Bounded Rationality Example vs. Practice Problem

[TRaider]

I think the CFA book’s example problem and practice problems are inconsistent in the definition of Bounded Rationality. Can anyone set me straight?
Example Question:
X has cash that he wants to earn interest on, have accessible and protect from losses. X decides to deposit the funds in an account at the bank down the street, which states it’s an insured institution that only offers eligible accounts.
Example Solution: X’s behavior is boundedly rational because his decision meets the criteria, but it’s not necessarily optimal. X may have decided he didn’t have time or resources to research all alternatives. Given the limits/constraints, this decision meets the three criteria so it may be reasonable.
Practice Problem:
Client prefers an advisor to analyze investment choices and educate him on alternatives. Client prefers to see at least 3 different strategies that could achieve his goals.
Practice Problem Solution: Client may not have time to examine all investment options to find an optimal solution, but they rely on an adviser to do this for them. Thus, they do not exhibit bounded rationality.
So I don’t understand how both aren’t deemed to exhibit bounded rationality, or neither exhibit it. In the example, the guy jumped on the easiest option that met his criteria and it was deemed boundedly rational. In the practice problem, the client hired a professional/expert to analyze and provide several alternatives that would all meet his criteria… but that wasn’t boundedly rational. Easiest solution = bounded rationality, but assessing alternatives isn’t?
Does anyone have better insight? What am I missing here?
Thanks

 

[ink]

In the second scenario, it is assumed that the investment professional is doing a better job in narrowing down on those three alternative investments. In other words, the investment professional is more through in doing his research, so that the client won’t have to do it.
In the first case, X simply picks the choice that best fits his criteria without looking for better alternatives., which is what bounded rationality is all about. In the second case, the investment professional looks at many alternatives, picks 3 that are best and presents them to the client. The task of looking for the optimal solution is transfered from the client to the investment professional.

 

[TRaider]

Ahh, I think that makes sense now. Rereading that section, I missed the key that, in bounded rationality, the individual stops as soon as the criteria is met. In the second case, the individual actually does make an attempt to optimize through the use of an expert/professional. It may have been boundedly rational if the client took the first option that met their criteria, but instead they analyze multiple options.
Thanks for the answer!

 

[Viceroy]

In the first example, my interpretation is that by opting for the bank “down the street”, it implies that he made a quick lazy decision.
So although it is a valid decision, it may not have been the optimal decision, thus “bounded”.