What's new

Exam Feedback May 2019 Part 2 Exam Feedback

David Harper CFA FRM

David Harper CFA FRM
Staff member
Subscriber
@AK88 Yes, correct: topic-wise performance is merely informational as only the total score produces a pass/fail outcome. Therefore, you could bomb one topic and make up elsewhere. See, for example, here my previous illustration of a counter-intuitive outcome where hypothetical Student #1 earns 3/3/2/2 and passes while Student #2 earns 2/2/3/3 but fails https://www.bionicturtle.com/forum/threads/quartiles-and-weights-exam-results.9883/post-45570 i.e.,
@hellohi

Okay I built this small spreadsheet (because trying to talk about this soon becomes a word soup :eek: imo), please see https://www.dropbox.com/s/ikhbkm0571fdchh/1019-garp-frm-scoring-exam.xlsx?dl=0
... and below is a snapshot. This is just for P1 and you only input (change) the yellow cells, the rest is calculated.

Notice how I input an extreme version of the one you referenced in your email; i.e., Student #1 earns 3/3/2/2 and passes while Student #2 earns 2/2/3/3 but fails. I was deliberately provocative: notice how the seemingly subtle difference can lead to a difference between a final score of 62 and 36 (wow!). Caveat: I'm not sure my quantiles are exactly calibrated, but they can't be too far off. I hope that clarifies!

 

amit.m.sharma

New Member
Subscriber
The question on the after tax risk adjusted return on capital, we were given expected loss, unexpected loss and economic capital. I had not seen unexpected loss in any RAROC problem earlier so this one threw me off. Given that we are told the unexpected loss value, are we obliged to use it in the RAROC calculation?

From other threads in the forum, I could find a discussion between unexpected loss and economic capital with economic capital = alpha * unexpected loss. Who exactly decides this alpha?

worst case loss = expected loss + unexpected loss

why don't we use worst case loss instead of expected loss in the RAROC calculation?
 

nikic

Active Member
The question on the after tax risk adjusted return on capital, we were given expected loss, unexpected loss and economic capital. I had not seen unexpected loss in any RAROC problem earlier so this one threw me off. Given that we are told the unexpected loss value, are we obliged to use it in the RAROC calculation?

From other threads in the forum, I could find a discussion between unexpected loss and economic capital with economic capital = alpha * unexpected loss. Who exactly decides this alpha?

worst case loss = expected loss + unexpected loss

why don't we use worst case loss instead of expected loss in the RAROC calculation?
My understanding is that the unexpected loss is superfluous information in computing the after-tax RAROC. Just ignore it and compute after-tax RAROC as you normally would, as all pertinent information is already given.
 
Hey, guys. I have a grammar question. Do you still remember the BCVA question?

"For the perspective of company A, its exposure to company B is 1M, while for the perspective of company B, its exposure to company A is 2M"

if I would like to calculate the credit risk for Company A. Which EAD should I use? 1M or 2M. From my current understanding, it should be 1M, because credit exposure to sb means if sb default the amount will be in credit risk. I remember I used 2M in the exam, because I thought company B's exposure to company A means the amount company A have the position in B. So which one should be the correct one?
 
Top