I think the CFA designation is more of a screening tool for certain positions (ER in particular) rather than a designation that provides you with the skills to do your job. In essence, it is a licensing requirement for ER (although it is not a license obviously). Most SS and buyside ER shops want CFA candidates or charterholders not because of the knowledge they gained, but because it shows them that you are a hardworker and serious about the profession. Plus, it looks good on their marketing materials and so forth. I do think there are many aspects of the program that make you a better analyst than somebody without the CFA.
Bromion, I am currently on the SS side and would eventually love to make a jump to the buyside. I would get in touch with you on your gmail address in the next couple of days. Thanks.
Same here Bromion. I’m in SS and would be interested in how you made the jump to the buy side. Thanks
blood in, blood out. back in the day there would be no switching.
What do 1st year ss guys make?
Sure you can email me. I don’t have a specific available job to network you into, nor contacts I’d be willing to share, but I can give you general advice on how to market yourself and what skills matter. I’ve been tasked with recruiting for my firm in the past and have a good idea of what a hedge fund manager would look for when hiring, as well as what the key differences between sell side and buy side research are (having worked in both).
Captain Windjammer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bromion, would you please remind me what you do > again? I am the lead analyst at a smallish (several hundred million) long/short and special situations hedge fund. I cover domestic and international equities on an opportunistic basis, some fixed income (mostly distressed debt), and recently have engaged in some LBO transactions. Prior to that I worked on the sell side in a junior role covering manufacturing & industrials, retail, and tech. I realize that my perspective is just one of many, and that there is no “right” answer about how much value passing the CFA exams might add to someone’s career or knowledge base. That said, I do work in one of the jobs that most people starting the CFA program hope to get, and I can tell you from real experience (almost 5 years) that most of the content in the CFA program is not useful for this work. The CFA program can be a good way to break into the industry (but no guarantee), however, I find it to have been a frustratingly low return on invested time in my case. It did help me get a job, which was my ultimate goal, but not because the content was worthwhile (it has signaling value).
sjv1030 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think a clear distinction should be made between > professional designations (i.e., CFA) and academia > (i.e., MBA). > > A professional designation should teach you a good > amount (obviously not 100%) of on the job skills. > A great example is the CPA. > > An academic degree is there to teach things in a > vacuum (to an extent) and to make sure the > foundation is there so one can build on it with > work experience/knowledge. > > Therefore, I agree with Bro and BlackBelt that the > CFA designation isn’t really carrying its weight > in that regard. It shouldn’t try to replace the > education learned in a Masters of Finance program > or an MBA program. > > Instead, the CFA designation should bridge the gap > between learning about FCFF in school (or some > book), and how to arrive at it via pro-forma > statements, etc. This is why although individuals > on this forum have passed some level of the CFA > designation, there are still so many inquires > about Excel/Modelling courses. > > I personally work in ABS, and can tell you that > CFAI is really behind on this stuff. Yet, I read > all these reports from S&P and Moodys from analyst > with their CFA charters and wonder what benefit > they got from it. I’m studying for level 2 and > the MBS/ABS section is weak. Actually, my Masters > in Finance taught me more of a foundation. In > that regard, the FI section of level 2 is > completely useless IMO. There is some ABS content in the curriculum. Given that the sector has been almost totally frozen of new issuance over the last 3 years, I can’t imagine it is CFAI’s top priority for adding to the curriculum. I think level 2 had quite a lot of material useful for SS equity research in terms of valuation methods, quality of earnings analysis etc. Surprised that a few people seem to have found it next to useless.
The CPA will not prepare you to audit Exxon. The Bar exam will not prepare you to argue a case in court. sjv1030 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think a clear distinction should be made between > professional designations (i.e., CFA) and academia > (i.e., MBA). > > A professional designation should teach you a good > amount (obviously not 100%) of on the job skills. > A great example is the CPA. > > An academic degree is there to teach things in a > vacuum (to an extent) and to make sure the > foundation is there so one can build on it with > work experience/knowledge. > > Therefore, I agree with Bro and BlackBelt that the > CFA designation isn’t really carrying its weight > in that regard. It shouldn’t try to replace the > education learned in a Masters of Finance program > or an MBA program. > > Instead, the CFA designation should bridge the gap > between learning about FCFF in school (or some > book), and how to arrive at it via pro-forma > statements, etc. This is why although individuals > on this forum have passed some level of the CFA > designation, there are still so many inquires > about Excel/Modelling courses. > > I personally work in ABS, and can tell you that > CFAI is really behind on this stuff. Yet, I read > all these reports from S&P and Moodys from analyst > with their CFA charters and wonder what benefit > they got from it. I’m studying for level 2 and > the MBS/ABS section is weak. Actually, my Masters > in Finance taught me more of a foundation. In > that regard, the FI section of level 2 is > completely useless IMO.
