Exam Relevance

[brunnim]

Hi David,

I notice at the start of each tutorial video you post the topic relevance. Does a consolidated list of all P1 topics and associated relevance exist?

I had a look around the site and could not find anything. Something along these lines would be very useful so I can plan my studying accordingly.

Many thanks for your assistance

Mark

 

[David Harper CFA FRM]

Hi Mark,

I don't post topic relevance actually. As I say in the video (and the exhibit shows), I refer "merely" to the estimated relevance of the associated learning spreadsheet to the exam. Are spreadsheets necessary to passing the exam? Of course not. However, for the minority who engage with the spreadsheets (in my opinion, a superior method due to concrete application), the High/Medium/Low relevance is merely a rough marker for relevance vis-a-vis the exam. My rationale is that XLS engagement can be very time-consuming and, if the #1 priority is to pass the exam, I want to identify the XLS sheets that can be avoided or deferred.

• a "high" relevance XLS in general refers to an XLS that illustrates concept(s) that is both specifically associated with "calculate/compute" AIM action verb (ie., GARP's way of signalling they may test the computation) AND where we've seen it actually tested before.
• An example of "low" XLS relevance is the full T-bond futures valuation (Hull Ch 6): Although there is a compute AIM verb, the full exercise has not been tested (so far), so "low" relevance signals to XLS engagers they can (probably) afford to skip it for now.

In regard to your question about a topic relevance key more broadly, I don't have time before this November's exam, sorry. As we are currently transitioning to per-reading, as of the Nov exam (we launch the new study planner immediately after the exam), we will be mostly caught up to the syllabus and the Global Topic Reviews, in their revised form, will begin to contain some of the "prioritization guidance." But that's help for 2014 not November. Thanks,

 

[brunnim]

ok thanks for your swift response

 

[vkichoi]

Hi David,
I haven't had time to look into the excel files yet. So for the T-bond Futures in Hull Ch.6, the "low xls relevance" means that the calculations and/or concepts have not been tested in the past right?
So is it okay to skip this topic and focus on topics with higher exam relevance?
Thanks!
Vicki~

 

[David Harper CFA FRM]

Hi Vicki (copying my email reply here):


Yes, to my knowledge, the FRM (GARP) has never tested the pricing of the T-bond futures, from start to finish; it is difficult and somewhat tedious and does not lend to an exam question. Frankly, I think it can be skipped (I refer to the valuation, not the mechanics, the mechanics have been tested), thanks,

 

[vkichoi]

Hi Vicki (copying my email reply here):


Yes, to my knowledge, the FRM (GARP) has never tested the pricing of the T-bond futures, from start to finish; it is difficult and somewhat tedious and does not lend to an exam question. Frankly, I think it can be skipped (I refer to the valuation, not the mechanics, the mechanics have been tested), thanks,

Thanks David.

What about those topics you didn't create spreadsheets on? I see that a number of videos in Part 4 Valuations where you didn't mention the exam relevance.

I would like to make sure the following:
Mechanics: concepts and definitions
Valuation: calculations

Thanks!

 

[David Harper CFA FRM]

Hi Vicki,

• Re: "What about those topics you didn't create spreadsheets on? I see that a number of videos in Part 4 Valuations where you didn't mention the exam relevance." This is not helpful probably, but if we don't have a spreadsheet (yet) for a quantitative topic, it is either (i) that we simply haven't developed/polished it for publication yet (2013 was a treacherous syllabus) or (ii) I deemed it to hold low relevance. And, Part 4 Valuations does contain (in my opinion) more "stray readings" (ie, readings with unclear testabilility) than Part 3 Products. I hesitate to make any sweeping generalizations, however
• Yes, I agree with your distinction. In fact, I prefer your "concepts" to my "mechanics" such that maybe better is: "Concepts: definitions and mechanics" which would make "concept" the umbrella.

Normally we can rely on the action verbs in the AIM statements. Such that "Describe," Explain", "Identify" and "Define" are verbs that are conceptual; another way to view them is, they do not imply a calculation requirement. However, my response to you indicates that I think the very in this AIM is mis-characterized: "Calculate the theoretical futures price for a Treasury bond futures contract." It's just my opinion, but I think the "Calculate" is inappropriate here (too time consuming to memorize with very little chance of being tested). (And I have this in my current feedback document to GARP, that I'm working on). fwiw, the more likely calculation is the CTD bond. I hope that helps, thanks!

 

[vkichoi]

y

Hi Vicki,

• Re: "What about those topics you didn't create spreadsheets on? I see that a number of videos in Part 4 Valuations where you didn't mention the exam relevance." This is not helpful probably, but if we don't have a spreadsheet (yet) for a quantitative topic, it is either (i) that we simply haven't developed/polished it for publication yet (2013 was a treacherous syllabus) or (ii) I deemed it to hold low relevance. And, Part 4 Valuations does contain (in my opinion) more "stray readings" (ie, readings with unclear testabilility) than Part 3 Products. I hesitate to make any sweeping generalizations, however
• Yes, I agree with your distinction. In fact, I prefer your "concepts" to my "mechanics" such that maybe better is: "Concepts: definitions and mechanics" which would make "concept" the umbrella.

Normally we can rely on the action verbs in the AIM statements. Such that "Describe," Explain", "Identify" and "Define" are verbs that are conceptual; another way to view them is, they do not imply a calculation requirement. However, my response to you indicates that I think the very in this AIM is mis-characterized: "Calculate the theoretical futures price for a Treasury bond futures contract." It's just my opinion, but I think the "Calculate" is inappropriate here (too time consuming to memorize with very little chance of being tested). (And I have this in my current feedback document to GARP, that I'm working on). fwiw, the more likely calculation is the CTD bond. I hope that helps, thanks!

Thank you, David.
Where can I find a list of new topics for the part I?

Right now I am attempting the Fabozzi problems. However I found out that some concepts or points tested in these questions are not covered in the video and I was suspecting that these readings were not tested frequently in the past exams. Why is that?

 

[David Harper CFA FRM]

Hi Vicki,

• Sorry, what do you mean by "list of new topics?" (we generated this detailed XLS which compares readings: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9oq0gruv0nwldzo/2012 FRM Readings vs. 2013 FRM Readings_v0808.xlsx)
• The practice questions are a superset of the video content: the AIM-by-AIM practice questions try to give detailed coverage of the AIMs, without regard to testability (testability, after all, is merely a subjective judgement). Videos make no attempt to cover the same footprint (I think that would be impossible), rather videos attempt an "essential summary." Thanks,