Just curious what the consensus is of the approximate equivalent is of the CFA charter in terms of rigor, prestige and credibility. Everyone know that the top 5 MBA can’t be beaten regarding networking & recruiting opportunities etc; however, I am curious purely on the basis of rigor or curriculum, prestige, and confidence among employers in the asset management field. I would wager to say that while the CFA charter may not have the same level of recruiting and networking power, it does carry a weight that even a top five or ten MBA may not have in terms of knowledge of the field of finance.
I can’t think of anything obvious, particularly when you factor in that the charter itself is only obtained with the related work experience. In terms of the exams, I guess the content could best be compared to masters degrees in finance. In that respect, I think the CFA curriculum stands up pretty well and perhaps covers a bit more than in your typical masters. The quality is difficult to compare since the rigour of any masters degree depends entirely on the institution attended.
So I guess what I am asking is, would you say that the CFA is equivalent to an MBA/MSF from a top 5, 10, 15, 20, 50, 100 school in terms of academic rigor and credibility among employers in the investment management field?
^ Depends on who is doing the hiring. A charterholder will hold it in higher regard than a non charterholder.
At the core, CFA exams are not rocket science. I know several examples of guys who passed all 3 levels in one go and had stellar grades in school, but I have seen them perform at a job and it really sucks - would never hire them.
What passing the tests does for me, is tell me you are dedicated, and willing to grind it out. This is actually super important in my view, most notably for new hires.
The CFA will never rank with the top 5 MBA (and rightly so), and it also depends on what the person was doing while they were taking the tests. in the extreme case, If unemployed -> passed CFA exams -> not impressive.
If I had to peg a candidate with CFA +ok work experience against a new MBA grad, I’d rather go for the CFA canddiate vs. an MBA program ranking below 20’s or higher. the MBA rankings get sh**ty pretty fast
In holiday conversations at parties with young finance grads from college, their plans are to go to work in the financial sector and get the Charter. No talk of MBA. A few years back, the Charter wasn’t even on the radar and an option worth considering – quite a sea change, and being driven by a different demand set in the financial world which wants increasing specializtion versus the breadth of the MBA.
Most non-hacksaw MBA programs are full-time, which in my opinion is similar to someone taking off work to pass the CFA exams. I’ve never understood why going to a full-time MBA program ever makes sense, outside of the top 5 programs. Even in the top 5 programs, taking off work to go to a full-time MBA program I would wager barely scratches a positive NPV.
As I’ve been saying all the time… the real value of MBA = on campus recruiting + strength of network.
as PT, you don’t get the first, and build little of the second since you are rarely on campus
Still not sure what you guys would equate the CFA charter to in terms or Top X MBA programs. I would say that the charter probably deserves the respect of a top 20 global MBA in terms of financial knowledge, although I would maybe argue that the charterholder has probably been exposed to a greater depth of finance than even a to 5 MBA.
Also, I think that the CFA does offer good networking opportunities. At least 2x per month my local society puts on events and has social events such as pub crawls and happy hours at least 2-3x per year. I guess it just depends on the society.
Just so ya know…I went to Hacksaw State University, and got an MS in Corporate Finance. Part of the required coursework was an Excel Modeling course. Other than that course, the first one-and-a-half levels of CFA were virtually identical to what I learned in my MSF program.
So I guess it’s better than the part-time MBA or MS program at Hacksaw State. That doesn’t directly answer your question, but it should at least provide some insight to what you want to know.
^ not only about content though, also must evaluate perception. I think most of us would agree Level 1 is similar in content to a bachelor in finance degree, but the finance degree is usually superior to passing level 1 because of the difference in perception between the two
nice answer
I would say this is comparing apples and oranges. Just passing Level I or level II is darn near worthless, just like completing 1/2 or 2/3 of an MBA program would be. Obviously completing the charter or an MBA program is not.
Except that passing certain levels of the CFA program can exempt and/or aid in fullfilling regulatoruy requirements to practice in the industry…
Point being that comparing content is not the only deciding factor in a superior degree or title or accreditation. The value lies in perception. You learn virtually the same things with a BBA in finance and level 1. The person should theoretically have the same financial knowledge with either distinction, but the person with the BBA in finance will find that much more valuable than Level 1 despite the content being the same.
Same could be said for Greenie’s hacksaw MS example. Theoretically, the Hacksaw MS could hold more value in perception than the CFA Charter does, despite the MS only covering 1.5 of the 3 CFA levels. (not saying it does, just saying we must try to quantify and evaluate these differences in perceived value and not only compare curriculms of the courses, degrees, and tests being discussed)
Don’t discount the importance of a degree to the region you’re living in. Greenie might have a Hacksaw degree if he moved to NYC but in Texas the school he went to might be highly regarded.
^^^^ Very true. one of the advantages of being in Texas. No real elite schools besides rice and to a lesser extent, UT. Seems like Texas isnt into the whole ‘top 2 mba’ thing. By AF standards, my schools are ultimate hacksaw, but in texas theyre decentish/good enough
^What part of TX you in? What school?