If in the text it said that var @ 5% is x but i calculated that the same var should be at 5.2%, i assumed that original var calc is incorrect. Turns out schweser thinks that there is not much difference between 5.2% and 5% :-/ How the hell should i know? whats their epsilon? :-/
maybe they said “closest” to? I know the CFAI does that.
CSK - i know the question you’re referring too. i also assumed incorrect. i guess in that case though, its close because you’re given a set of data points. so correct i suppose. if they gave us VAR based on the normal curve instead of historical and it was a 5.2 and a 5% i would say incorrect.
as a computer scientist i like things to be precise when it comes to numbers :-/ I guess you are right strike, but they could have atleast said “close to” and “not close to” to make the choices more clear as oppose to correct/incorrect
^ yes… quite frustrating indeed.