Schweser notes adding its own views? part, its, previously, statements, research

homie

For LOS 27g “Critique the traditional case against international diversification”:
The last paragraph of Schweser notes for this LOS stated that “Academic research has found that the previously reported increases in correlation during volatile stock markets were, for the most part, manifestations of the higher volatility and not increases in the true correlation…..[it than when on to talk about cross-section of returns etc]”
I am very concern with this paragraph because these statements did not appear in the CFAI text at all. I read through page 369 -370 of Vol III of CFAI and nothing is mentioned about the above statements. My opinion is that Schweser actually added its own ‘materials’ to the notes. How could it add outside materials to the notes? This is dangerous.

WarrenB1

I remember this being in the CFAI texts when I was taking exams. Maybe it has been removed since….

zephyranalyst

You’re looking at the wrong section or pages in the CFAI text. This LOS is organized like a debate , with both points of view ( i.e. for and against International Diversification ) being presented. The section you refer in Schweser has to do with the case FOR , not against , so look at Section 3 , pages 375-376