What we got wrong

That the SEC's bulletins describe an annuity's surrender period as typically six to eight years, sometimes ten or longer.

That the SEC's bulletin describes it as typically six to eight years, sometimes as long as ten.

A read of the SEC's Updated Investor Bulletin: Variable Annuities (30 October 2018) found the wording "after six to eight years or sometimes as long as ten years"; the lesson's "or longer" went past the source.

That Brown, Goetzmann and Kumar (1998) found Hamilton's calls earned less return than holding the market, with less risk taken.

That Brown, Goetzmann and Kumar (1998) found Hamilton's timing had value once risk is counted: his calls kept the portfolio out of the market for long stretches, so that in their own simulation it earned about the same as holding the market with less volatility, and measured against the risk it carried the record showed high Sharpe ratios and positive alphas. The lower-return finding is Cowles's (1933).

A check of the paper's abstract (Journal of Finance 53(4), 1311–1333) found no statement that the calls earned less than holding; that result belongs to Cowles, and the lesson had attached it to the later paper. Confirmed the same evening against the paper's text: its Table II puts the Hamilton portfolio at 10.73% a year against 10.75% for the all-stock portfolio, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.559 against 0.456 and a Jensen alpha of 4.04%.

That no widely accepted study known to the academy shows prices turning at the retracement levels more often than chance, that this was the honest state of the evidence, and that it was why nothing was cited — which read as though no test of the ratios had been published.

That Batchelor and Ramyar, in Magic numbers in the Dow (2006), tested turning points of the Dow Jones Industrial Average from 1914 to 2002 and found ratios near Fibonacci values no more often than chance; that Prechter replied in Elliott Waves, Fibonacci and Statistics (2006) that filtered trends are not Elliott waves; and that no widely accepted study shows the levels marking turns better than chance.

A survey of what the major curricula teach turned up a published test of Fibonacci ratios in Dow swings, and a published reply to it, that the lesson had said nothing about.

That the daily loss limit adds up the realised losses of the whole trading day.

That it adds the day's realised profits and losses together and pauses the session when that running total falls to the limit, which is what the simulator does.

A read of the simulator's code (lib/academy/sim.js): the limit nets the day's closed trades rather than summing losses alone.

That the scheduled releases which move everything at once are government releases, with the ISM manufacturing survey listed among them without distinction.

That most are from government statistical agencies and the ISM survey is published by the Institute for Supply Management, a private association, so a lapse in federal funding delays the federal releases and not the private surveys.

The Institute for Supply Management is not a government agency; the lesson had grouped its survey with the federal releases.

That the reporting rules do not require the compensation element to be included in the basis a broker reports for employer shares.

That for shares acquired through an equity plan since 2014 the rules do not let the broker include it: Treas. Reg. §1.6045-1(d)(6)(iii).

"Not required" understated the rule; the regulation forbids the inclusion for post-2013 equity-plan shares, which is why the reported basis is commonly nothing or the discounted price paid.

That Credit Suisse announced the XIV notes would be valued on 15 February 2018 and repaid on 21 February "at the closing indicative value of that date", which read as the value on 21 February.

That the notes were valued at their closing indicative value on 15 February 2018, the accelerated valuation date, and repaid at that value on 21 February, the acceleration date.

A read of Credit Suisse's 6 February 2018 release (SEC EDGAR, exhibit 99.1) found the payment set at the closing indicative value on the accelerated valuation date, 15 February; the sentence had pointed "that date" at the payment date instead.

That under Rule 605 the venues that execute orders publish monthly execution-quality statistics, with nothing said about brokers.

That the SEC's 2024 amendments to Rule 605, in force from 1 August 2026, also require broker-dealers introducing or carrying 100,000 or more customer accounts to publish the same monthly statistics for their customers' orders.

The lesson described the rule as it stood before the 2024 amendments; the compliance date was moved to 1 August 2026 (Federal Register, 2 October 2025) and has now passed.

That a Roth withdrawal is qualified once the account has been open five years.

That it is qualified at least five tax years after the first contribution to any Roth IRA, and that a Roth 401(k) counts its own five years.

A check against the tax authority’s own guidance found the lesson attaching the clock to the wrong thing — the account rather than the taxpayer’s first Roth contribution.

That a charge may not be called non-recurring when something similar is likely within two years, stated as though it applied to everything a company says.

The same rule, framed as applying in filings.

A check found the lesson applying a filing rule to a company’s speech generally.

That paying the whole of last year’s tax is enough to avoid a penalty, with no condition attached.

The same, provided a return was filed for last year and it covered all twelve months.

A check found the lesson stating a safe harbour without the condition that makes it available.

That a fund in the top quarter over one five-year period has rarely stayed there over the next.

That few funds in the top quarter of their category in one year have stayed in the top quarter in each of the years that followed.

A citation check found the lesson describing a different measurement from the one the published persistence tables actually report.

A description of the publisher’s exclusion from adviser registration that was broader than the case supports.

That a bona fide publication of general and regular circulation offering impersonal advice falls outside the definition of an adviser, citing Lowe v. SEC (1985).

A check against the decision found the lesson dropping the two conditions the ruling turns on.

That after a listing the underwriting banks’ analysts do not publish research for a period, stated as a general rule without its source or its exceptions.

That FINRA’s rules set a minimum quiet period of ten days before the underwriting banks’ analysts publish research, that the minimum does not apply to emerging growth companies, and that coverage often starts later still.

A read-only check against FINRA’s own rule found the lesson had turned a minimum with a named exception into a flat rule.

A citation of Brav and Gompers that reported the underperformance without reporting what the authors concluded from it.

That they found the gap concentrated in the smallest listings without venture-capital backing, that established firms of similar size and book-to-market did about as badly, and that they concluded it was not an effect of listing as such.

A citation check found the lesson using a paper to support a claim the paper argues against.

That a margin account’s maintenance requirement is measured at the close.

That the requirement must be met throughout the trading day — twenty-five percent for long positions in marginable stock and more for short positions — and that a deficit left unmet for several business days can restrict the account’s credit.

A check against FINRA’s margin rule found the lesson describing the old end-of-day test rather than the intraday one.