What's new

Course Errors Found in 2021 Study Materials P2.T6. Credit Risk

Nicole Seaman

Director of FRM Operations
Staff member
Subscriber
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 P2.T6. Credit Risk. 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
 

kchristo

Member
Subscriber
When reviewing the study notes for DeLaurentis, it seems like there are a lot of errors. What is the general advice for this section - should we still memorize the formulas, or just know the difference between the general default terms in the reading? Also, what does "Error! Bookmark not defined." mean?
 

Nicole Seaman

Director of FRM Operations
Staff member
Subscriber
When reviewing the study notes for DeLaurentis, it seems like there are a lot of errors. What is the general advice for this section - should we still memorize the formulas, or just know the difference between the general default terms in the reading? Also, what does "Error! Bookmark not defined." mean?
Hello @kchristo I just downloaded the study notes from the study planner and I am not seeing any bookmark errors. Can you tell me which pages you are seeing this error on? Can you also please be more specific about what you mean when you say "a lot of errors"? Do you mean errors in the content?
 

kchristo

Member
Subscriber
Hey @Nicole Seaman thanks for the quick reply. Most of the bookmark errors I found are on page 9 of the pdf. There's also a separate, additional error where the equation on p. 15 is missing a leading N(), in that the parentheses aren't wrapped by the cumulative standard normal operator.

With regard to my comment on a lot of errors, I was just going off David's note at the start of the study notes, where he says there are technical errors in the source text. I was curious if the bookmark not defined errors quoted above were in context to the errors in the source material, or some BT note (which it sounds like they are).
 

Nicole Seaman

Director of FRM Operations
Staff member
Subscriber
Hey @Nicole Seaman thanks for the quick reply. Most of the bookmark errors I found are on page 9 of the pdf. There's also a separate, additional error where the equation on p. 15 is missing a leading N(), in that the parentheses aren't wrapped by the cumulative standard normal operator.

With regard to my comment on a lot of errors, I was just going off David's note at the start of the study notes, where he says there are technical errors in the source text. I was curious if the bookmark not defined errors quoted above were in context to the errors in the source material, or some BT note (which it sounds like they are).
@kchristo I've fixed the bookmark errors. Those are only formatting errors caused by the footnotes. This set of notes was just updated last week, so there should not be errors in the content. I will have David confirm the error that you posted regarding the parentheses. At the beginning of the study notes, David is referring to errors in the source DeLaurentis book (author errors), so he is not referring to errors in our notes. I hope this helps to clear up any confusion.
 

kchristo

Member
Subscriber
In Gregory, chapter 11, under the objective: Explain how payment frequencies and exercise dates affect the exposure profile of various securities, the wording is contradictory.


"If payments are made more frequently than received, then the exposure is reduced. On the other hand, if payments made are more frequent than payments received, the exposure is incrementally increased."

I think the second "increased" should read "decreased".
 

kchristo

Member
Subscriber
In Gregory, P.74, on the difficult CVA calculation, at the bottom:
In first year, mPD is same as PD at 9.52%, in 2nd year, mPD = 18.1% -9.5% =9.52%,

Should read:
In first year, mPD is same as PD at 9.52%, in 2nd year, mPD = 18.1% -9.5% =8.61%,
 
Top