. realised that market risk, and credit risk has very minimal portion in this paper
rushed to finish in the last 30min
PM was more do-able however, long wordy questions took up much of my time..
Overall, i don think i can make the mark due to AM paper...
I feel AM was a shock to me, way too many qualitative and wordy questions
wasnt really prepared for tat.. realised that market risk, and credit risk has very minimal portion in this paper
rushed to finish in the last 30min
PM was more do-able however, long wordy questions took up much of my time..
Overall, i don think i can make the mark due to AM paper...
narayananvenkat
cfo
david..
Just returned from the exam. Full (chennai, India)
first half was not that comfortable . Too much narrative that ate precious time. Second half a smooth sail. Overall Hmm .. if second compensates and if I am lucky then....
Qn distribution was failry ok in both session. hull and vaR occupied prime areas. Latest topics on crisis also were prominent.
A good (Bad?) experience.
hoping for the best.
regards
venkat
Just returned from the exam. Full (chennai, India)
first half was not that comfortable . Too much narrative that ate precious time. Second half a smooth sail. Overall Hmm .. if second compensates and if I am lucky then....
Qn distribution was failry ok in both session. hull and vaR occupied prime areas. Latest topics on crisis also were prominent.
A good (Bad?) experience.
hoping for the best.
regards
venkat
Hi all,
I have the same feeling towards the Full exam - morning session here in Singapore - overweight on wordy questions that makes me have to rush for almost last 30 questions within 30 minutes...
I feel RELATIVELY at ease when doing the afternoon session.
I hope my afternoon performance can make up for my morning one.... Keep fingers crossed.
Cheers
Liming
I have the same feeling towards the Full exam - morning session here in Singapore - overweight on wordy questions that makes me have to rush for almost last 30 questions within 30 minutes...
I feel RELATIVELY at ease when doing the afternoon session.
I hope my afternoon performance can make up for my morning one.... Keep fingers crossed.
Cheers
Liming
Hi,
Wrote the full exam FRM 2009...
The 1st half was really a complete messy ... with questions .... very less problems..... questions which were quite complicated...
i am definitely going to fail......
however reluctantly the 2nd half was good... with some sitters , also some wrong questions like the question on bushels....
so, i am confused...
anyways, i am mentally prepared , so starting for preparing for level 1 from tom.....
DAVID PLEASE ADVISE HOW GARP WOULD BE EVALUATIING THE QUESTION PAPER ?
bye and all the best..
prem...
Wrote the full exam FRM 2009...
The 1st half was really a complete messy ... with questions .... very less problems..... questions which were quite complicated...
i am definitely going to fail......
however reluctantly the 2nd half was good... with some sitters , also some wrong questions like the question on bushels....
so, i am confused...
anyways, i am mentally prepared , so starting for preparing for level 1 from tom.....
DAVID PLEASE ADVISE HOW GARP WOULD BE EVALUATIING THE QUESTION PAPER ?
bye and all the best..
prem...
Thanks for updates, please keep them coming (please note: the FRM makes almost everybody "feel" like they failed; many have perceived they failed coming out of the exam, but passed anyway). @prem: GARP says they take the top 5th quantile (i.e., whatever score cutoffs the top 5th "percentile"), then they take a ratio (e.g., 0.75) of that top score. I personally suspect the ratio (0.X of top 5%) is calibrated after the results are tabulated to approximate a ~50% pass result; or, best case, they use .75 of top 5% (e.g., if 0.75* top 5% only passes a small % due to high difficulty, I doubt they would keep it).
But, either way, it's really based on an (ex post) "grading on a curve" (no segmentation by section/topic, all questions weigh equally)...therefore: I do not think you can divine anything useful from the method. Unfortunately, it's a waiting game - David
But, either way, it's really based on an (ex post) "grading on a curve" (no segmentation by section/topic, all questions weigh equally)...therefore: I do not think you can divine anything useful from the method. Unfortunately, it's a waiting game - David
johnccarter
New Member
I've just finished the level 1 exams. I found them both quite hard - but mainly because of the time constraints. I found that there were very few questions that could be read and "digested" in less than a minute. This problem was, in a few cases, made worse by what I thought was poor use of grammar. The end result was that I felt I was often rushed in my execution of a calculation or thought process.
