Its interesting to note the changes with last years FRM and this years FRM full exams: Looks like they want to focus on all facets of Financial Theory,Instruments, and markets like the PRM. FRM is as well making $$ by having it broken down into two exams. Make note this years, 2009 full exam will be more material compared to the 2008 exam. 2008: • Market Risk Measurement and Management – 30% • Credit Risk Measurement and Management – 25% • Operational and Integrated Risk Management, Legal – 25% • Risk Management and Investment Management – 10%. • Quantitative Analysis – 10% 2009 Full: Foundations of Risk Management 10% 14 questions Quantitative Analysis 10% 14 questions Financial Markets and Products 15% 21 questions Valuation and Risk Models 15% 21 questions Market Risk Measurement and Management 10% 14 questions Credit Risk Measurement and Management 10% 14 questions Operational and Integrated Risk Management 10% 14 questions Risk Management and Investment Management 10% 14 questions Current Issues in Financial Markets 10% 14 questions
To note , see the significant drop from the core areas: Market Risk Measurement and Management 30->10% Credit Risk Measurement and Management 25-> 10% Operational and Integrated Risk Management 25->10% Given that the above areas are core/important areas in risk management I am not so sure if it was a bright idea for GARP to lower the weightings. PRMGCM
Given the market turbulence the past few years. No doubt having a PRM or an FRM adds significant value. A CFA is unfortunately not entirely concentrated in risk management so I see a shift in value from CFA to FRM and the PRM. An MBA is so general it just doesn’t add value to any credit or market crisis. An CAIA is simply a general designation that anyone can get in their sleep. Even the syllabus states it provides a ‘general view’ on alternative investments. CAIA doesn’t cut it as well. FRM and PRM are winners
Looks like the new FRM is wider and less deep?
prmgcm Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Given the market turbulence the past few years. No > doubt having a PRM or an FRM adds significant > value. A CFA is unfortunately not entirely > concentrated in risk management so I see a shift > in value from CFA to FRM and the PRM. An MBA is > so general it just doesn’t add value to any credit > or market crisis. > FRM and PRM are winners I would have to disagree regarding the MBA is so general it doesn’t add value to any credit or market crisis. The MBAs are the leaders (in most cases), executives, leading the company . . . providing direction and then the people who have specific finance specialties can execute, provide feedback on what they see, the possible risk explosions they might anticipate and then provide feedback back up the chain for the execs to make decisions on where to go from there.