Hi,
Is somebody here thinking about doing CMT certification?? If yes can someone throw light on the educational/work experience requirements to enter in the programme?
I did level I last year and will be sitting for level II in October. I think it is far more fascinating than the CFA program since it is more relevant to how the market actually works. With all the quants out there, black boxes, and algos, you have to have a price target when you set up your trade, you have to run backtesting and find some statistical signficance in why to trade a strategy and trade at a specfic level. When you have a conglomeration of that type of behavior you get your supports, resistances, and levels to watch.
If you have any background in trading, you should probably be able to just brush over the material for level I to pass. It’s incredibly easy compared to the CFA for level I. In fact, if you read Kirkpatrick/Dahlquist from the recommended readingsg cover to cover, that’s all you really need to pass level I.
If you want to go into research or quant stuff, I think it’s a good background to have. I feel it’s the counter to the CFA. It throws away micro fundamentals and opts for a more macro approach. I find it is much more relevant, but doesn’t have the academic traction that is so sexy to economists/professors/fundamental shops.
Thank you so much for your response.
I am going to give level 3 in 2014 and out of job market since last 3/4 years though have 3 years of experience in Stock Broking Risk Management prior to that.Is there any work experience requirement before entering in programme?I read it on website that when you pass all 3 levels you must be involved in wealth management work.What if after passing 3 levels i am not working ? Will i have to give all the exams again ?
shrukbaks123, I don’t think you need experience to enroll in the program. In fact, I’m uncertain even if you need experience to get the designation. I’ve been working in FX for 7 years doing PM/research work, so I guess I never really looked closely into the qualification…figured I’d just be ok.
I think the program is a great self-studying experience…even if you don’t have the job yet, it’s a good side thing to do before waiting for CFA study time. I recommend it.
Anyone can enter the CMT program, but you need the following to join the MTA - required for the CMT charter
3 years Technical Analysis experience (not just working in brokerage, asset management, etc.) it’s like FRM in this sense. (5 years is required to join if you are applying before passing Level 3 CMT.)
You also need 3 sponsors who are MTA members (not necessarily CMT Charterholders)
You need to be CURRENTLY employed in a role which you exercise Technical Analysis, the employment requirement can be waived in certain circumstances (I don’t know what these are but I imagine recent unemployment or similar).
Guys thank you so much again.
In order to get charter there are requirements which i understood but what if i do not qualify for charter even after clearing exams,how long can I write on resume “Cleared all 3 levels” ??
I thought about it because I have an interest in technical analysis but the list of requirements beyond the exams are too prohibitive. I dont think I know 3 people who have heard of CMT let along members who can vouch for me.
I’ve got my CMT… take the test now while it’s easy. The curriculumn is a lot more interesting and I actually enjoyed the studying. Though not directly relevant for my job, I can honestly say that the CMT has improved my personal trading performance immensly.
I read the books leisurely on my train ride home for a month, then studied a for a half day before the exam (sneeking in some xBox too). Level 1 and 2 are ridiculously easy… I was actually angry because I felt I studied too much – take it from someone who took 10 years to pass the CFA.
For example, the L1 exam actually had a price bar with 3 multiple choice questions where the taker had to accurately identify the open, high, low, and closing price (I kid you not)!!! Level 3 was a bit harder because you need to learn some of the voodoo stuff that no one on the street respects (candles, elliot wave, point-n-figure)… but it was totally mangeable. I will say that John Murphy’s Intermarket Analysis (L3 Topic) is probably the most important Wall Street book I’ve ever read… I’ve read it multiple times…
From a career advancement POV, unless you’re in FX or Commodities… Mostly nobody cares about the CMT. But I see it as a way to differentiate yourself among the herd. I’ve been able to apply the skill-set in my work as equity analyst successfully through disguise when I deal with the Random Walk Traditionalists.
As such, I highly recommend learning the curriculumn. The test will eventually get harder as membership grows. Kind of like CFA’ers from the 80s and 90s who had a much easier go than the current generation. Now, the CMT process is actually enjoyable, in my view.
BalanceSheet:
But to get it do you need to be employed in a quant field? I’m on buy side but we are fundamental driven and I dont see myself leaving this role.