On a separate point, I did notice that almost all of the questions requiring a numerical answer asked you to choose from valued based on whichever was the "nearest" or "closest". I understand that this is bacause they have to allow for the fact that some people will be carrying over rounding errors during the calculation... But to then quote these answers with multiple decimal places seems to go against the intuition behind accepting the fact that there will be rounding errors in some candidates answers! In one case three of the answers were different only by their 5th sifgificant place (eg 3433.78 and 3433.89)!
On a separate point, I did notice that almost all of the questions requiring a numerical answer asked you to choose from valued based on whichever was the "nearest" or "closest". I understand that this is bacause they have to allow for the fact that some people will be carrying over rounding errors during the calculation... But to then quote these answers with multiple decimal places seems to go against the intuition behind accepting the fact that there will be rounding errors in some candidates answers! In one case three of the answers were different only by their 5th sifgificant place (eg 3433.78 and 3433.89)!
@john, that is very interesting.
Re: 3433.78 and 3433.89, I must assume those are both incorrect (false) answers? To agree with your point, no financial exam ever, anywhere, would place the correct answer so near to an incorrect answer...unless that is a gross mistake by GARP, that looks like a good way to identify two false answers...David
Re: 3433.78 and 3433.89, I must assume those are both incorrect (false) answers? To agree with your point, no financial exam ever, anywhere, would place the correct answer so near to an incorrect answer...unless that is a gross mistake by GARP, that looks like a good way to identify two false answers...David
I took the full exam in Singapore too. GARP held it at the Grand Hall of SIM University in Singapore so my take is that there were around 500-600 people taking Full exam alone - not any close to the CFA exam last June at Expo of 5000.
The questions were difficult and lengthy. You need roughly 90 seconds for a typical CFA L1 exam but you may easily spend 5 minutes on a single FRM questions! They are well-spread across all topic. The problem is that given the breadth of the FRM curriculum I think it was impossible for the examiner to test on everything. So there are just one or two question on each topics so you feel your effort spent on reading, for example, the UBS report a bit wasted. Maybe that's part of the reason why they want to split it into 2 levels.
I personally didn't feel that great walking out of the exam hall because I thought I made too many guesses. I think I'm getting around 60-70%. Hope I'll clear the cut-off line...
The questions were difficult and lengthy. You need roughly 90 seconds for a typical CFA L1 exam but you may easily spend 5 minutes on a single FRM questions! They are well-spread across all topic. The problem is that given the breadth of the FRM curriculum I think it was impossible for the examiner to test on everything. So there are just one or two question on each topics so you feel your effort spent on reading, for example, the UBS report a bit wasted. Maybe that's part of the reason why they want to split it into 2 levels.
I personally didn't feel that great walking out of the exam hall because I thought I made too many guesses. I think I'm getting around 60-70%. Hope I'll clear the cut-off line...
hi
same here I took the full exam here in Zurich; morning session was nightmare, very difficult. However I found that some questions as someone already mentioned above e.g. with forward price for some bushes with storage cost, you could never get the answer which was provided.
In the morning session you need more than a min to read just question.
so I hope that all my guesses in the morning get some good results
regards
siamak
same here I took the full exam here in Zurich; morning session was nightmare, very difficult. However I found that some questions as someone already mentioned above e.g. with forward price for some bushes with storage cost, you could never get the answer which was provided.
In the morning session you need more than a min to read just question.
so I hope that all my guesses in the morning get some good results
regards
siamak
...........reporting from Nigeria.....Africa
Whao!...some test.For those that can walk out of the test and beat their chest they will pass..Kudos to you.
.....'can't say for now...i just hope for the best.The morning session was tough, the afternoon a lot better.Overall it should be positive.
David thanks a lot for the materials.....
Whao!...some test.For those that can walk out of the test and beat their chest they will pass..Kudos to you.
.....'can't say for now...i just hope for the best.The morning session was tough, the afternoon a lot better.Overall it should be positive.
David thanks a lot for the materials.....
Got back from Level 1 in NYC...
My impression of the exam: fair. Level of difficulty I expected, although there are one or two questions (#40 PM) that were over-the-top crazy hard, unless you're a PhD quant.
