Sour grapes brah!
Well, they don’t give you the charter until you have 4 years of work experience. So, I guess they are keeping the unwashed hordes out of official membership. Restricting people from taking the test would just be separating them from the knowledge in the curriculum.
I agree that “random tech dude” often has no business taking CFA exams. But then again, there isn’t really any downside except to that person. So, I’d just let them do what they want.
I’m in corp finance, too (strategy & bus dev, for what it’s worth). I don’t use a ton of L3 material on a day to day basis, but, when you take a step back and understand why we’re buying or selling these companies / business units / whatever, it really is just portfolio theory.
There’s no way they would require a experience approval before allowing someone to take L3. Why?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Why would you deny yourself the bountiful harvest of candidates very willing to pour a lot of money into your lap? there’s no worries of dilution anyway if it’s some random guy working in technical support.
Why not? I cleared level three prior to that point too. I am now at 43 months approved so I am almost there. But taking the exams early actually proved to be very fortunate for me, as my mother has become seriously ill the past year and I can’t imagine studying now…
Maybe for someone else it will mean having more time later on to spend with a baby (for example).
Everyone is on a different track, if random tech guy can master the material enough to pass, good for him, let him do it. The institute makes money, and if RTD manages to get the right job, he can earn a charter too, once all requirements are filled. The only guy with downside risk is RTD. Or, are we afraid that he might prove to be better than us!?!?
As for the main theme of this thread, I am direct investment, but I think a lot of the L3 curriculum was worthwhile.
I couldn’t disagree more with this thread.
You knew what you were getting into when you chose to start working towards the CFA charter. If you don’t like it you should have done a different professional qualification.
The CFA designation is specifically for investment management. That is why it is the “gold standard” in the investment industry.
I agree with you conceptually, but one of the near certain unintended consequences would be disparities in the perceived difficulties of the various tracks.
A number of candidates would invariably try to game their way into the ‘easy’ track. Even if your specialty happened to fall into the easy track and no gaming was required, then the people that naturally fell into the hard track and failed would be (rightly) bitter that the two exams achieve the same end. For the sake of the exam’s integrity I disagree with you, but in my personal career I see no downside to replacing all of the GIPS with fixed income or swaps.
The CFA Program provides a introductory foundation for a variety of topics in the investment industry. I like that and I don’t think it should change.
It’s meant to be an overview of key topics and knowledge in the investment industry, and gives you a baseline set of skills. It is not designed to provide in-depth, detailed knowledge of very specific topics. If that’s what you want, there are other programs (CAIA, CIPM, FRM, etc.) that are much more focused than the CFA program.
i registered just to reply to this comment…
what do you mean?? are you saying the tech guy doesnt have the right (background/profile/pedigree/sophistication/intellect) to work in the front office/investment management? as far as im concerned… if you can pass lvl3 even lvl2 regardless of work experience… you are so far ahead of 50% of “financial analysts” in this world… its ridiculous.
how can you argue that someone who has passed lvl 3/2 is NOT QUALIFIED to work AT LEAST in equity research?
in developing countries right now (Brazil for sure) there are 22 year olds that barely have a bachelors degree and are practically working as portfolio managers with $100m accounts. ive seen it countless times and frankly a lot of these operations are amateur. now that same kid in a few years will have figured out how to follow beta with absolutely no alpha but is very happy with his 2%… he has no incentive to get the CFA… he already made it. but is still an idiot.
now the tech guy on wall st. just went from being the operations monkey to more useful than the fresh out of a top 10 college finance undergrad just by passing 3 exams… its that easy.
First off, passing L2 is definitely not “so far ahead” in the world. You don’t know what you’re talking about. A great many highly experienced people don’t even go for the CFA, and it’s a joke to think you can match any unexperienced L2 kid against them.
And 2nd, I call BS on the “coutless 22 yr olds managing $100M”
Yeah the Brazil comment… no.
sure. my post was exaggerated but i stand by it. find the average finance/econ undergrad that just got recruited to the “analyst training/ management” program at a top IB (and there are hundreds per year)… i would bet all day that they wont just sit there and pass lvl 2… forget the ethics … they havent studied the cbok/los. for whatever part of the exam is just memorization/filler… they havent done it.
so my point is that a “back office tech guy” that passed the exams would be more useful than some kid. and its offensive when someone rolls there eyes at somebody that is trying to change careers to possibly have a better life.
There are still flaws in your argument
I personally know a few people who are stellar test takers, but when it comes down to real work, the quality they produce is very sub-par. They passed all 3 levels, but I wouldn’t hire them, ever.
Now you’re comparing it to some undergrad kid. Before you were talking about matching a L2 kid against over half of the financial analyst’s out there, you can’t keep flip-flopping and using whatever argument suits you.
I’m not saying the tech guy is a useless piece of meat, but true experience on the job in a finance role is more valuable than passing a few tests. You match anyone with solid experience against a no-experience person that passed L2, and the experienced person will nearly always get the job ceteris paribus.
yeah… im done with this thread… but for the sake of arguing on the internet with incomplete sentences… im referring the financial analysts in much more general terms. think about FAs not in the finance industry… who are we to say the book keeper of a local restararaunt, is or isnt a “financial analyst”…
Umm, as actual financial analysts, I’m pretty sure we can in fact say a g****m bookkeeper or pet rock in corporate accounting is not an analyst.
Yeah man, first off, it undermines your whole argument when you make up absolutely stupid crap about Brazil that “you’ve seen with your own eyes”. Secondly, you’re absolutely wrong about being ahead of 50% of financial analysts unless you water it down to include restaurant book keepers as you just did, in which case, yes, back office guys having passed CFA exams are probably qualified to manage the books at Ruby Tuesdays. The fact that you can’t understand how someone who passed LII / LIII could not possibly be qualified to “at least do ER” shows your completely lack of understanding the analytical skillset and intangibles required to do good ER. Not to mention a total lack of industry understanding… so much of equity research is somewhat “sales-y”. In fact, this is the classic inability to “get it” when it comes to intangibles that pretty much makes the back office a running joke to the front office.
I think we need to recognize that academic qualifications don’t fully determine what job you get. In an ideal world, we would be able to rank every person by knowledge and ability, and then assign jobs based on the results. This doesn’t work in the real world, where success is based on biases, politics, and information inefficiencies. It doesn’t matter if “back office tech guy” is a secret genius if no one gives him a chance. Many people don’t get jobs that they deserve, and many people don’t deserve the jobs that they have.
very true. I’m always amazed at some of the clearly incompetent people that hold certain jobs
It seems that one’s first job comes from one of several possibilities:
* good school performance/relevant skills
* brand name schools
* physical attractiveness
* family/friend connections
* willingness to be underpaid
* blind luck
From there, progression seems to be based on a combination of
-
brand name schools and previous employers
-
performance in previous positions
-
fancy sounding titles and/or project names
-
physical attractiveness/social skills
Going back to school can help for a limited time by resetting one’s network and the value of school performance.
Agree with most or all of the general sentiments above. Luck can be a material short-term factor in one’s career, but over time, career’s are pretty efficient, and price equals value. Some people spurt ahead or get held back early on based on any number of factors, but over time, it tends to normalize out to right about where it should be.