sgrimes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the combo question has merits…I’m not in > IB, but don’t they have some in-house lawyers for > M&A? If so, wouldn’t the combo theoretically make > you more valuable? I hear a common complaint about the General Counsel, and the attorneys at IBs and Asset Managers, and that is “they do not know stocks, fixed income, m&a…” Yet, in that role, you may not need to know finance, but know corporate law. Law/CFA would be valuable for one who is structuring deals, or perhaps representing arbitrageurs 
sgrimes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the combo question has merits…I’m not in > IB, but don’t they have some in-house lawyers for > M&A? If so, wouldn’t the combo theoretically make > you more valuable? I hear a common complaint about the General Counsel, and the attorneys at IBs and Asset Managers, and that is “they do not know stocks, fixed income, m&a…” Yet, in that role, you may not need to know finance, but know corporate law. Law/CFA would be valuable for one who is structuring deals, or perhaps representing arbitrageurs
sternwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it would be neat if one could take the bar without > law school… You can in some states - California is one.
how about new york or new jersey? That would be sick…studying on my own for a JD…LOL.
Yea, I imagine the bar exam and CFA exam are similar in the fact that you have to know mountains of information while being tested on a random sample of that info. My uncle is an attorney, and he showed me the books he needed to study for the bar exam. They are literally about 5 times more than any level of the CFA, although obviously not as technical.
It would be sweet to have the CFA and then go back and get the combo MBA/JD and work for a hedge fund.
DirtyZ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would be sweet to have the CFA and then go back > and get the combo MBA/JD and work for a hedge > fund. How many people at hedge funds have such credentials? None that I can think of. I know one who is JD/MBA, but no CFA (but he could get one easily). I know that hedge funds have this mystique but if nobody has told you - there are lots of idiots who work in hedge funds. Lots and lots of them. There are people with almost no credential who own multi-billion dollar hedge funds (e.g., Paul Tudor Jones is a brilliant guy but just has an undergraduate degree from some third rate university with a lousy b-ball team).
I’m quite sure I will regret wading into this discussion, but here goes. I’m a lawyer writing Level I in December. General note: my experience is limited to Ontario, but I suspect that most of what I say below applies in the US as well. > I imagine the bar exam and CFA exam are similar. Couldn’t be more different. Consider the Ethics portion of Level I vs. the rest of Level I. The bar exam is sort of like the Ethics portion, i.e. fact situations where you have to figure out what the issue is. But the bar exam was open book and was not multiple choice. It’s meant to test your ability to spot the issue and to reason your way to a conclusion. Yes, they both require absorbing lots of material, but it’s apples and oranges. Believe me. > Anyone accepted to a top law school has most likely demonstrated > some combination of intelligence & work ethic that is greater than that > required in obtaining a cfa. Outside of those top schools, a law degree > is relatively worthless & is probably a negative npv proposition. Yes. Although of course, it’s not quite that binary. There are great law schools and crappy law schools and everything in between. That’s another big reason why comparing a law degree to the CFA is apples and oranges. The CFA is intended to be one consistent global standard. We can’t do that with law. Mathematical concepts and economic principles don’t change when you cross borders, but laws certainly do, and in very major ways. > General Counsel and attorneys at IBs and Asset Managers don’t know stocks, > fixed income, etc. No doubt true in some cases. In the same way that there aren’t many portfolio managers who are also legal experts, it’s difficult for people who have spent their professional lives practicing law to have an in-depth understanding of the topics covered in the CFA program. Lawyers with a securities practice will get a pretty good exposure to many aspects of the business, but the reality is that there are some things about the trading desk that can be learned only by sitting on the trading desk for a while. There are other methods of trying to learn more about what makes the business tick, and the CFA program is one of those methods. And here I am. > Some lawyers are professionals, some are not. Some CFA’ers > are professionals, some are not… Exactly. I won’t bother responding to the silly generalizations others have made about lawyers (well OK with one exception below), but it probably is worth going on defense just a bit. When the person/company on the other side of your contract fails to do what they’ve promised to do, and you’ve suffered a big financial loss as a result, you need some mechanism to get what you deserve. Most countries decided a long time ago that the adversarial system (each of us argues his side of the story; a neutral judge decides) was the best way to get to the truth. That’s probably right, but it comes with the unfortunate side effect that the system is adversarial (i.e. sometimes nasty). The current system certainly isn’t perfect, but there are lots of good lawyers trying to improve it. And lots of bad lawyers thriving in it, unfortunately. > a lawyer/CFA combo would just show me that the person holding > such a combo is an idiot I just thought I’d quote this excerpt (but I could have chosen others) in case there are any smug CFA-types who think they’re all great and that all lawyers are jerks. A lawyer who reads some of the posts on this board might possibly reach the same conclusion about analysts. And finally, to get back to the question that started this thread: > Given that the CFA is probably more difficult to attain, why is a law > degree like a passport to work in law I’m not sure whether I’ll write all three exams, but from what I’ve seen so far, it’s just wrong to say that the CFA is more difficult to attain than getting a law degree (from a respectable school). As for the comparison between a law degree and a passport, I guess there’s some validity to that, in that if you get a law degree (and pass the bar exam, by the way), you can set up shop. So it’s a minimum requirement. Doesn’t mean you’re going to get work, though. The market will take care of that – if you’re a good lawyer, you’ll get work; if you’re not, you won’t (in general; there are some exceptions). Bottom line? The kind of education I got through my law degree was completely different than I’m getting by studying for the CFA. I would never say that one is better than the other. They’re just different, in many ways.
