(I posted this somewhere else in the forum. I think it belongs here, and I’d like to get some opinions on it.) Since I’ve been perusing this forum, I see a lot of people who think they can hang the moon in just two years. I thought that too, once. Then reality hit me. As the great philosopher Mike Tyson once said, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.” How many times have you seen somebody post something like this: “Hi. I want to take CFA Level 1 in December 2012, then tak FRM Level 1 in March 2013, then take CFA Level 2 in June 2013, then take FRM Level 2 and CAIA Level 1 in November 2013, then take CAIA Level 2 in March 2014, then take CFA Level 3 in June 2014. Do you think I can do it? I’m really gonna try!!!” Then you find out that they are 20 years old, and a junior in college at LSU (Local State University), and have not even registered for Level 1 yet. I thought the same thing once–I thought I could pass CFA Level 1 while in my MBA program, then pass the CPA exams and the CFA exams over the course of the next year and a half. However, I realized that this was just simply not possible. (I got punched in the face.) So finished my MBA, spent a year taking the CPA exams, then passed Level 1, failed Level 2, passed Level 2, and I’m now studying for Level 3. What I thought I could accomplish in 2.5 years has turned into six years (if pass Level 3 in June 2013, that is). My advice to anyone who is thinking about starting the CFA exam: Stop collecting useless designations. If you don’t work in Alternative Investments (or want to work in Alternative Investments), then don’t take the Alternative Investment exam. The CFA exam is different–it is broad enough that you can work in a variety of different areas of finance, yet it’s still difficult enough that it actually means something. IMHO, the CPA and JD designations are like that as well. An MBA is also a good addition, if it comes from a good school. All other designations that I can think of are either too easy to mean something, or they’re too narrow in their scope. If you really think that you can do multiple designations at once, don’t let me stop you. I hope you never get punched in the face. And I hope you survive the next three years with your sanity and health intact. (I’m serious about that last line, too.)
I enjoy this debate, primarily because I like calling out “professionals” in the investment advisory world who collect third tier designations in an attempt to enhance their credibility. It’s just too easy to hold yourself out as an investment advisor in this world, but that’s an entirely separate conversation … To the enthusiastic 20 year-old described in the initial post, I say “good for you.” At that age, I was naive enough to think that a graduate degree would be my golden ticket to professional success. I can hardly fault someone for trying to better themselves. Finally, to ddrobinett’s point, I agree that most professionals should avoid peripheral designations in favor of pursuing one or two highly-regarded designations or degrees (CFA, CPA, JD, MBA, etc). I recently turned 27, became engaged, and completed a MS degree in Applied Economics. Pursuing the CFA charter is my “final frontier,” so to speak. After that, the only designations that I will care about are #1 Husband and #1 Dad.
That’s kinda my point. My alphabet soup (if I pass in June) will consist of MBA, CPA, and CFA. I may or may not pursue the CFP or CVA in a few years, depending on my situation. But that will be after my career path is well defined, and there is a tangible benefit to having the credential. And I couldn’t agree more about the #1 Husband and #1 Dad.
I have an MSF and the CFA charter, but for some reason that is not sufficient where I work. They could care less about those two and only care that I get the CFP, pretty much because the principals of the firm are CFPs. They actually discouraged me and in some ways penalized me for doing the CFA. In my opinion the CFP is a soft designation for people who couldn’t do the CFA, CPA, law or business school, and retail brokers and other wolves in sheep’s clothing, but whatever, I’ll take my time doing the CFP just to appease them. I am tired of chasing after designations. My wife, who is a JD, thinks this is completely ridiculous as well.
This just goes to my point–if your boss (or potential boss) is not a CFA Charterholder, then they won’t recognize the benefit of it, and it won’t do you any good.
FWIW–I agree with you. But if you’re working with indivduals at a local advisory firm, then the CFP is probably good enough. I think the CFA is geared more toward institutional investors and extremely high-net-worth individuals. If you’re just managing money for mom and pop, then I think having a CFA is like having a PhD in math, when you only need a little college algebra.
