Hey guys. What do you think of the CMT? Is it useful or a waste of money? I am certain the info you learn is quality stuff, but the designation doesn’t seem so unpopular (only 3,000 members). If I pass my CFA Level 1 this december I will have about a year and a half before my Level 2 exam (I prefer not to take it the following summer, i rather wait). I was thinking in the meantime I take my CMT. Anyone else doing this route?
WOOOOOPS SORRY I MEANT CHARTERED MARKET TECHNICIAN, MY BAD!!
just take level II.
There have been a couple other threads on this topic in the past, so you may want to search for those. Personally I think the CMT material looks interesting, but I’m not certain it would add much value to my career which is my hesitation. In your case I would agree with the previous post. Just take the level 2, don’t wait 18 months, get the CFA out of the way then do the CMT if you’re still interested.
Good point JonnyDee. Thanks for the advice
I belong to the small group of people on this forum who believe that the CFA isn’t worth the time & effort even though I am doing it. Yet the CFA has the most value among these designations.
If you plan on pursuing a career in the buy-side, please explain how you think the CFA isn’t worth the time and the effort? I can understand your stance if you are looking into other career paths, which may be what you’re talking about?
Well there are two aspects: the designation prestige and the value added in terms of knowledge The designation has lost alot of its value since the industry shrank, having many charterholders unemployed. The value added in terms of knowledge is minimal : 1) CFA material is easy, but exams are made hard. The CFA programme is challenging because of its structure. 2) The scope is just too broad to make sense. Nobody will use derivatives to hedge exposures, read reports about statistical tests, do capital budgeting, perform currency arbitrage, manage portfolios of equities, FI and structured products all at once in one’s career. 3) Exam format : what can you have possibly really learned if you passed exams in which you spent no more than a few minutes on each question and had no text ? Basics. At the end of the day, CFA just proves that you have some level of “general financial culture basics” and that you can study hard and survive 3 bootcamp tests. Sure it’s a positive, but not worth the time & effort. They should concentrate the BOK way more, make the exam questions more challenging but relax the format a bit. + Not mention your charter remains at the mercy of a bunch of idiots in Virginia.
I hold both the CFA and CMT charters and find that “fusion analysis”–using both fundamentals and technicals–gives me a more complete view of both fundamental value and what the markets actually think.
Viceroy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well there are two aspects: the designation > prestige and the value added in terms of > knowledge > > The designation has lost alot of its value since > the industry shrank, having many charterholders > unemployed. > > The value added in terms of knowledge is minimal : > > 1) CFA material is easy, but exams are made hard. > The CFA programme is challenging because of its > structure. > 2) The scope is just too broad to make sense. > Nobody will use derivatives to hedge exposures, > read reports about statistical tests, do capital > budgeting, perform currency arbitrage, manage > portfolios of equities, FI and structured products > all at once in one’s career. > 3) Exam format : what can you have possibly really > learned if you passed exams in which you spent no > more than a few minutes on each question and had > no text ? Basics. > > At the end of the day, CFA just proves that you > have some level of “general financial culture > basics” and that you can study hard and survive 3 > bootcamp tests. > Sure it’s a positive, but not worth the time & > effort. > They should concentrate the BOK way more, make the > exam questions more challenging > but relax the format a bit. > > + Not mention your charter remains at the mercy of > a bunch of idiots in Virginia. I disagree. CFA has become an industry standard. more important. you just can’t get a job because you have it. fair game to me. Knowledge is essential. gives good overview. If you want to prove how smart you’re, do a phd. but i agree, the material is not hard, but its useful. simple things is more important than difficult things imo. the broad coverage is good as it gives you the necessary background to dive into these things. and yes, you do use a lot of what CFA teaches you. its all interrelated to some degree or other. try giong throw a bank annual report and tell me that the concepts taught does not apply. you don’t have an understanding of swaps, forwards, options, you won’t be able to understand a lot of finance. whether its worth the time and effort is up to you, but I found it rewarding. definitely would do it again. the fact that you’re doing the exams is proof that CFA is important. your actions contradict your thoughts.
I heard CMTs rule the world. Or maybe someone said CMT rules the world of television . . . hmm that was in a country bar too. Maybe CMTs do not rule the world - I heard wrong. However, I want to get the CMT too at some point. I have all of the L1 books on my shelf and they are all quite interesting.
Anyone who has done this program?
I am keen on the program and it would benefit me alot when looking at charts for my personal trading as well. Any views welcome.
Studying the price action is always important. End of the day, the price itself does convey a lot of information, so do not ignore it.
CMT would introduce you to a lot of different topics - depends on how you use these tools. Exams force you to read the entire material and do give a structured approach to the content.
Can you read the material separately without giving the exams? Yes. But that’s true for the CFA as well.
From a career perspective having the CFA/MBA is very important. CMT does add value - if you like reading charts.