GARP made two typos, one was minor. In the AM, there were two ii.'s listed... i ii ii iv instead of i ii iii iv. The other was major - #29 on the PM - the three states of the economy, three states of the how a stock would do (increase, decrease, subtract the two to get neutral). The question gives three scenarios and the third left out if the second part the % whether it was a decrease or the same. This mattered to the answer. I had to assume the third was "neutral" state vs. "negative" to get to an answer.
I'm borderline. The way I "grade" my exam is a put a mark next to the question if I'm not 100% sure I'm right. Those that I don't question I get about 90% right (because I screw up something like misreading it) and ones I question I get about 40% right. I questioned 30 on the exam, so I'm sitting somewhere around 75%.
BTW - Just like in the CFA, they should put all of the fail scores in deciles (1 - 10) so if you fail, you know how close you were.
My impression of the exam: fair. Level of difficulty I expected, although there are one or two questions (#40 PM) that were over-the-top crazy hard, unless you're a PhD quant.
GARP made two typos, one was minor. In the AM, there were two ii.'s listed... i ii ii iv instead of i ii iii iv. The other was major - #29 on the PM - the three states of the economy, three states of the how a stock would do (increase, decrease, subtract the two to get neutral). The question gives three scenarios and the third left out if the second part the % whether it was a decrease or the same. This mattered to the answer. I had to assume the third was "neutral" state vs. "negative" to get to an answer.
I'm borderline. The way I "grade" my exam is a put a mark next to the question if I'm not 100% sure I'm right. Those that I don't question I get about 90% right (because I screw up something like misreading it) and ones I question I get about 40% right. I questioned 30 on the exam, so I'm sitting somewhere around 75%.
BTW - Just like in the CFA, they should put all of the fail scores in deciles (1 - 10) so if you fail, you know how close you were.
Hi David,
Reporting from Toronto Ontario for the Full exam
The morning session was really crazy! But the afternoon was definitely better, not much calculate this, calculate that!
But there are some interesting question that stuck to my mind. We were given all the inputs necessary to derive put-call party in BSM and were asked to derive risk free rate!
Interesting huh! Only time will tell whether it is skill or luck!
Concepts
Reporting from Toronto Ontario for the Full exam
The morning session was really crazy! But the afternoon was definitely better, not much calculate this, calculate that!
But there are some interesting question that stuck to my mind. We were given all the inputs necessary to derive put-call party in BSM and were asked to derive risk free rate!
Interesting huh! Only time will tell whether it is skill or luck!
Concepts
@john, that is very interesting.
Re: 3433.78 and 3433.89, I must assume those are both incorrect (false) answers? To agree with your point, no financial exam ever, anywhere, would place the correct answer so near to an incorrect answer...unless that is a gross mistake by GARP, that looks like a good way to identify two false answers...David
Re: 3433.78 and 3433.89, I must assume those are both incorrect (false) answers? To agree with your point, no financial exam ever, anywhere, would place the correct answer so near to an incorrect answer...unless that is a gross mistake by GARP, that looks like a good way to identify two false answers...David
Actually I think one of them is a correct answer.
One of the things I've noticed with FRM answers (vs. the CFA) is that often you can get to an answer without knowing the exact equation, using some common sense. One example is there was an FRA question. I forgot the exact equation (but was close) and my knowledge of FRA's are choppy, but here are some of the facts from what I remember.
1. Entity enters into FRA, receive annualized 5.5% on a (monthly?) basis on $1M for 3 months (6-9 months in the future)
2. Interest rates rise.
You know that the value of the FRA to the entity is negative (eliminates two answers), and to the degree (elimiates the third). The two negative answers were something far apart, like -800 and -80,000, so the "-800" answer looked correct, just based on the cash flows
There was also another one - the " "Bloomberg" question - with 7 month discount factors where I did the same process as well. The answers are so far apart you can eliminate the other three with common sense.
johnccarter
New Member
Yeah - I found I could easily discount 2 of the answers in most cases.
Oh - and I am a PhD quant and still thought some of the questions were too verbose!!
Oh - and I am a PhD quant and still thought some of the questions were too verbose!!
hasan.mert
New Member
Hi guys,
Here in Melbourne, we were 10 for L1 and about 10 for full exam. I did Level 1. Under normal exam conditions, I may fail with 99% confidence over 7 weeks time period. I believe I will definetely pass next time
)) No worries. Without David's fantastic materials, I wouldn't even imagine the possibility of passing FRM exam. Good on you David, much appreciated. By the way, the best thing about FRM exam was the party I had last night. Cheers everyone. It's all over.
