phish: “I just think it is a wrong path to think CFA and FRM study materials are somewhat related and by doing the former will help the latter or vice versa.” I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. It takes a lot less time to pick up on minutia and some of the additions that the FRM material tests such as quant. You can’t honestly think that if start discussing problems with cointegration in a multi-variate framework (something not discussed in CFA exams) that a person that has taken/studied for L2 is at the exact same spot as someone that has no clue what a time series is? It will take someone with L2 experience substantially less time to figure out this added caveat because he understands what cointegration means and how it is tested for in a simple unitary framework. Similarly someone who understands what random walks are is more likely to understand a Brownian motion more quickly than is someone who has no concept of what a random walk is. This is a fact, and is what is in fact meant by OVERLAP! So to say there is 0% OVERLAP is very dumb, even if you did pass both. As a final example and a final proof against the 0% overlap argument: both exams test your understanding of time value, yes? Well, there you go that’s overlap! If you learn it for one you don’t have to relearn it for the other!
adavydov7, Noted. I just presented an extreme case of ~0% for argument purpose. In real life, one can easily argue that even an undergraduate finance/accounting degree overlaps with CFA program or a math/Stat undergraduate degree overlaps with FRM to some extent. Again, coming from a non-quantitative background, prepare for FRM could be a daunting task (you cannot just pick up the Schweser materials to do that). Even FRM is not a number crunching exam but it does test the very core your understanding of different quant methods. FRM is still evolving, in my opinion, it will be more clearly distinct and refine itself from other programs such as CFA in terms of curriculum, exam formats and methods of preparation. It might be even more difficult for people without strong quantitative background in the future. What I mean is that not everyone could just “dive in”. We might not even see question such as overlap at all in the future …!
Well of course the CFA/FRM is easier/has more cross over for someone with a FINC degree than for someone with an art/history degree.
After receiving the new books…10% overlap for a full CFA.
FINforLIL, Would you please kindly advise tangibly what are the 10% overlap for a full CFA ? TKVM !
if you study using schweser overlap is significant just because the same people who make notes for CFA do notes for FRM.
phishwong I get your point , when you say “coming from a non-quantitative background, prepare for FRM could be a daunting task” could you please help me to what depth I need to go in quant coming from a non-quant background or how many passes (as David harper puts it ) I need to take I am from an accounting background so I am taking 3 passes Ist pass is Gujarati + Schaums - Stats and probability IInd pass - FRM Hand book and IIIrd pass is Schweser notes , offcourse BT videos in between . Now , I did enjoy the first 6 chapters of Gujarati and the material sinked in , but when I go to the core of regression analysis - especially the multiple regression and interpretation part I start getting uncomfortable and get a feeling that I cant match the quant guys , is regression analysis that tricky or I still have a chance to learn thoroughly despite being from a non-quant background.
Factor hedge, GARP’s core readings are pretty hard to digest. I would say people who take multivariable calculus or above or calculus based statistics or something similar would have a much easier time with the materials. For those who don’t have those background, I highly recommend Bionic Turtle. I actually know a person who had a financial engineering degree and working on quant trading desk also used Bionic Turtle. We both passed the exam but he score all five parts 1st quartile and I only made 3 of 5 parts 1st quartile and the other two parts 2nd quartile. All I used for the exam were Schweser, BT, FRM handbook and GARP’s mock exams. I think it is possible to pass the exam if you have the right approach and tackle your weakness. I think you are in a good shape if you are discipline and try more interactions with the BT instructor during the live webcast would also help you a lot in understanding the material and save you a lot of time and frustration.
phishwong as always thanks for such a constructive reply . Ok I am using BT , videos and excel sheets to refer in between , also I am using the BT notes , but I felt its kind of a summary of the respective core readings(correct me if I am wrong ) ,so I thought I need to get a deeper understanding by reading core readings . Anyway I am reading only Gujarati and Hull ,enjoying both of them especially Gujarati , I should admire the author for writing such advanced concepts without much use of calculus or matrix algebra ,however like you mentioned above most of the other readings in core readings are highly quantitative . I will start with Handbook this week and simultaneously start schweser too
Not sure if I am getting this wrong but seems like Quant is 10% of the Full Program right?Or is it tested much more across areas? Question for the retakers or ones who have passed: Did you read the Handbook along with Schweser or referred to it when you had conceptual issues?Or read it AFTER you finished the schweser material?Ill wait to see if I need Bionic Turtle. Its another $500…not cheap. As evident, I got my Schweser pack today. 5 books, quicksheet, and the online access. Giddy up!
