I do a fair amount of performance analysis and comparison to benchmarks. I’ve had to separate out currency effects from benchmark effects in order to boil out how much value a given strategy is adding.
I do a fair amount of analysis on different weighting techniques, optimization, effects of transaction costs, etc…
I don’t do a lot of options stuff, but the options combinations in L3 are usueful in our macro portfolio. I don’t manage that portfolio directly but I am asked to recommend trades, some of which get incorporated into it.
When I write up investment cases for funds and strategies (Unlike a lot of people on this board, I don’t do equity analysis very often, I do more macro and trading system stuff), I find I incorporate a lot of stuff about how the strategy works and what kinds of investors will want to have it and how to use it with an existing investment strategy. Lots of that is informed by L3 material.
Level 3 is most useful for giving you the overall context of portfolio management issues. There have been many times where I have done various kinds of analysis or tests that just seemed logical based on the knowledge that the curriculum gave me. Then my supervisors sometimes come back and say “hey, we need to know X, Y, and Z because we have potential investors asking about that and we didn’t do it.” And I respond “Oh, I actually already did that a little while ago, let me bring it up for you.” It gives them the warm and fuzzies. Even when I haven’t already done the analysis, 9 times out of 10, I’ve arranged my work in such a way that it is easy to do it.
It’s been long enough since I’ve passed L3 that I can’t point to particular pages in the curriculum and say “L3 did that for me” versus “my experience says that this would be a good approach,” but I can say that in the early days, L3 was pretty important and useful for me in terms of having the sense that I knew what I was doing. There are certain aspects of how transactions work, particularly with banks and counterparties that the long-term traders knew and that I didn’t, but to be honest - in a world of increasingly electronic trading - those things, while not unimportant, really haven’t been quite as important as the others would make them out to be. Some of the “well, you haven’t been there like I was in 1992” sound suspiciously like “well, no one should be allowed to drive without first mastering the buggy-whip.” At the same time, these people often don’t have the broader historical knowledge of trying to figure out how crises in the 1930s or 1870s might be relevant to think about… they simply remember collecting trade orders on paper so that they could be reconciled at the end of the day.
I don’t think people need to hide doing the program for fear of being overqualified. If you don’t have much experience, you have to demonstrate competence. CFA is one way to do it, and needs to be combined with samples of your work (for an employer or on your own) that can demonstrate it. If you want into the industry that badly, you need to be 1) competent, 2) connected into networks, and 3) willing to be paid less than the people you’re competing against. Then network further and demonstrate value once you’re there.