For me, GIPS was by far the most boring. Econ was boring only because i’d seen it all before. Most interesting for me were the fixed income (structuring of MBS/CDOs) and derivatives (option strategies) readings.
I think another interesting question could be “what sections of the material are written the best/worst”.
In my opinion, I thought most of the material was well written except the financial statement analysis material by Frank Fabozzi. His style just doesn’t flow easily. It would always take me twice as long to stumple through Frank’s readings…
Level II - FSA. Especially different treatments for held-for-trading vs available for sale vs held till maturity. Also, IFRS vs GAAP. Who cares?
Level III - Oh, so many good candidates. But, GIPS, by far. My eyes would glaze and I would drool from the corner of my mouth. Ethics, because it was repeated for the third time. Yeah yeah, we get it.
Not so much boring as low quality material abounded -
Agree with Fabozzi being unreadable. Also, whoever wrote the “low basis stock” was more interested in name-dropping (without naming names) and telling us his vast experience than the actual material.
Dreaming with BRICs. Really? Dream on.
Behavioral finance. There are no wrong theories, everybody gets a participation trophy. Divide investors into two types (active and passive)? Five? Four with alliterating adjectives? Four plain? Sure, all right answers.
I was on a job interview for an equity analyst position. The guy asked me which *business* class I took which I didn’t like. I told him economics. It caught him off guard, because I don’t think anyone told him that before. I explained that while I exceled at it in school, I just hated all the theoreticals and the “ceteris paribus” mindset. He then informed me he was an econ undergraduate. It was a funny experience ha ha
I’m an economist by profession (including reading it for fun), but the CFA materials on economics were absolutely terrible. The questions I was asked on the exams were completely useless (like questions predicated on knowing whether tourism is in the trade balance). As a result, I almost always did terrible on those questions and can sympathize.
I think the GIPS stuff where you have to look at a report and tell where there are mistakes in the presentation were among the most boring subjects in the curriculum. However, the general concept of how to report performance was more interesting.
I thought the real estate sections in level 2 were poorly written (though I thought the level 3 tax harvesting stuff was even worse, but I still found interesting). I don’t see a reason why real estate shouldn’t be evaluated with the same toolbox as anything else. I found it boring to learn new terms for the same concepts.
I don’t think it hurt me. The problem is, I was being interviewed as an equity analyst (but in a rotational position where you get slotted at the end). But everyone knew that I was gearing towards equity analyst and didn’t want to be a trader or broker. They ended up dropping the equity analyst part of the rotation, so I was invited back to interview just for the equity analyst spot and they gave the rotational spot to someone else. And I did recieve an offer for the equity analyst spot afterwards.
Econ. Who the heck uses the Mundell Fleming model for issuing a buy recommendation? I’d rather have the CFAI cut the Econ garbage and devote more time to derivatives.
Maybe you wouldn’t use it to advocate buying CSCO or KO, but you certainly do use it (or something like it) to figure out whether or not you want beta exposure or not. Analysts who are restricted to companies, or PMs who have to maintain a beta equal to the benchmark may not have flexibility, but we think about that stuff all the time in the macro world.
I agree with jmh. I like econ, but I really disliked the way the exams approached it. When I taught this stuff for Stalla, I hated how we effectively had to stuff two semesters worth of thinking into 5 hours of lecture and practice. So while I think Econ is useful to portfolio management, I don’t feel the way that CFAI tests it is particularly good (thanks to JMH for putting his finger on what was bothering me).
I certainly see your point, and my intention wasn’t to insinuate that Econ is totally useless. However, there is way too much fluff (blame it on subject matter or lack of presentation skills) in the CFAI texts that doesn’t tie well with valuation theory practices. I’d be in love with the Econ material if CFAI texts presented how a certain topic impacts portfolio decisions. All in all, IMO, Econ should be cut out as a standalone subject and be incorporated in decision making in other areas like derivatives or fixed income. It is already covered (nicely, too) in supply side models in equity, for example.
