Thing that really grinds my gear
So, one thing that really drives me crazy are poorly thought-out examples in certain educational books, such as the CFAI curriculum (CFAI isn’t the only one guilty of this…this same problem is wide-spread in many math, stat and even econ books etc)
What I can’t understand is that why do they sooooooo often use 50% as an example?
case and point. LVL 3, Reading 29, section 3:
“If a portfolio has an Active Share of 0.5, we can conclude that 50% of the allocation positions of this portfolio are identical to that of the benchmark and 50% are not.”
Why use 50%? What’s the value added? Why not 45%??!?! Why not ANY other number than 50%?!? If you use 50%, there are automatically “two” 50% figures. What’s the point to use a figure which can easily confuse the reader? In this case, I understand “which” 50% they mean. But often it is not clear. Also, when an example shows calculations, it’s sometimes really annoying to try to figure out “which” 50% they mean.
This has been pissing me right off since HS and I can’t figure out why the authors constantly use ****ty examples. I would understand if there would be some value-added to it but I highly doubt it.
Does anyone have an explanation? I would love to know the reason for this idiocy.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Study together. Pass together.
Join the world's largest online community of CFA, CAIA and FRM candidates.