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.