Hello all fellow CAIA candidates and charter holders, I just wonder how much you would have lost in terms of reading materials from Schweser and/or Uppermark compared to the original reading materials. (This is a separate issue but I think Uppermark has better quality control in terms of explaining complex derivative or other quant concepts.) I would say if this book’s material is kind of the representation of work that you will expect in Convertible Arbitrage business for example, I think CA Hedge Fund would prefer quant or MFE than CFA and/or CAIA charter holder. I don’t think any of these certifications (CFA/FRM/CAIA) would prove your quantitative skills but they are great complements to the MFE or hard science or quant degree. What do you think?
I guess it really depends on where you are heading. Obviously an advanced understanding comes with a combination of higher level education (MBA, PHD, CFA) and a good experience base. For me taking the CAIA, CFA and so on, give me an grasp of quant that is sufficient for my current level of experience. It really does come down to application of concepts into actual work related performance. Do you think CFA/FRM/CAIA are lacking sufficient quant content?
Honestly speaking, after I went through CFA, FRM and in the middle of CAIA, I would say they only test very basic financial mathematics in the CFA and test advanced-medium mathematics concepts in the FRM and CAIA level II. There are very few hardcore number crunching questions in the FRM and CAIA level II I presumed. We can read the “Convertible Arbitrage” book (not the Schweser material) just to get an idea the complexity and precision involved just to make money by doing the right hedging…! In my opinion, good hedging required both business/Investment knowledge/common sense and strong mathematics skills. CAIA level II materials are sort of an eye-opener for me and at the same time I can see CAIA level II could be potentially a very difficult exam, far exceed the CFA level II. At this moment, it is not…!
I agree all those alphabet designations only gives you the basic concepts and principles. When times come for the nitty-gritty details and actual implementations, potential employers will look first for a real life experience and sometimes a strong quant background to the like of a Ph.D on top.
The alphabet designations are good for advancing young professionals, but as you get more experienced I think your options of standing out are in either (a) advanced high level education (phd) and/or (b) some really good work experience/networking foundation. I think its a full circle mentality really. Getting the basics down when you are young enough enable you to apply increasingly more and more complex applications. That adds to the experience and the networking base to give you a more genuine opportunity. It’s just a thought, but it makes sense to me.
I think , the want of learning advanced quant completely depends on which profiles you would want to work . There are schools of thought on value investing and computational / financial mathematics , pure fundamental analysts would argue that only using math to invest a stock or make money is flawed , same way ppl who follow quant methods would invest based on their models . IMO , if one wants to work for a buy-side firm or kind of ‘long only’ funds who predominantly analyses the macro factors and follow value investing method doest require advanced quant skills …these buy-side firms may as well use some quant methods for stock picking but it is one of many factors they consider .not quant alone . These are just my opinions and the what I understand by working as a buy-side analyst
phishwong Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello all fellow CAIA candidates and charter > holders, > I just wonder how much you would have lost in > terms of reading materials from Schweser and/or > Uppermark compared to the original reading > materials. (This is a separate issue but I think > Uppermark has better quality control in terms of > explaining complex derivative or other quant > concepts.) I would say if this book’s material is > kind of the representation of work that you will > expect in Convertible Arbitrage business for > example, I think CA Hedge Fund would prefer quant > or MFE than CFA and/or CAIA charter holder. I > don’t think any of these certifications > (CFA/FRM/CAIA) would prove your quantitative > skills but they are great complements to the MFE > or hard science or quant degree. What do you > think? Definitely a MFE or PhD in math will set you apart. Most of the top quant shops hire PhDs and MFE grads anyways… I was initially thinking about getting the MFE at UCLA or Berkeley (I went to their info sessions last year), but after many thoughts and discussions w/ some friends/mentors, I have decided to stay on the MBA route… it’s more versatile in the very end.