EDIT:
According to site, it appears that any analytical field will suffice. You dont have to be a trader using technical analysis. So the obstacle will then be to find 3 CMT holders to sponsor.
In order to be granted the CMT designation, all candidates must meet the following requirements:
- Successful completion of all three (3) levels of the CMT Exam.
- Obtained’Member Status’ in the MTA.
- Have been gainfully employed in a professional analytical or investment management capacity for a minimum period of three (3) years and must be regularly engaged in this capacity at the time of successfully passing all three (3) levels of the CMT Exam
I have zero desire to ever do the CMT thing. That’s mainly because of my philophy on investing, though. I don’t believe that charting has any benefit to offer.
Why would somebody do both the CFA and CMT? That’s like being both a Yankees fan and a Red Sox fan. I don’t think they’re compatible.
Greeman,
Wether you agree or not, many times stock prices disconnect from fundamentals and technicals take over. So while I would always invest based on a company’s business and my exepctations for that business and value, for traders and PMs totally ignoring technicals might be like playing poker with some face cards missing from the deck.
As a finance major in undergrad and going through the CFA curriculum, I thought it was a good idea to get another perspective. Prior to advances in technology, this stuff was voodoo, didn’t fit the eloquent equations cooked up in academia. For sure it went against Efficient market hypothesis and random walk, so wouldn’t you think most people would say it’s a bunch of BS?
There’s something to it. There has to be. Statistically you’re looking at near impossibility of having the major trends and sharp directional movement as frequently as has occurred in the last 100 years.
It’s just another thing to look at…
AndyTrader… the sponsorship process is quite flexible… a lot more flex than advertised. They give you a list of CMTs willing to sponsor you and you just call them. I’m a sell side fundamental equity analyst… granted I talk technicals to clients on the phone, but my published work is completely fundamental. Being on the buyside will probably be even easier… just call any broker-side trader with a CMT looking for a broker vote. Hah! On the side, the MTA was unfortunately scammed by an internal employee who embezzled quite a bit of money (millions)… so I think the organization is quite bullish on building up its membership. Its a great organization, led by very respectable and competent professionals. Its truly a shame that they were victimized so…
Having both… I can say each discipline actually complements each other rather than opposes. I can’t remember the guy’s name, but I know NYSSA offers a class in “fusion analysis”, which blends the 2 disciplines together… Its gaining traction from what I hear. I will say in my experience that only technicians got the dot-com bubble and financial crisis right while most fundamental guys were way, way wrong (or conflicted). Personally, I use fundamentals to evaluate and act on an investment idea. I use technicals for big market insights and for existing position matinance. I’ve found that waiting for a fundamental signal to get out of position is worthless… I do agree that some of the pure chart guys are a waste with a lot of voodoo methods (just see the blogs on stockcharts.com), but the classic technical teachings of Pring, Magee, and Murphy are priceless, in my view.
just take the highest net worth in each discipline and compare
I agree with OtBS, CMT is a complementary qualification to CFA and also I think that it can be very useful in giving indicators and insights into where the market is going. It’s this that realy attracts me to doing the CMT, but the membership process is scary, I found this on the MTA site.
http://docs.mta.org/pdfs/membership-process.pdf
3-6 months of getting to know one another with 3 CMTs. This is hard enough in the home of the MTA, but in mainland Europe…
Having said that the procees for CFA, FRM, CAIA vary from weak to welcome one and all.
Also are there no books that they send? Didnt see where there were materials on the site
They’ve not got to the stage of producing their own materials, there’ a booklist with recommended readings for each level.
False. Technicals do not “take over”
technicians try to explains past behavior with technicals, nearly all of which are great in hind site but have absolutely no predictive power. There are definitely opportunities for quant methods to produce statistically significant results, but popular tech methods are a joke.
Flinthead:
True, You are an idiot. If you do not believe in supply and demand which is at the heart of technical analysis, then perhaps finance is not suitable for you. I’ve worked with some of the top hedge fund / asset managers and there is not one that totally ignores price charts. Maybe you need to gains some experience before spouting opinion.