What's new

Course Errors Found in 2021 Study Materials P1.T3. Financial Markets & Products

Nicole Seaman

Director of FRM Operations
Staff member
Please use this new thread to let David and I know about any errors, missing/broken links, etc. that you find in the 2021 materials that are published in the study planner under P1.T3. Financial Markets & Products. This will keep our forum much more organized. We appreciate your cooperation! :)

PLEASE NOTE: Our Practice Question sets already have links to their specific forum threads where you can post about any errors that you find. This thread is for any other materials (notes, spreadsheets, videos, etc.) where you might find errors.

Information needed for us to correct errors:

  • Reading
  • Page number
  • Error


New Member

I think there is an error here:

Study Notes: Interest Rate Futures​

Calculate the final contract price on a Eurodollar futures contract and compare Eurodollar futures to FRAs.
Page 11

May contract price = 10,000 * [100 – 0.25 * (100 – 99.725)] = $999,312.5 June (settlement) contract price = 10,000 * [100 – 0.25 * (100 – 99.615)] = $990,037.5
The difference between this initial and final contract price is the loss of $275 on this long position: 990,037.5 – 999,312.5 = – $275

The 990,037.5 should be changed to 999,037.5

Thank you very much for the quality content, I actually struggled to realize there was one due to the usual high-quality of the study materials :)


New Member
Hello, there is an error on study note Ch2 (Insurance Companies and Pension Plans)

T3-FMP-2-Ch2 (p.18)

It should be a "-" instead of a "+"

Operation ratio = combined ratio after dividends - investment income
=0.99 - 0.02 =0.97


New Member
a feedback on 3-FMP-10-Ch10-Fin-Fwds-v3

Page 10: the phrasing of the Hull example is not 100% clear:
If a long forward contract to purchase a non-dividend-paying stock in 3 months is currently priced at $40.

Here is from the video where there is no ambiguity:

And page 14: 1000*exp(r_f*T) corresponds to the 1000 units of foreign ccy at T and not zero.

Same page 14:
in case forward exchange rate vary from 0.7651 -> should be 0.7206 (value of F0 computed just above?)



New Member

a feedback on T3-FMP-11-Ch11-Commodity-v3

page 12:
in the table summarizing the flows, the lend short sell proceeds at time 1 should be $3.3 and not 3.


and same on page 13:


Page 17 line 2:
buying a commodity forward at the price of 1621066525175.png -> should be 1621066591443.png



New Member
hello @David Harper CFA FRM and @Nicole Seaman ,

I am studying T3-FMP-9-Ch9-FX-v3 and there is sthg I am struggling with but I am not sure where to post my question.
A FX spot XXX/YYY=n means by convention n*YYY for 1 unit of XXX (XXX is base and YYY is quote).

On page 15 of the notes, in the part on the purchasing power parity, S_D/F is introduced as spot exchange rate of the domestic currency for the foreign currency. How to translate that in base / quote? Does it mean we have S_D/F of the domestic currency for 1 unit of the foreign ccy? so it would be domestic = quote and foreign = base?

For the example with USD and RUB on that same page, I indeed understand S_US/R=0.17 means 1RUB=0.17$, meaning S_US/R=RUB/USD.

I find it quite misleading to have a 'convention' and that it does not seem to be really followed everywhere.

thanks ,


New Member

A feedback on P1.T3. Ch12. Options markets, page 5:

Is correct the profit for the short positions in a European call / put option as it's considering as a cost the initial premium which is not paid but received?



Active Member
Hi @Nicole Seaman , book 3 chapter banks page 6. I think this case is for JP Morgan chase and not Morgan stanley. ( We studied this in book 1)
For instance, when the Morgan Stanley trader known as the London
Whale lost more than $6 billion in 2012, could Morgan Stanley have predicted the loss?
Further, could Morgan Stanley have predicted that two former traders would face criminal
charges and the bank would be faced to pay more than $1 billion in fines because of the
issue? Perhaps, but probably not given that the predictability of such outcomes is nearly