Adapting to new environment - any advice would be most welcome.

[FRM Bionic Ninja Turtle]

I've just started my learning journey with BT and FRM text, or should I say having started with only the first Chapter - most stuff I'd have agreed but - I'd have already notice that the study notes entails new philosophies, definitions and terms that slightly deviate from my past understanding with risk. I might be wrong in disagreeing to some text / definition, based on my past work experience.

But more disturbingly is that I'm not sure how I'd be able to proceed other than following the FRM study planner. I think I might need to untaught myself on what I've learnt at the workplace / norm vs. what I'm about to learn, though I've yet to look through other sections & little did I realize that I've a problem in accepting some definitions i.e.;

Technically, risk is neither peril nor hazard:
"A peril is the cause of a loss
"A hazard is a condition that increases the probability (and/or frequency and/or severity) of a loss
Risk is not synonymous with the size of a cost or of a loss.
...


My question here is, how do y'all adapt to this new environment?

• Does any of you redefine the given definition? Or should I redefine accd. to my own understanding of risk, as a risk practitioner, as I find it doesn't gel up with what is practical at work. Will that affect my exams - in terms of answering what has been asked?
• I found out that I'm already very inclined towards associating learning with Basel / Regulatory type of risk, will there be a problem in learning business risk or other area of risk?
• Does all the definition matters in the exams i.e. asked about exactly same options as i.e. Crouhy text/other text??

Anyone feeling the same way?

If I'm wrong, Correct me, please.

Thanks!

?Clueless Guy

 

[Mace]

Hi Ninja

Welcome!

Generally, I think you should write in exams what they expect of you. So study the Crouhy definitions for the FRM exams. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to unlearn what you had previously learned, and thinking further about the differences can be a source of insight.

To give an example, I count myself to the Graham/Buffett School of value investors, who are generally very skeptical towards the EMH and its related concepts. In the CFA exams, I sometimes struggled with the Portfolio Management parts, which take the EMH more or less at face value. Similarly, for the FRM I expect to encounter a few such topics that run counter to my worldview. That doesn't mean I forget my previous worldview, but for the exam I stick to what's in the materials and, in my head, hopefully a more nuanced view forms out of it.

 

[FRM Bionic Ninja Turtle]

Hi Ninja

Welcome!

Generally, I think you should write in exams what they expect of you. So study the Crouhy definitions for the FRM exams. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to unlearn what you had previously learned, and thinking further about the differences can be a source of insight.

To give an example, I count myself to the Graham/Buffett School of value investors, who are generally very skeptical towards the EMH and its related concepts. In the CFA exams, I sometimes struggled with the Portfolio Management parts, which take the EMH more or less at face value. Similarly, for the FRM I expect to encounter a few such topics that run counter to my worldview. That doesn't mean I forget my previous worldview, but for the exam I stick to what's in the materials and, in my head, hopefully a more nuanced view forms out of it.

Thanks Mace!