1. Roblox’s USD29.5 Billion Valuation Is Printed as Financing Proceeds
Curriculum location: Primary and Secondary Public Equity Markets, Roblox direct-listing example, p. 51.
"In January 2021, Roblox received USD29.5 billion in new financing from two private investment firms at USD45 per share."
The financing proceeds and company valuation are different quantities. Roblox announced a USD520 million Series H financing at USD45 per share; the USD29.5 billion figure was the valuation associated with the round, not cash raised.
Correct reading: Roblox announced USD520 million of new Series H funding at USD45 per share in a round that valued the company at USD29.5 billion.
This distinction prevents candidates from treating a valuation as an amount of capital raised.
2. Roblox’s Direct Listing Reverses the Seller and Becomes New-Share Issuance
Curriculum location: Primary and Secondary Public Equity Markets, Roblox example and Question Set 1 solution, pp. 51 and 55.
"shares were offered to existing shareholders."
"C is incorrect because a direct listing is simply a specific mechanism for a company to issue new shares to public investors as an alternative to the IPO process."
The first sentence reverses the transaction: existing shareholders were the sellers in the classic direct listing described by this module. The later solution then contradicts the module’s own definition by turning the route into new-share issuance. Modern rules can permit a primary direct listing, but that does not make new issuance the definition of every direct listing.
Correct reading: In the form taught by this module, existing shareholders offer already issued shares directly to public investors without a traditional underwriter; a direct listing is distinct from an IPO and is not defined by new-share issuance.
The correction preserves the module’s IPO-versus-direct-listing distinction and the logic of its own examples.
3. RSUs Are Defined as Already-Owned Restricted Shares
Curriculum location: Primary and Secondary Public Equity Markets, restricted stock units, p. 54.
"RSUs are shares rewarded to employees as part of a compensation package that are restricted from sale during a vesting period that may last several years."
"RSUs may be sold or retained as unrestricted shares."
An RSU is a contractual right to receive stock or, under some plans, cash after applicable vesting and settlement conditions. It is not an outstanding share held by the employee before settlement, and the item later sold or retained is the delivered share, not the RSU itself.
Correct reading: Before settlement, an RSU is a contractual compensation right. After stock settlement, the delivered shares may be sold or retained subject to applicable restrictions.
The distinction matters whenever candidates separate a compensation promise from issued equity.
4. Question Set 2 Calls 100 Shares a Minimum Exchange Order
Curriculum location: Equity Trading Venues, exchange-order paragraph and Question Set 2, Question 1, pp. 56 and 61.
"Equity trading orders of all types are typically entered in standardized share lots of a minimum 100 shares each."
"Which one of the following is most likely a minimum size of an equity trading order submitted on an exchange?"
One hundred shares is a traditional round-lot size for many equities, not a universal minimum order. Exchanges also accept odd-lot orders below a round lot, and the applicable round-lot size can vary by security.
Correct reading: A 100-share round lot remains common for many equities, but it is a standard trading unit rather than a universal minimum exchange order.
The printed wording otherwise turns a market convention into a false order-validity rule.
5. Question Set 2 Calls the Bid–Ask Spread an Explicit Cost
Curriculum location: Equity Trading Venues, Question Set 2, Question 3 solution, p. 62.
"The bid–ask spread is an explicit cost of trading"
The module itself defines explicit costs as out-of-pocket fees and commissions and classifies the bid–ask spread as an implicit cost. The spread is observable, but observability does not make it explicit.
Correct reading: The bid–ask spread is an observable implicit trading cost; market impact is another implicit cost that order splitting may seek to reduce.
This keeps the explicit-versus-implicit cost classification internally consistent.
6. Question Set 3 Uses Market Float but Asks for Shares Outstanding
Curriculum location: Equity Liquidity Measures, turnover-ratio body and Question Set 3, Question 2, pp. 62 and 64.
"The ratio of average daily volume to market float gives an overall indication of the proportion of shares outstanding to be exchanged on a given trading day."
"the proportion of shares outstanding exchanged per day"
The denominator is market float, not total shares outstanding. In the printed question, average daily volume is million shares, market float is million shares, and total shares outstanding are million. The two readings therefore produce different listed answers:
Correct reading: Turnover ratio measures average daily volume as a proportion of market float. The printed calculation supports , while the phrase “shares outstanding” supports .
The correction aligns the prose, formula, and keyed calculation.
7. Question Set 3 Treats Near-Quote Orders as Little Depth
Curriculum location: Equity Liquidity Measures, Question Set 3, Question 1 solution, p. 64.
"However, if all limit orders are close to the prices associated with the bid–ask spread, the market would have little depth."
Market depth depends on the size of orders at or near the best bid and offer. Being close to those quotes supplies the location condition; it does not establish that depth is small. Price dispersion across nearby levels is more closely related to breadth.
Correct reading: The number or proximity of limit orders alone does not establish depth; depth depends on the size available at or near the best bid and offer prices.
This restores the definition used earlier in the same topic.
Complete Module 3 Errata Index
Scope: Module 3, pp. 45–74 (printed page numbers).
What this review covers. Errors in the printed curriculum that would change a candidate's answer or understanding: wrong numbers, wrong formulas, reversed logic, and statements that contradict the module's own data. It does not list spelling mistakes, equation-numbering slips, or wording that is loose but defensible.
The table below lists all high-value, objectively confirmed curriculum errors covered by this article, including eligible errors in printed Practice Problems and their solutions. Repeated instances of the same defect are consolidated into one row. Import-only defects, question errors not printed in the module source, disputed or reasonably defensible claims, and low-value editorial corrections such as typos or numbering and cross-reference errors are outside scope.
References
- Roblox announces USD520 million Series H funding at a USD29.5 billion valuation
- NYSE: Direct Listings
- IRS Publication 5992: Equity-based compensation, including restricted stock units
- SEC: Odd lots in a post-transparency world
- SEC: Market-data rule and tiered round-lot sizes
This article is an independent candidate-focused analysis of confirmed errors in the CFA Level I 2027 Curriculum, Volume 5 Equity Investments, Module 3 Equity Issuance and Trading. It is not an official CFA Institute errata notice, and inclusion here must not be read as CFA Institute confirmation, endorsement, or approval.