"Reading 24: In section 3.1.1 (page 200), third paragraph, the fourth sentence should read “The yields of the two government bonds are usually weighted so that their weighted average maturity matches the credit security’s maturity.”
it would be the ultimate hubris of the test writers to test something that the CFAI can’t get right and needs to publish an errata over. Think about it - the experts writing a study note can’t get it right the first time with no time pressure but then they expect the minimally qualified candidate to get it right on exam day with time pressure. But what should we expect but hubris from CFAI test writers?
I think the g/e depends on what you are doing. If you’re doing an FVIF for calculating a RV and therefore looking at gifting the entire estate in two steps. Some now and some at death (a bequest) then the g/e is relevant because you’re only gifting part of the estate.
in contrast if you are just looking at gifting the entire estate or a specific dollar value and how much you save, then the g/e either goes to 1 or isn’t relevant/right.
at least that’s how/why I interpreted there being two variations on the formula when studying. Anything where a formula like that is based on assumptions is going to seem weird unless you make the same assumption as the formula does. I ran into the same thing with some of the tax stuff. I’d work through problems based on actual knowledge of how the taxes worked and then look at a solution that was based on a formula that got a different result. It can be annoying if you know what is really going on.
Any way to find out when that duration example was added to the errata?
Also, isn’t this the same as the ethics standard i.e you made a recommendation and then you changed it. You are supposed to send out a notification to everyone and if some is placing an order, you have to notify them of the changed recommendation.
I see this as exactly the same situation. They should be sending an e-mail to every candidate when there is new errata published. Even get with bookshelf to change the text.
If you can’t do any of it, they shouldn’t test us on it.
I thought the point was having a centralized location for all of these changes that everyone has equal access to at the same time? Not checking the errata and then complaining about it afterwards seems silly.