Hey guys, The formula for skewness and kurtosis take two different forms, a simplified one and a more complicated one. I noticed that the CFA material says that you can use the simplified forms for larger samples but does not say specifically how large the sample has to be… Schwesers, on the other hand, only mentions the simplified formula. I’m wondering if you can get a reasonable answer using just the simplified form, or will there be questions on the CFA that will require you to know the more complicated form. Thanks in advance, cpham

Are they equivalent formulas?

Hi, Learning outcomes: “DEFINE and INTERPRET skewness, explain the meaning of positively… blah… describe… the relative locations of the mean… blah…” “DEFINE and INTERPRET measures of sample skewness and kurtosis…” I’m not sure just how literally to take the learning outcome statements - [personally I stick to them very closely because there is so much volume of material, and only 60 days till my exam] - however, if you ask me, learning those formulas inside and out is not required. In other learning outcomes it might say “CALCULATE and INTERPRET the coefficient of variation and the Sharpe ratio”, in which case I would say obviously you ought to know those equations. Myself, I believe it is adequate to know certain characteristics about the kurtosis/skewness formulae (such as raising the deviations to the power four to guarantee a positive sign) - but not the details off by heart. Just my opinion, in light of the learning outcome statements…

Formula? You don’t have to know any formula for L1.

just understand what positively or negatively skewed means and what it means to be leptokurtic and platykurtic