That’s why I was asking when that was added.
I had seen the g/e for taxes and had started a thread.
I guess I just missed the FI example when I was looking through it…probably because there was almost 3/4 of the page that was left blank on the 2nd page. It’s my mistake, but still even if you see it, let’s say in late 2017, you might not remember it when you’re trying to review. If they made the changes in the bookshelf itself, it wouldn’t be an issue.
The point is not that they published an errata, but that if even they can’t get it right the first time and with infinite time for editing/review and probably only discovered it because a perceptive candidate noticed it, it’s very insulting and in any reasonable opinion unfair and inappropriate to then test that concept. But CFAI can/will do what they want and if they did that, candidates can’t point out specific examples because that would be “unethical “. Then they wonder why candidates think CFAI is trying to trick them - because the evidence says they are. They should be ashamed of themselves. Candidates would do better on the exam if they ignored CFAIs rhetoric and assumed they were trying to trick them because the end result is no different than if they were.
According to the errata the last update was on May 21st. How is it unfair when everyone has access to the same information? You are free to point out specific examples to the CFAI.
I completely agree.
I think it’s pretty obvious that CFA ist trying to trick candidates. Not only for the case we are discussing, but also because you don’t test the knowledge of a candidate with weird phrases etc. which, for a non native, are difficult to understand.
I guess you want to be obtuse. They are the experts and even they can’t get it right! Seems pretty simple. Essentially they are expecting a higher standard from the candidates than they can achieve themselves. If they let candidates go back two weeks later and revise their answers that would be comparable.
I agree with there being an errata, but let’s say you read something in September and then read the errata in November. Now you’re done with the entire syllabus once and reviewing it for revision. What are the chances that you remember the errata? Ok, you can go back to it and re-read it.
But wouldn’t it be better for them and us to just make the change on bookshelf?
It’s your responsibility to keep up with all errata. I’m sure they have that written somewhere. Tbh let it go and embrace the fact that you should’ve just read it. Everything they publish is fair game.
LOL yea that’s totally comparable. They made a half a dozen (mostly very minor) changes out of thousands of pages of high level curriculum. They post it publicly for all to see and as others have said they leave it up to the candidate to take responsibility for checking the errata. If you learned a formula and then have from May 21st until June 23rd to relearn it with a minor addition I fail to see how that’s unfair when everyone is in the same boat.
They should send emails regarding additions to the errata.
I personally looked at the errata weeks ago.
Doesn’t make sense as they can update the errata one hour before an exam and be correct according to some of you.
Addition to the errata should be sent by emails well before others things.
I think their view is if they e-mail it some people might see it while others won’t, no guarantee an e-mail gets read and/or even delivered. If it’s posted in a public place everyone is treated exactly the same. Obviously updating it an hour before is not reasonable. One month is very reasonable which is exactly what they did!
Like what color was the girl’s dress on page 45 of war and peace was fair game in HS. Technically true, but the teacher asking it was still out of line and not teaching us anything. I prefer to work with people who get these kinds of things not those who revel in their ability to say everything in a multi thousand page curriculum is “fair game”.
Further, the are multiple places in the curriculum and finance in general where meanings are different for different people/groups. Looks like these are examples of those things. So yeah, test the definition you picked. Totally makes sense.
Kinda like the utility formula. One has 0.5 and the other doesn’t
Yea you’re right. They just just leave things open to multiple interpretation. In fact EURUSD should mean USD as base currency for students in one part of the world and EUR as base in others!
The best part about the G-Spread errata is the following sentence in the CFA text:
“Simplicity is a key advantage of the G-spread: It is easy to calculate and understand, and different investors usually calculate it the same way.”
hmm…so simple…ironic…
i think you win with that post. So simple even the CFAI can’t get it right.
I guess we can take solace in the fact that all you have to do is do better than the person next to you and those memorizing 300 formulas and reading the errata are probably less likely to pass because they lack the ability to understand/conceptualize what is really going on with the material.
I do love the back and forth on stuff like this though. Really solidifies my understanding of why people view the CFAI as they do. For the on the margin candidate, this stuff could drive you batty.
its two different formulas. One for active management and one for general mvo. It would be like saying it’s funny that the two stage dividend model uses two growth rates and the three stage uses three.
Shocked…
Agree, errata should only be tested in subsequent years to ensure it’s baked into the core curriculum.
Testing in the current year sb off-limits. That’s like changing the rules of a football game at halftime.
Reported with one on ethics