Tuckman vs Fabozzi vs Veronesi

Discussion in 'About FRM' started by jasit, Jul 13, 2012.

  1. jasit

    jasit Member

    I was going through another thread with a useful discussion on the 3rd Edition of Tuckman. But not having rights to post to that thread, I am starting another one here. Hope that is ok?

    Aleks has scored in favor of Tuckman. Though, I would like to cite that CFA uses Fabozzi almost entirely. Any particular reasons that you see for CFAI to opt for Fabozzi over and above the other two [beyond that he is a CFA charter holder].

    How do the latest editions of the three compare in terms of only the Bonds portion [not taking into account the derivatives portions esp in Veronesi]?
  2. David Harper CFA FRM

    David Harper CFA FRM David Harper CFA FRM (test)

    Hi FeRMion (I get it, FRM!)

    My guess is that CFA uses Fabozzi because it has (for as long as i can remember), he is maybe the most recognized name, and his (CFA) material is good. I sort of view the three in a hierarchy: fabozzi > tuckman > veronesi

    I still use fabozzi cfa to confirm basic definitions.

    Tuckman's book is profounder than I realized in early years: it is a deep well of insights, often on issues relevant to risk. It has taken me years to appreciate the great depth of Tuckman; e.g., best explain of risk-neutral concept, the only place i could really understand the the singe factor sensitivities. I could not have gotten this depth from Fabozzi's text.

    The Veronesi is newer and, i think, it's an absolute gem. It's the first "bridge" in my library from the accessible (fabozzi, tuckman) to a whole roster of technical texts that are quite time consuming because they require your math investment (quantitatively heavy). Veronesi is accessible quant; e.g., he blows away Fabozzi on the FRM assigned MBS. Fabozzi on MBS frustrates me because it's imprecise in areas, but Veronesi actualizes terms like negative convexity with XLS examples. It's rigorous and accessible. I hope that helps, thanks,
  3. Aleksander Hansen

    Aleksander Hansen Well-Known Member

    I would rank them as:
    1. Veronesi
    2. Tuckman
    3. Fabozzi

    I would point out specifically that Veronesi's research is arguably better than Fabozzi's. Also, look at where they are tenured. Common knowledge that on the PhD job market there are three categories.
    1. Chicago's Econ department and Business School picks the students they want
    2. After Chicago have made their picks, other good universities like Harvard, MIT and so forth get to fight over candidates,
    Finally, when category 1. and 2. has done their picks, all other universities pick the up the "leftovers".

    In my opinion Fabozzi's writing was good 10-20 years ago, but he's not on top of newer developments. Definitely not on the frontier of finance. He has one advantage, and that is name recognition as a lot of students over at least a decade was fed his book.

Share This Page