I’m not saying people who currently work in a different industry or in back office roles should be shooed away from the program because they’re the riffraff of society and as such are not deserving of consideration. My point is that if the CFAI wants to establish the CFA program as a golden standard in the industry, its gatekeeping should better reflect the intended career progression, and not just wait until the final experience approval process. As iteracom says, the obvious motivation is money. The consequence however is that the relative importance of the program as a career booster on its own is diminished in many cases. E.g., see the salary increase thread.
While I agree that dilution is not a problem since people still have to meet the four-year experience requirement, I believe that preventing dilution is different to establishing a golden standard like say the FSA program in the actuarial field. Probably the investments management field is so big that is just not possible to establish a golden standard, and therefore the CFAI just rakes in as much as possible out of the hopefuls, which is something I fully support.
Well careers tend to be path dependent, because there are positive feedback loops. So luck in the beginning of your career tends to be much more important than luck later on, because those early gains compound much better.
Research shows that people who graduate in recessions earn substantially less over a 20 year period than those who graduate in a boom. In a boom, you can be promoted quicker, but titles, roles, and compensation is sticky downwards, which means that early good luck helps more than good luck later on.
Physically attractive people, connected people, etc. are more likely to have good luck early on in their carreers, because people do things for them for reasons other than their competence. So people with these qualities will tend to start from a higher base earlier on, even if their career growth from there is based on competence.
So someone who is attractive or connected and adequately competent can still excel over the long term over someone who is plain and not-well connected, even if they are more competent, simply because the breakeven levels of superior competence required to make up for the initial advantages can be high.
OK, I really need to get back to this monthly recap…
Yeah it sucks, but that’s the real world for you. People ask me why I’m still in consulting after I already passed L3, but the fact of the matter is I don’t have any direct experience in the securities business. The CFA demonstrates knowledge of a particular field, but it certainly does not entitle anyone to a job.
Watch the movie 180 degrees south. If you want to do this sort of thing do not buy the house. If you are happy watching a film about others doing this and saying I should do that some day (but not really men it) then buy the house
Bringing it back to the beginning of the thread about CFA is not great for corporate fianance. I think people in corporate finance still take it because it’s well respected and shows you’re smart. If all you care about is learning then you’re probably better off just taking some financial modeling course or valution courses and rounding out your knowledge (something more practical). In Canada they have something called the CBV which looks really good for corporate finance. Maybe CFA should consider a couple of specializations as the thread initiator suggested.