Every few weeks or so a new thread is started or an old one is rekindled that fans the flames of the old axiom, The CFA is not what most people think it’s cracked up to be. The arguments are convincing and plentiful and go something like this: “Passing won’t get you that promotion”, “Won’t help you break in”, “The opportunity cost is too high, go network dammit”.
I got to say, after reading through these threads and hearing the arguments and counter arguments there’s a lot of truth in that. However rarely do these arguments factor in location.
Most people on this forum - and most charter holders - are located in the US where the finance industry is saturated and the number of CFA charter-holders stands at approx. 50,332. However in other markets the number of charter holders is considerably smaller .
Thailand has 364 charter holders*
China has 2222 charter holders
Malaysia has 419 charter holders
*Info from http://www.newcfa.org/#/professions
(Albeit their financial sectors are smaller - I couldn’t find data on size - the number of charter holders is still tiny in absolute terms as well as relative to the size of the labour market)
So given the lower supply we see employers with different sets of criteria. For example i’ve been looking at opportunities in Beijing, Bangkok, KL and Singapore and I’ve found that in these markets the requirement is typically “Level 1 of CFA passed”. For candidates in these locations and other this bodes well.
Personally, the exam is additive to my experience and I’m not banking on a lower ceiling in the financial services market to get in however I think it’s a worthy observation to remember when we try to assign value to the Charter: Location matters.
And with the mobility of the charter, one could potentially get different utility out of it depending on where one is or chooses to go.
What do you think? And can anyone from these places vouch for this?