Here in Melbourne, we were 10 for L1 and about 10 for full exam. I did Level 1. Under normal exam conditions, I may fail with 99% confidence over 7 weeks time period. I believe I will definetely pass next time
)) No worries. Without David's fantastic materials, I wouldn't even imagine the possibility of passing FRM exam. Good on you David, much appreciated. By the way, the best thing about FRM exam was the party I had last night. Cheers everyone. It's all over.It has been 24 hours since the exam and I was dreaming about solving quant questions just before I woke up!!! :lol:
Apart from the pass/fail considerations I found it to be a very intelligently structured exam. It made one think and some questions were actually amusing. I liked the clever use of Macguffins in the questions. The typos were of course an irritant!!!
Questions which stuck in my mind:
1. Where they asked you to rank the tracking errors by looking at graph of returns. I guess that is how most people do it in real life!!!
2. Where they asked you to estimate probability of right answers by guessing. Given the context, it was funny.
3. The HUGE amount of details they gave for a Historical Simulation problem where you just have to look the answer up!!!
4. Again the details given for the Maximum Likelihood estimation question. I was scared seeing it but read it fully anyways and found it was just testing if one knows the meaning of ML and ability to take log!!(which I did!!)
5. The innocous slipping in of the 'lockout period' in the credit card ABS paydown question which made me agonise no end (I have structured CMO's for a living so it was a point of honour not to get any securitization questions wrong!!!!)Thankfully my understanding of lockout was correct(the correct answer was 0)
6. I had time only to do the L1 practice test from GARP site and it paid off somewhat as the LT volatilty question based on the GARCH equation was a straight lift from there!!!!!
7. I loved the large amount of practice oriented questions and questions dealing with the current crisis. The TED spread question really made me think as I was follwing the TED spread daily last November. It was very annoying that I still couldn't answer that with any degree of confidence (I chose the option that said it didn't rise immediately after Lehman but rose then on perception of higher CP risk)
I found the AM questions more interesting while PM ones more calculator oriented. I didn't guess at all in the AM thus attempting only 49 but sanity prevailed in the PM test! I wasn't very well prepared so am expecting 60-65% as . Let's see if that proves enough.
I do wish they allowed one to keep the question paper. It had plenty of food for thought. I doubt that any trainer could have thought up such a question paper!!!
Apart from the pass/fail considerations I found it to be a very intelligently structured exam. It made one think and some questions were actually amusing. I liked the clever use of Macguffins in the questions. The typos were of course an irritant!!!
Questions which stuck in my mind:
1. Where they asked you to rank the tracking errors by looking at graph of returns. I guess that is how most people do it in real life!!!
2. Where they asked you to estimate probability of right answers by guessing. Given the context, it was funny.
3. The HUGE amount of details they gave for a Historical Simulation problem where you just have to look the answer up!!!
4. Again the details given for the Maximum Likelihood estimation question. I was scared seeing it but read it fully anyways and found it was just testing if one knows the meaning of ML and ability to take log!!(which I did!!)
5. The innocous slipping in of the 'lockout period' in the credit card ABS paydown question which made me agonise no end (I have structured CMO's for a living so it was a point of honour not to get any securitization questions wrong!!!!)Thankfully my understanding of lockout was correct(the correct answer was 0)
6. I had time only to do the L1 practice test from GARP site and it paid off somewhat as the LT volatilty question based on the GARCH equation was a straight lift from there!!!!!
7. I loved the large amount of practice oriented questions and questions dealing with the current crisis. The TED spread question really made me think as I was follwing the TED spread daily last November. It was very annoying that I still couldn't answer that with any degree of confidence (I chose the option that said it didn't rise immediately after Lehman but rose then on perception of higher CP risk)
I found the AM questions more interesting while PM ones more calculator oriented. I didn't guess at all in the AM thus attempting only 49 but sanity prevailed in the PM test!
I wasn't very well prepared so am expecting 60-65% as . Let's see if that proves enough.I do wish they allowed one to keep the question paper. It had plenty of food for thought. I doubt that any trainer could have thought up such a question paper!!!
Similar threads
