I haven't been on any so can't comment from first-hand experience (maybe someone else can), but I always thought the 4-day taught courses looked like a good way to get stuck into the course.
The first couple of chapters of part 1 - on the EMH and Measures of investment risk - are relatively straightforward. Portfolio theory, and the various models of asset returns can look a little odd straight from the notes. My advice would be to start relating the notes to the past exam questions or the q&a bank to get a better grasp of the material, and the sort of level at which it is examined, early on.
Part 2 on stochastic calculus is probably where I struggled, spotting where and when to apply Ito's lemma takes lots of practice at questions. But getting a good grasp of the concepts of Brownian motion and other stochastic processes is covered well.
I think Part 3 is a lot more straightforward than it looks! Intro to derivatives should be straightforward from previous subjects. The Greeks are a simple concept too. Unfortunately the general terminology for the Binomial model makes it seem quite complicated. But actually doing the calculations should(!) make everything clear. Similarly with the Black-Scholes formula, the derivations are a lot harder than the application.
Part 4, I think, is the toughest part of the course. The bizarre terminology in the Wilkie model becomes clearer if you try and re-write things in more familiar terms. Some of the material on credit risk should be slightly familiar from previous courses (the alive-dead model from CT4 for credit ratings for e.g.). But my only advice for this part is make sure that you plan plenty of time for studying it. I found it took much longer than I expected compared to the other parts of this course despite not having a huge page count!
Other than the above, my only advice is to pester colleagues, other forum members, familiy and friends with all your questions on the material!
Hope this helps.
Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2008
