What's new

FRM Part 2 difficulty relative to FRM Part 1


Active Member
Thread starter #1
So yeah, results for Part 1 are just out and I am weighing my options, whether to do Part 2 this November or May next year.

I got 2/2/1/1 as my score breakdown. I'd say I was most comfortable with questions involving calculations, owning to my actuarial science and strong mathematical background. I was also relatively OK with conceptual questions (i.e. those non-numerical questions but which you can answer provided you understand the underlying formulas). I probably fared slightly worse for non-real world theory questions (eg: those from the final 1/3rd of Book 2), but real-world scenario questions were intuitive (the stuff on ops risk and stress testing for example).

I work in risk management IRL. I got a year in ops risk, and now I'm in financial risk in the insurance industry (covering mainly market/credit and also some insurance risk). I am fairly well-versed with the financial markets, follow current market events, and have a particularly keen interest on the investment side of things (especially equities). I believe this helped me immensely in being comfortable with the "real world" type of questions in the FRM Part 1 paper.

All in all, how much more difficult is Part 2? Does it take longer to prepare for, relatively speaking? Would I be at a disadvantage if my theory skills are poor?

Would appreciate any input you can give on Part 2 vs Part 1, including study tips and other neat tricks.