I would agree with you to an extent on the CFP designation. It terms of a difficulty, I doubt that it comes close to the CFA, CPA, law school or a good business school. However, during my brief stint on the retail end, I noticed that CFPs were generally more knowledgeable, professional, and likeable than your average cell phone salesman turned financial advisor.
True, good point. I guess I am just bitter about having to get the CFP after taking years off my life to obtain the CFA charter.
^ Given your credentials, I would be too.
Well, having a CFA charter does let you challenge out of parts of the CFP program, so you are part of the way there as a charterholder. I believe that CFP has more stuff about tax ramifications, insurance, estate planning, and things like that. If you are going to be a retail advisor, it does contain genuinely useful information, and some of it is not covered in the CFA, but presumably someone with a CFA should not have much trouble getting a CFP as long as they set their mind to it.
CFP is very useful to gain personnal knowledge. Everything I learned during the process helps me a lot when I have to deal with personnal financial decisions and dealing with bank’s salespeople.
As I was perusing the website during a study break, I found a quote from “Unit Root”, who claims to be both a CFP and a CFA.
“I’d definitely recommend CFP if you want to work in [private wealth management].”
I believe that I will probably pursue either this or the CVA (Certified Valuation Analyst) one of these days. But I won’t be doing either until I start either doing financial planning for clients, or doing business valuations for clients.
Agreeable.
I will state that I am hipocrite in this taking on too much syndrome. But I have always done this, through university and in my firm(I get a rush out of it sadly).
My aim for this isn’t to get into that glorious firm since I am happy I even have a job in this sadistic job market. More so on the base of personal learning to prepare me for advanced courses(I got burned by getting too cocky by taking a graduate course and getting a gratifying horrific grade). I’d rather pay a small price to see if I know the material versus a course costing me ten or twenty times that much to only fail.
+1.
I did four exams to earn CAIA & FRM, but in retrospect I would’ve been smarter to do the four exams required to earn the CPA designation.
One well-known and well-respected designation, beats a handful of designations that nobody’s ever heard of.
The hardest part of the CPA designation is simply becoming eligible to take the exam. In order to just take the exam, you have to have 150 hours, 30 of which have to be in upper-level accounting, and another 30 in upper-level business (management, marketing, econ, stats, etc.)
Once you’ve done that, the CPA exam itself is not incredibly difficult. In those 30 hours, they teach you everything you need to know. You just have to review it for the test.
I have probably already studied more for CFA Level 3 than I did for all four levels of the CPA combined–and it’s only late January. I still have four months to go.
How about CMT (Chartered Market Technician) after completing the CFA? I see most CMT’s are also CFA charterholders but not the other way around…
I understand why you’d want to do the CFA after the CMT, but why would you do the CMT after the CFA?
Actually–why would you want to do the CMT at all? Any chartists out there who care to offer an opinion?
If I weren’t tired of studying for exams, I’d do the CMT, because I think that technical analysis likely does add value. I probably wouldn’t put CMT on my business card, though; I just want the walk-through of the knowledge.
Well that just don’t make no sense. If you just want knowledge, then why not read a book and do self study? It costs a lot less and you get to tailor what you learn.
As far as I’m concerned, the only reason to get designations is to put them on your business card.
There’s something about the structure of preparing for the exams that helps you read the stuff and assimilate it a bit better.
And yes, I actually have read some of the main texts for the CMT.
I agree, having too many certs in fact may send a message to potential employer you don’t know what you are doing. You must first know where you want to go in order to decide the path you need to take. For me, it’s simple:
For Corporate/Public Accounting - CPA (and perhaps CMA)
For Money Management and Investment Research/Analysis - CFA
For Financial Advisory - CFP
For Corporate Development (M&A) - CVA
For General Business Management / Entrepreneurship - MBA
That’s all the financial certs / degrees you need to know. Decide what you want to do and pick the one from above that is relevant and reputable in that field.