- Thread starter Nicole Seaman
- Start date
- Tags feedback may-2017-exam work-experience

I also choose linear downward sloping.

This is just my estimate.

These are the parameters. Pass rate for Pt 1=45%, for Pt , 55%.

GARP, in the past, had mentioned in its website (not sure if still valid) , that they take the top 5% and base t h e cutoff mark on that score.

On a 100-qn test, assume 95th percentile is 90 correct questions (realistic).

Let m=mean, s= std dev

Assuming normal dist, (90- m)/s=1.64

Now, in most standard tests, like SAT, GRE, etc, s = m/5.

Example: in SAT, if the mean is 500, 600 is 1 std dev.

Let P = passing score w h ere the pass rates are 45% for Pt 1 and 55% for Pt, we can now solve for P.

I solved this and came up with:

Raw pass score for Pt 1 = 69.5 (out of 100)

Raw pass score for Pt 2 = 52.8 (out of 80)

Just my estimate folks.

Good luck to all.

This is just my estimate.

These are the parameters. Pass rate for Pt 1=45%, for Pt , 55%.

GARP, in the past, had mentioned in its website (not sure if still valid) , that they take the top 5% and base t h e cutoff mark on that score.

On a 100-qn test, assume 95th percentile is 90 correct questions (realistic).

Let m=mean, s= std dev

Assuming normal dist, (90- m)/s=1.64

Now, in most standard tests, like SAT, GRE, etc, s = m/5.

Example: in SAT, if the mean is 500, 600 is 1 std dev.

Let P = passing score w h ere the pass rates are 45% for Pt 1 and 55% for Pt, we can now solve for P.

I solved this and came up with:

Raw pass score for Pt 1 = 69.5 (out of 100)

Raw pass score for Pt 2 = 52.8 (out of 80)

Just my estimate folks.

Good luck to all.

This is just my estimate.

These are the parameters. Pass rate for Pt 1=45%, for Pt , 55%.

GARP, in the past, had mentioned in its website (not sure if still valid) , that they take the top 5% and base t h e cutoff mark on that score.

On a 100-qn test, assume 95th percentile is 90 correct questions (realistic).

Let m=mean, s= std dev

Assuming normal dist, (90- m)/s=1.64

Now, in most standard tests, like SAT, GRE, etc, s = m/5.

Example: in SAT, if the mean is 500, 600 is 1 std dev.

Let P = passing score w h ere the pass rates are 45% for Pt 1 and 55% for Pt, we can now solve for P.

I solved this and came up with:

Raw pass score for Pt 1 = 69.5 (out of 100)

Raw pass score for Pt 2 = 52.8 (out of 80)

Just my estimate folks.

Good luck to all.

Same here...downward sloping...i am trying not to follow the thread but goddd...cant help it..its time actually now to breath for a month and wait for results...i can only say..when you left the exam hall and your first gut feel was that you made it..then you are thru...

This was my argument.

So that means for Part 2, we need to achieve 52.8/80=66.3% correct...that's

Estimate of the raw cutoff scores:

This is just my estimate.

These are the parameters. Pass rate for Pt 1=45%, for Pt , 55%.

GARP, in the past, had mentioned in its website (not sure if still valid) , that they take the top 5% and base t h e cutoff mark on that score.

On a 100-qn test, assume 95th percentile is 90 correct questions (realistic).

Let m=mean, s= std dev

Assuming normal dist, (90- m)/s=1.64

Now, in most standard tests, like SAT, GRE, etc, s = m/5.

Example: in SAT, if the mean is 500, 600 is 1 std dev.

Let P = passing score w h ere the pass rates are 45% for Pt 1 and 55% for Pt, we can now solve for P.

I solved this and came up with:

Raw pass score for Pt 1 = 69.5 (out of 100)

Raw pass score for Pt 2 = 52.8 (out of 80)

Just my estimate folks.

Good luck to all.
Appreciate the effort buddy...just to validate..your calculation says cuttoff 69.5 for L1..i was expecting around 60 in part 1 paper...we can do like +-5 so it becomes 55 to 65 range...basis your logic i should have not cleared but my score was 1121..so not that your calculation is wrong or something...its just that there may be other parameters that garp includes or may be nothing..they might just rank order and select the 55th percentile who knows...

This is just my estimate.

These are the parameters. Pass rate for Pt 1=45%, for Pt , 55%.

GARP, in the past, had mentioned in its website (not sure if still valid) , that they take the top 5% and base t h e cutoff mark on that score.

On a 100-qn test, assume 95th percentile is 90 correct questions (realistic).

Let m=mean, s= std dev

Assuming normal dist, (90- m)/s=1.64

Now, in most standard tests, like SAT, GRE, etc, s = m/5.

Example: in SAT, if the mean is 500, 600 is 1 std dev.

Let P = passing score w h ere the pass rates are 45% for Pt 1 and 55% for Pt, we can now solve for P.

I solved this and came up with:

Raw pass score for Pt 1 = 69.5 (out of 100)

Raw pass score for Pt 2 = 52.8 (out of 80)

Just my estimate folks.

Good luck to all.

I choose LCR decreases because customers will move their deposits to other banks, not sure if thats right

There is additional verbiage in the question which we are missing. It says something on the lines that historically there is correlation between deposit rates and customer moving away but from last 2 years the CFO didn't find any much movement in deposits . At the same time it was also mentioned the interest rates were very low in recent years and the fed is thinking of increasing the interest rates after a long gap. So the recent correlation of deposits not moving much doesn't hold strong. So i assume LCR will be impacted downwardly

yeyyy... so, may be I did mark it right ! Anyways, I tried to put myself in that situation, if I had been paid low rates for a whole lot while and suddenly other banks are offering a higher rate, will I be motivated enuf to move my deposits or not..

secondly, LCR is a short term measure and no correlation of last two years means things are static.

but if the correlation is low meaning people are not motivated to move their deposits then there will be no impact on LCR.

secondly, LCR is a short term measure and no correlation of last two years means things are static.

secondly, LCR is a short term measure and no correlation of last two years means things are static.

## Stay connected