I was thinking about taking FRM after my CFA level 3 exam so I searched online to get some knowledge around the history of FRM, program structure etc…
Then I found FRM and its establishing organisation GARP once had a rich indecent history. I read through most of the posts about FRM in this forum but couldn’t see any post on which people discussed about it.
So I thought it might be helpful to kick off the discussion about it as some FRM candidates might have just skipped the background check of FRM and GARP.
There is really no offence from me on FRM and its candidates. I think all the people who pursue those kind of professional designations work really increditably hard equally and are equally amibitious.
Does anyone know the controversy? For those who don’t know, please check wikipedia. Also, there is a personal question: is it worth pursuing some designation of which the owner was once not ethical?
Please forgive me if the above caused any confusion. This post can be for gossip during your lengthy course review
Yes, I ever heard it from some professionals in risk management field and I wonder why it still survive.
I took a look at its currivulum in detail and I found that it intentionally to break the currivulum into two parts. Actually some topics are covered in CFA’s curriculum of 3 levels (fixed income, statistics, derivatives, portfolio management, value at risk…) but they just assign some readings written by different authors and do not allow the exemptions of the tests on these topics for those who passed all 3 levels of CFA exams.
In reality, only Part 2 of FRM exams is required for those who have passed all 3 levels of CFA exams if the curriculum is stuctured properly and this can be easily done. I doubt that they are just making money in this way !
Well, to some extent, most of the companies in this field (i.e. professional designation) although claimed as not-for-profit organisations, have been actually making a good and decent amount of money year on year.
I can’t comment on FRM program as whether FRM Level 1 overlaps with CFA as I have not looked at the books but if it overlaps with CFA to a great degree then I agree with you that it should do something for CFA charter holders as a not-for-profit organisation.
I guess, in such a high competitive financial job market globally, the reason why FRM survived was probably because of its high quality of material.
Does anyone else know what happened after the FRM scandal broke out?
Suppose some high-ranking person from Harvard makes some offensive comments. The institution survives because the product is not tied to the administrative people.
I look at the FRM “scandal” similarly. The value of the “product” (the curriculum, the current value of the FRM in risk management circles, etc.) is high enough to attenuate any past issues around the time of the founding of the organization.
Today, the organization has gotten their tax status completely ironed out; there is no current problem with any tax body or regulator and GARP is in good standing.
The other thing to ask yourself is, what else are you going to go for, the PRM? Given the choice, in my industry segment in the United States, I’ll take the FRM, thank you very much.
Please take a close look at FRM curriculum. In some professionals’ opinions, all fundamental topics which have been covered in CFA 3 levels curriculum shall be structured in FRM Part 1 exam. Part 2 shall focus on some specific topics of risk management. However, they mix them in both Part 1 and 2. Actually, I was told by those professionals that they don’t like this and that’s why they choose other designations/credentials.
