I have 4 years hedge fund experience covering different roles (from marketing to actual fund manager selection). I would like to go for the CFA, since there is a lot to learn there and it is very well recognized and respected. However, spending my career around hedge funds, it is not more appropriate to look at CAIA instead? Number one priority is to get a qualification that can boost my career further.
This is AF upside down.
CAIA is a good designation, but I would have to say CFA is more well respected and more analysis oriented. That being said, is it worth it to spend so much extra time if you do not even want to become an analyst/portfolio manager? If you think you will use the stuff in the program, then go for it if not it will be hard to stay interested for 3 levels / 3 years and pass.
Thing is, with the current job market, I doubt holding CFA will get me through the door to become an equity analyst, since I have no experience in that particular field. I am happy to stick around hedge funds, I do find the industry very interesting and challenging. Plus, isn’t CAIA recognition growing? While interviewing for HF analyst jobs they don’t seem to make any difference between CFA, CAIA or even ACCA and ACA, as long as you showed some commitment.
I couldn’t tell you what the CAIA stands for. The only exam based finance related credential that has a broad acceptance is the CFA.
ACCA = CFA ??? Surely you jest!
while CAIA may be more applicable to what you are doing the CFA designation is more respected and will make you look better, but its not for free since its a lot of work. personally if it were me and I did not have a lot of time I would go for CAIA. CFA curriculum is hard work.
BelalM, I am certainly not saying that ACCA = CFA, but for hedge fund analyst roles they are not regarded so differently. Starbuk, that was my thought, although I would not like to spend one year achieving something that then comes out to be worthless. Again, my dream is not to be an equity portfolio manager ( and CFA stand alone without relevant experience does not certainly qualify for that either).
I am just realizing that the job market does not seem to be sensitive to just a qualification. Too many people, too few jobs. What is your feeling?
^ in the past decade, finance has been flooded with all walks of life. Especially engineers, math grads, etc… There is no one way ticket to success these days; you need combo skills and networking. Anyways, no one is going to say “Oh wow, you have the CAIA!”… Actually, they won’t say that for the CFA either but with the CFA you’ll be on a somewhat common ground with your peer group- it’s a very relevant designation, bar quant funds or risk management roles. I will say this; I’ve read the core material for both levels of the CAIA and there’s hardly any overlap with the CFA. The reading is much more enjoyable as well. I see it as a bolt on designation to the CFA.
nvm
Honestly for what you’re describing CAIA is perfect. The CFA is tough, and a real commitment really geared toward PMs. The CAIA especially L II, while also being difficult, is mroe geared toward fund of funds, and not actual security selection. I’d say go for the CAIA.
What is ACCA???
MissCleo, it’s not about what you learn, it’s about which credential will be of value. I’m still not convinced that, other than the CFA, there is an exam based finance credential that is worth much of anything (excluding actuarial credentials unless you want to work with insurance products).
Danny Boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MissCleo, it’s not about what you learn, it’s > about which credential will be of value. I’m > still not convinced that, other than the CFA, > there is an exam based finance credential that is > worth much of anything (excluding actuarial > credentials unless you want to work with insurance > products). I agree with this. I view other designations as complimentary if trying to get into a niche (fra/CAIA).
CAIA is oriented toward hedge fund (and, I believe, private equity) stuff. The recognition is growing, but the CFA probably packs a harder punch and is more transportable across the entire industry. I’ve heard of people doing CAIA after CFA to do more fund of fund stuff. That sounds like a lot of work, but one shouldn’t be down on people who take lifelong learning and professional development seriously. I don’t get the sense that employers start saying “oh, don’t go with this guy, he’s only got a CFA, whereas this other guy has CAIA.” But there are positions where the reverse might happen. If you are happy to stay in the FoF field, I guess CAIA could be done faster and might be a bit easier (not sure on the last part). I do have the feeling that if you do CAIA you might end up wishing you’d spent the time on CFA or perhaps not doing anything at all and just enjoying your life a bit. Anyway, I don’t have hard data on any of this, but those are my impressions, for what they’re worth.
I have my doubts that CFA can actually make you switch from a HF analyst career to an equity research one. 10 years ago perhaps…
giorgio10 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have my doubts that CFA can actually make you > switch from a HF analyst career to an equity > research one. 10 years ago perhaps… I have my doubts too. However, I’d put my money on the CFA over any other exam based finance credential. It certainly won’t hurt, and I’d argue it would increase your chances, but they’re not going to be calling you begging you to come to their shop because you have the letters.
Honestly no firm is going to come calling based on letters. All CFA tells is that you can recite some formulas, albeit an absurd amount of formulas, and that you are smart enough to retain all that information. The best analysts I know don’t have a CFA. Work experience and actual skill trumps letters any day of the week, whether it’s a CFA CAIA or whatever.
MissCleo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Honestly no firm is going to come calling based on > letters. All CFA tells is that you can recite some > formulas, albeit an absurd amount of formulas, and > that you are smart enough to retain all that > information. The best analysts I know don’t have a > CFA. Work experience and actual skill trumps > letters any day of the week, whether it’s a CFA > CAIA or whatever. I agree that firms won’t just call you because of the letters, but in some cases firm’s WON"T call you without them (unless you have an insane amount of experience, in which case the value of getting your charter is pretty minimal anyways so that person is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the CFA adds value). CALL ME NOW!!!