Here is podcast interview with the director of exams at the CAIA Association, Dr. Nelson Lacey, CFA, in which and he makes some really good comparisons between the two designations. I thought I’d share it with you guys.
I mean, if you look at the level of difficulty and importance, I think you are right - there is no comparison. But both are designations in the fin. services industry, both share part of the same curriculum (ethics), and both are reputable. So I do think we can compare the two - just as Dr. Lacey did during his interview. Just my opinion though.
At least at L1 CFA is not more difficult than CAIA - there is just a lot more to cover, “mile wide, just an inch deep” seems consensus opinion. That’s where the “difficulty” comes from.
Not just ethics is the same/similar. A lot of quant in L1 CAIA crosses over too. And CAIA assumes background finance knowledge as well.
I’m doing FRM & CFA L1 in May/June 2017. So far I would say the FRM is much more of a challenge than CFA (although narrower, just like CAIA), it goes a bit deeper, questions can be multi-step and deliberately evil. CFA is all about just plodding on.
I completed CAIA last year (failed Part 2 on the first attempt) and found its voyage into some interesting corners of finance extremely rewarding and relevant to a changing financial industry generally. Very useful to look at the standard stuff from the alternative viewpoint, you are already thinking out of the box which is a place others are trying to get to.
With no finance background at all, approaching 50 and with a lot of other stuff going on in life, CAIA seemed the right thing to get a foothold in finance (and it has already paid out career wise). Certainly going into the CFA and FRM now, the usual feeling is “yep, not exactly the same but kind of the same, sort of familiar, I can do it”.
Didn’t listen to the whole podcast, but certainly I get the feeling they try to keep the CAIA industry-relevant. CFA produces Analysts, CAIA produces people who understand a certain industry well?
Maybe I’m a bit biased cause I passed CAIA years ago (maybe it has gotten better/harder/more relevant since then), but it didn’t compare to the CFA exams. Even CFA Level 1.
I get what they are trying to do - make someone an “expert” in alternative investments. But IMO the only way to do that is to pluck people who have actually done alternative investing (i.e. futures traders, private equity managers, etc). Even then, most people’s experience is too narrow.
I dunno. I look at it as a JV version of the CFA for people who are in the field of choosing alternative investments. I don’t lend any real credit to the designation to be honest. Even though I have it.
I recently sat and passed both levels for CAIA this past year (9/2016 & 3/2017) & was surprised at how much material there was.
They revamped and added ~40% more material for Level II. This may be why the March 2017 pass rate was 59% (the lowest in 5 years).
Decided to take this test since I work at a hedge fund and it was very useful.
Debating starting the CFA journey. I took a crack at it out of school and did not study properly. CFA does get & deserve respect, although CAIA is coming along in its own right, IMO.
May I suggest finishing the CFA Program first – then decide what to do next. That being said, willing to bet $100 you won’t go through with CAIA if you happen to earn the Charter.