I’ll preface my curiosity by saying I certainly realize CFA is not necessarily a golden ticket to a better job, nor is it an indicator of better performance. And obviously work experience is an integral element of a candidate’s appeal to a prospective employer. But I’m wondering what the typical career prospects for advancement are for those who have passed level III, as opposed to a fully fledged charterholder.
I don’t have the 4 years of work experience, yet. I have tried to progress thru the program as soon as I could. I have a lot of respect for those who have kids etc and still tackle this beast (hats off!)
How much do employers care solely about the three letters as an adjective after your name (not a noun - of course!) vs completing the three exams? I’m inclined to think there remains a considerable difference, in terms of appeal/marketability. But some people I’ve talked to say in reality, they (employers) are principally concerned with passing the exams, and that you’ll just build up the experience over time, and is not such a ‘big deal’ compared to going through the long journey of the exams.
If the value of the CFA is X, what weight of it do you think is on the passing all 3 exams, vs exams along with the work experience component, dues and letters of rec from 2 or 3 sponsors?
Thoughts?
Here’s hoping the MPS is at least 100 bp below all our scores. That would be great.
4 years of work experience is enough time to learn a role, so it weights a lot. If you are able to pass the 3 levels but got 2 years of experience, then employers will see potential. But not a ready-to-use resource, so payment will be lower with no doubt. Recommendations also weight a lot for many employers if you have little work exp.
In my own understanding, real success needs 2 factors only:
Real capacity, real skills or abilities to perform a certain job. You can’t hide uselessness forever.
Soft skills: interpersonal skills, self control, good communication, etc
This might not be the answer you are looking for. If I was looking for someone who was a recent grad and would.be an inexperienced overworked first year analyst, I would take the one with Level 3 and no charter.
For a different position, if someone had experience after school that didn’t count toward a CFA charter, I would be looking at why. In LA or NY, there might be waiter/waitress/actor/actress/bartender type experience.
I work in the finance industry. When we participate in tenders / prepare proposals, we showcase our credentials. Our prospective clients are always looking for a qualified team to handle their business. CFA, CPA, ACCA, those certificates have value. In some cases they are required to qualify. No CV would be going on a proposal with passed exams only.
Therein lies the value for the employer imo. If the employer has to choose between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, then it wouldn’t hurt to be the one with passed exams vs not started at all, but you paint a whole different picture if you have the charter. Think of it as if you have passed all exams in university, but are yet to write your bachelor thesis. You haven’t really graduated yet, even if you passed most of the requirements.
For junior roles, passing the Level II and/or Level III exams carry a lot of weight with employers (in Malaysia & Singapore) in terms of getting an interview.
I have a friend who passed level 2 at uni then got a job at EY transactions services. Did a few years there and is now at GS. It helped him get into EY and then the charter and exp helped in the next role