Improving your quants with FRM study pack

A

abacus

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2026
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
I am not planning to take the FRM exam, but want to improve my quant. understanding. Has anyone tried the FRM Quant Reading Pack? thanks,
 
I didnt try it, but i would take courses in your local unv. Math should be taught separatly and not in the context of finance.
 
comp_sci_kid: Sorry for my incomplete message. I want to understand the quant behind finance, specifically related to derivatives.
 
The FRM has a quant section that focuses more on probability and statitsics, but they also have a section on Derivative pricing which uses stochastic calculus. The process of deriving the Black Scholes equation is well explained in the Hull readings, the Hull text is often part of postgrad derivative class. Beyond this the advanced Quant is not usually obtainable without a strong skillset in math, for the gifted, I presume this could be obtained via texts by Neftci, Baxter & Rennie or Wilmott. In conclusion, start with the Hull or McDonald (Derivative Markets) texts.
 
maybe try the stripped down versions of wilmott, either

>> Paul Wilmott Introduces Quantitative Finance

or

>>The Mathematics of Financial Derivatives: A Student Introduction
>> Paul Wilmott, Susan Howson

brief and cheap
 
Thanks guys. I was looking for a starting point, so this is great help. Can you also suggest a good book on modeling, so I can combine theory with practice?
 
Wall Street was mainly about M&A, not equity research. If anything, they made fun of equity analysis.

I would prefer Fixed Income to equity research/asset management. I think that it being too quant is one of the reasons why it isn�t as popular a choice among new entrants. The funny thing is, I feel that a thorough understanding of primary Fixed Income analysis is much more useful as an introduction into the analysis of investment in general than equity analysis is.
 
I disagree on the book recommendations. If you don't have a knowledge of the calculus through multivariable, reasonable performance in a formal course on differential equations, or probability, those books by Wilmott, Neftci, or Baxter and Rennie are not for you.

There's a reason that the programs that teach this mathematics in a formal setting, either through a phd program or a financial engineering program, require you to have such a comfort level with math through diff eq's and probabiliity.

I think some people "fake" their way through these books, but don't have the mathematical skill set to fully digest the message of what the theories are saying.

Anyone self teaching their way through that Wilmott book, a Student Introduction to ... is absolutely BS-ing themselves, and anyone they tell it came in handy.

Take a semester of calculus based probability and go from there.
 
Davey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree on the book recommendations. If you
> don't have a knowledge of the calculus through
> multivariable, reasonable performance in a formal
> course on differential equations, or probability,

if you read kiwi's message, he said:
>> Quant is not usually obtainable without a strong skillset in math,

so you're agreeing with him not disagreeing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top