http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1458219 This was posted on Abnormal Returns today. Basically, it found that having experience in portfolio manager will significantly lower portfolio risk. Having a CFA will also reduce the risk. Having a MBA, will not reduce risk and by some measures increases risk. Their explanation for the statistics, is MBA’s often have bonuses that are tied to performance and have a asymmetrical payout. Thus, they have incentives to take the risks. Their logic on CFA’s on the other hand, is since they abide by a high ethical code, they will not seek huge bonuses at the expense of their client’s risk.
Posting some piece of crappy research four times does not change anything.
Alright a hole. I clearly didn’t intend to post it multiple times . I found the study and its findings interesting and thought I’d share it.
I just briefly read the article, conclustion===>inconclusive!!
I thought it was quite interesting, but pretty meaningless. I’m sure out there somewhere there is a period where funds run by Arts majors outperformed all MBA run funds (or something like that).
Joe2010 is a very nice guy and I don’t appreciate you calling him a you-know-what-hole.
i do see why there would be a difference between MBAs and CFAs but its not because of what you learn. its simple really and in my mind, requires no study to prove it. CFAs finish their designation with essentially no debt, or at least i’d hope not considering you need 4 years paid work experience to attain the charter. CFAs have no reason to take undue risks for financial reasons… unless you have a gambling or coke addiction. MBAs finish their degree with tons of debt. Their only way out of this debt in a timely manner is risk, risk and more risk. Besides financial reasons, MBA programs and the CFA program attract different types of people. Generally, and I mean generally, those who attain the CFA tend to be more analytical and standoffish (INTJ, INTP) whereas MBAs tend to be more aggressive and hands-on (ENTJ, ENTP, ESTJ, ESTP). A generalization but I don’t think its an unfair one. Most of those who are willing to put down $100k+ for an MBA actually believe they’re better off than not putting down the $100k, one way or another. Putting down $100k is risky period, thus its attracts risky individuals.
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i do see why there would be a difference between > MBAs and CFAs but its not because of what you > learn. its simple really and in my mind, requires > no study to prove it. > > CFAs finish their designation with essentially no > debt, or at least i’d hope not considering you > need 4 years paid work experience to attain the > charter. CFAs have no reason to take undue risks > for financial reasons… unless you have a > gambling or coke addiction. > > MBAs finish their degree with tons of debt. Their > only way out of this debt in a timely manner is > risk, risk and more risk. > > Besides financial reasons, MBA programs and the > CFA program attract different types of people. > Generally, and I mean generally, those who attain > the CFA tend to be more analytical and standoffish > (INTJ, INTP) whereas MBAs tend to be more > aggressive and hands-on (ENTJ, ENTP, ESTJ, ESTP). > A generalization but I don’t think its an unfair > one. Most of those who are willing to put down > $100k+ for an MBA actually believe they’re better > off than not putting down the $100k, one way or > another. Putting down $100k is risky period, thus > its attracts risky individuals. Many MBA’s are paid for by employers, probably more so than CFA exams. What is risky about obtaining a degree that your employer pays for (which may or may not lead to future opportunities, and of which without you may not be eligible for other opportunities)?