bromion Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > content in the CFA program is not useful for this > work. The CFA program can be a good way to break > into the industry (but no guarantee), however, I > find it to have been a frustratingly low return on > invested time in my case. It did help me get a > job, which was my ultimate goal, but not because > the content was worthwhile (it has signaling > value). All your talk about the CFA being useless is garbage, because you just admitted it helped you land a job. Thousands of people doing the CFA program are trying to do just that. They need that foot in the door, the need to just get noticed and land that job that can teach them the real world skills. So if being in the program helps you land the job you wouldnt have got, hell yea its worth spending 400 hours studying for it.
And your comment on how your firm encourages passing L1 and then discouraging L2 and 3 sounds pathetic. L1 is a freaking joke, doesnt prove anything in todays world
This thread is breaking the hearts of every level 1 candidate right now u guys are monsters!
CFA?? I’m still pissed I’m not using cursive that I learned in elementary school. Elementary school, ha, what a waste that was.
Someday, there may be a pill you can take, so that you can enter an entry level job knowing exactly how to do it. Shame on the CFAI for not researching how to do this! Schools suck! Why do we even go?
Here’s my take on all that CFAcountry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you took all the information from this forum > and combined it you would get: > > CFA - The best designation you can get in the > industry that teaches you a ton, is useless, and > can help you get a job and is no help in landing a > job. > CFA is the best designation for Asset Mgmt and Equity Research yes. It’s not useless, because of the prestige of the title behind your name. It could be useless to you depending on your specific job. It can help land a job if passed L2 or L3, no help if passed only L1. > Networking - The best thing you can do to get a > job, yet is not usefull in the job search. > Useful if you network with people YOU KNOW in the industry. Useless if trying to cold call total strangers. > Research - The position where everyone wants to be > that is too hard to get into unless you have a top > 10 MBA, but many peole that AF’ers know are in > equity research without an MBA at all. > Research does NOT need an MBA. No idea where you got the notion that MBA is needed for ER. Many I know in ER don’t have it. > MBA - Only worth your time and money if you are > going to a top 10 school, but still not worth it > because of the money, but you have to have it to > do anything in the finance industry unless you > know someone to get in, but it is still worthless > without experience. MBA is worth it, only if you go top 10, yes. It’s not worth it, if you are trying to get into ER or AM. For Banking, it’s very worth it. Definitely don’t have to have it in finance. It is not so useful without experience, yes. > > Experience - This is what you need to get into any > job you are looking for, but if you have to much > experience you will be labeled as too old to make > a career move. Correct. The prime and best time to move in finance is with 2-4 years of good experience. At this time you are still young, and with some good experience, you are very attractive, and flexibility. Find what you really want to do, and get into it. Obviously, some positions with synergies will allow for a career move later in life, like ER moving to AM > > My point here is the CFA, MBA, career path, > networking or whatever provides only the value > that you are willing to assign to it. For some, > one of these can be a life changer; for others, > they are useless. If you think the CFA is useless, > by all means don’t pursue it. If you feel it will > give you more knowledge and feel that it is > usefull, then go for it. Agreed. These different degrees are targeting different areas of finance. You have to choose a path and go for it.
I dont know - many associate positions in ib or ER require an MBA (or coming up through the ranks as an analyst in ib).
iteracom Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And your comment on how your firm encourages > passing L1 and then discouraging L2 and 3 sounds > pathetic. L1 is a freaking joke, doesnt prove > anything in todays world It proves interest and requires less retraining away from the bad habits instilled by the CFA program. People also tend to be less burned out. CFA level 1 is not a joke if you weren’t a finance major in college – the material is not that hard, but it takes a while to move up the curve. We generally don’t hire finance majors or MBAs where I work, so it makes sense for us. I agree it might help you get a job. This thread is about how the material is worthless. Try reading closer next time.
I mean, I don’t really understand. If you think that all this material is useless and doesn’t help or whatever. Why do you even bother learning it ?? huh ? Go get a LIFE.
bromion Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I agree it might help you get a job. This thread > is about how the material is worthless. Try > reading closer next time. No, the material is still not worthless. Because learning the material got you the job, even if you didn’t use the material on the job, it landed you the job. Getting in is by far the most desired part of working in finance. That’s why we even learn the material.
In that respect, how is it different from a top 10 MBA? The biggest value add-on is that it vastly increases your chance of breaking into finance as opposed to if you didn’t have one.