I refer to CFA Errata on semivariance on page 288-289 which has corrected the equation for semivaraince to have a divisor of (n-1) instead of (n*-1). With the amended equation with (n-1) as the divisor, it makes the statement on page 289 “… When return distribution are symmetric, semivariance and variance are effectively equivalent” not true anymore. The statement holds true if the divisor is (n-1). Anyone out there, pls comment. Cheers…
Sigh. So what’s the n-1 for? (Yeah, bias because it’s expectation is uh, …) Anyway, this just doesn’t matter. Semivariance is an adhoc statistic. Calculate it however you want.
You really don’t like semivariance do you joey?
I would not waste my time on things that aren’t on the exam. Pay attention to the LOS.
chrismaths Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You really don’t like semivariance do you joey? Nope. I think it’s just a number without structure and that’s not good thinking.
thanks… it’s in LOS nway… just curious what’s d correct way to compute it…