What's new

# Search results

1. ### Exam Feedback May 2018 Part 2 Exam Feedback

Passed! 21111! Cheers @David Harper CFA FRM for all the help!
2. ### Positive Autocorrelation and hedge fund illiqudity

If anyone has found this thread and needs more info, the pages in Chapter 13 Asset Management (Chapter 4 P69 Risk Management and Investment Management If you bought the GARP books) Is really helpful
3. ### SMA approach for Operational risk

Thanks, wow it's a seriously tough exam. Really feeling the jump from Part I to Part II.
4. ### SMA approach for Operational risk

Looking at question 10 for the 2018 sample paper it looks like we are expected to memorise the BI buckets!!! Unbelievable!
5. ### Videos not playing properly / at all

I had also noticed that the videos were a little unreliable, but a few refreshes and pressing the play button a few times improved. Only since the start of April though, before that no issues. @Galaxy you can always download the video first which always works.
6. ### 2018: Part 2 New and Updated Published Materials

Just a quick one, feel free to move this if its in the wrong place. Are there practice questions for this chapter? Note from Nicole: I moved this question here to this thread, where we discuss updated materials that are being posted.The original thread referenced the T8 Grinold reading.
7. ### Duration of a Floating Rate Note

Also meant to add, you can see this effect on US172967KC44 (If you have access to a terminal) Number of years to refix date = 0.13 Numerical Duration = 0.14 (ie Slightly larger because of the 1.31% spread) BBG OAS1/Mod Duration =2.48
8. ### Duration of a Floating Rate Note

The way I did it was to model the whole bond, including the floating legs and the spread. Then use the numerical approach to blip both yield and libor up and down, adjusting the floating coupons, then reprice to produce the effective duration. I'd be really interested if you had some way to use...
9. ### Duration of a Floating Rate Note

Yes I did intend it as just a comment. Simply because I had been doing some duration calculations and found that the spread should be taken into account (atleast when comparing my own calculations with blombergs calculated oas1 duration). I'm glad you brought up spread01 (ie risk a credit...
10. ### 2018: Part 2 New and Updated Published Materials

I made the mistake of buying the Part I and Part II books last year, is it worth getting updated 2018 Part II books? Or generally will I get away with it?
11. ### Exam Feedback November 2017 Part 1 Exam Feedback

1,1,1,1 Thanks @David Harper CFA FRM, @Nicole Seaman! Onto Part 2, hopefully easier!
12. ### Exam Feedback November 2017 Part 1 Exam Feedback

Is there a way you can see your detailed results without the email? I can login to the garp site but the email address is my work address and I'm not in until Friday. I found this list here but would be great to know the breakdown. http://www.garp.org/#!/frm/our-passed-frms/frm1/2017-11-18
13. ### Exam Day Tips

I got an email from GARP earlier this week. They stress that you must bring your paper ticket (Printed off after logging into the garp website) and ID. Don't forget!
14. ### Errors Found in Study Materials P1.T4. Valuation & Risk Models

No problem, the video's are very helpful, thank you! Given you are updating, I also think there is a very minor typo in the equation on log-normal price levels at 23:24. Missing a *T for the mean and vol^2 in variance.
15. ### Errors Found in Study Materials P1.T4. Valuation & Risk Models

Hey @David Harper CFA FRM I think there is a mistake in the video on black scholes. At 29.07 you list the assumptions, one of which is "No short selling is allowed". I think actually it is the reverse of this, "The short selling of securities with full use of proceeds is permitted", like the...
16. ### Historical Simulation..Parametric or Nonparametric Appoach?

@David Harper CFA FRM Perfect thanks for this and you're right this is a better place for my question!
17. ### Historical Simulation..Parametric or Nonparametric Appoach?

This is a very basic question on Quantifying Volatility in VaR models but I just want a definitive answer. Do the non-parametric approaches make any assumptions about the distribution? Ie does it have to be normally distributed returns when using the MDE or Historical approaches?