Thing that really grinds my gear

Water Cooler
#1

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 shitty 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.

#2

In my experience, about half of the textbooks out there use sh*tty examples. For instance, if you pick a textbook at random and read an example, there is a 50% likelihood that it’s sh*tty and 50% likelihood that it is not.

#3

In my experience, about half of all WC posters use sh*tty examples. For instance, if you pick a thread at random and read an example, there is a 50% likelihood that it’s sh*tty and 50% likelihood that it is not.

#4

In my experience, about half of all WC posters are the same, 29 year old Indian single male. The rest just stumbled upon this website when Googling for Infowars, snake rearing tips, or facts about WW2 armored vehicles.

#5

tanks.

#6

You know there’s a forest in all those trees you’re over analyzing right OP?

#7

I agree with OP. In that particular case, the authors should have used something other than 50%, so we know whether the .5 Active Share represents the 50% that is explained or the 50% that is unexplained.

I would expect better out of CFAI, since it likes to take itself so seriously.

#8

Never read the books cept the ethics during l1!