I’m getting my books today as well… i should be here tonight through FedEx I’m planning on just grinding through the Schweser books. If it’s not enough, I might end up buying the FRM Handbook to supplement the materials.
For Factor Hedge, I didn’t use much of the BT notes but I used the video, Excel models and chapter summary questions from BT extensively. I am not sure if BT lectures currently allow questions to be asked. If it does, take advantage if it to clarify difficult concepts. In addition, the recent edition of FRM handbook are more quant-friendly than the earlier edition. (I used the 3rd Edition, which I spent some time within the book to do the calculus to ensure my understanding but the 4th Edition is easier to read) But also watch out the FRM handbook is not updated as often and therefore it can only be used as an accessory. For SalZ, I used FRM handbook 3rd edition and BT side by side. Afterwards, I used Schweser notes and then tackle the end of the chapter questions and also the question bank. Try to test the knowledge per chapter to ensure the full understanding of the reading. Finally ,Garp’s mock exams and Schweser’s mock exam a week or two before the actual exam. I am sure many people used schweser only to pass the exam. For me, I am not comfortable with Schweser note for many quant concepts. (in my opinion, I feel like reading the CFA quant section but I know it is kind of a superficial treatments of those concepts) Again, not just quant section you need to deal with quant but the quant is everywhere in the curriculum. Everyone is different, you just need to react promptly and change strategy to tackle weakness early on …!
I guess FRM Handbook and Schweser side by side it is then. Thanks for the input phish.
philip nicely put “you just need to react promptly and change strategy to tackle weakness early on …!” I would use a completely different strategy for CFA when compared to FRM … I am just done with Hull and Gujarati readings , left with couple of hours of video sessions and few worksheets to look into , I am planning to start with Handbook this week (I may not read it completely) will start schweser mid july . I am planning to complete schweser by early sep and again re read schweser also in between I have to manage with BT notes and few videos . Do you think reading schweser completely twice (along with all of BT ) is a overkill ? or should I just resort 1 reading and leave the last 2 months for grinding the practice questions ?
Factor hedge, It depends on whether you feel comfortable with that particular section. The only way to test it is using the question bank from Schweser and BT chapter summary questions, from my past experience, particularly those non-multiple choice questions that could break down the quant models or concepts layer by layer and allow you to master those concepts. The Schweser should have more than enough question for you to practice before mock exams. I’ve never finished all the practice questions from Schweser. As long as you maintain ~75-80% in all sections, you should be in a good shape. If not, it is time to look for remedies to tackle the weakness. For the FRM handbook, I haven’t finished reading the 4th Edition, but I finished the 3rd edition and spent some time working on the calculus proofing different types of duration and convexity, etc. e.g. try to understand the calculus used in calculating the duration/delta and convexity/gamma and rework on the 1st derivative and 2nd derivative on bond or option to see if you come up with the same answer. It helps to bolster your confidence in math and you don’t have to rely on memorization for all those formula.
Question: Speaking of overlap, I have finished level 3 of the CFA exams and am months away from the Charter. What is the incremental value of studying a few hundred hours to get the FRM Deisgnation if I already have the CFA? FRM looks interesting, but my current job hours will make studying for the FRM absolutely brutal. in $ terms is it worth my while? I’m not concerned about the exam cost, but in terms of earnings potential what do you guys think?
I just took L2 CFA. I have about 5 years in Credit Risk and Commercial Lending. In speaking with recruiters and other parties who have the designation and looking at the GARP job boards, I feel it can add value (again, Im sure its a case of luck, opportunity and location). I have the time and it seems interesting plus its directly applicable to my line of business, so I am doing it.
Huongz, I am also a L3 candidate awaing for the result. Having read the first two Schweser books, I found over 70% are covered in various CFA levels although the formulas are present in a slightly different form. I think CFA candidates definitely have an edge.
I am a L2 Candidate (June 2010) using Schweser notes for FRM full November. Seeing some serious overlap, agree with Umekichi on this one. Already breezed through book 1 in 4-5 hours and am halfway done with book 2. Umekichi: +1