I’m having trouble liking having Tim around given that he’s a lawyer and all. I think we ought to put some restrictions on him or something. I dunno…
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m having trouble liking having Tim around given > that he’s a lawyer and all. I think we ought to > put some restrictions on him or something. I > dunno… That might violate a constitutional right
Joey – Ideally, I’d just sit at my shop and let the money rolll in with everyone impressed with my JD/MBA from Harvard, CFA, undergrad from top school, etc. I’d raise $1b, leverage it 12x, pay myself 50 million for two years or so and then watch as my fund blew up and I sold it to Citadel for .12 on the dollar. Meanwhile, I’d let my hot model wife decide which estate she likes best in the bahamas and be done with this whole investment business before I’m 30. Seriously though, of course idiots work at hedge funds. 99% of the population is composed of idiots, so even if HF’s and IM firms get the “cream of the crop” the pool is still going to have a lot of spoiled milk. Personally, I wouldn’t even bother investing in a HF…I don’t like their opaque nature, and I like to think that I’m smarter than all of them anyway so why pay someone to invest my money when I can get a better return myself? My portfolio over the last 3 years has returned more than your average HF and I have complete transparency, no leverage, and I don’t have to pay some schmuck “genius” who put in 2 years at Goldman and probably went to a worse school and graduated with a worse GPA than myself. Just my 2c.
virginCFAhooker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DirtyZ… you nailed it. Exactly what I’m saying. > If you can’t “move-up” on your own > brains/undergrad and you’re not good at math then > law is about the only thing left (that is > semi-respectable & has potential). > > Lawyers suck and the system is broken because of > them. > > Lawyers should be ashamed of themselves. > > Pro-bono doesn’t make up for the evilness that > they do. I know a law student who is better then most of us in math, with an engineering and finance undergrad.
> I’m having trouble liking having Tim around given > that he’s a lawyer and all. I think we ought to > put some restrictions on him or something. I > dunno… Agreed, what happened to all the rock-throwing fun on this thread? Amazing how one sane voice can squelch a dozen flamers in a single post. How about if we get Chad to automatically translate all of Tim’s posts into Swedish chef? I’m qooeete-a soore-a I veell regret vedeeng intu thees deescoossiun, boot here-a gues. I’m a levyer vreeting Lefel I in December. Generel nute-a: my ixpereeence-a is leemited tu Oontereeu, boot I soospect thet must ooff vhet I sey beloo eppleees in zee US es vell.
Excellent. I’ll bring that up with Chad immediately.
LOL, Darien. I am and have always been a huge fan of the Swedish Chef. Required viewing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCJLCc8DRrk
I have a LLB (eq. of a US JD), an American MBA, and I work in a hedge fund. Nice to know you, Joey boy. And someone said that the bar exam is “obviously not as technical” as CFA? Go check the meaning of “technical”, in, say, the US merriam-webster, before passing remark like that. One fun fact about law and math. Those who excel in legal studies would generally be competent mathematicians too, since both deal, fundamentally, with logic. For example, see the similarity between legal semantics and the iff statements in math theorem. For an even more persuasive advocate on the intimate correlation between language interpretation and math ability, read Halmos’ autobiography. Anyone who doesn’t know Halmos and his work on measure theory does not know enough math to make credible remark on the math ability of others, almost surely. Addendum: It slipped my mind to mention that I’m also a CFA charterholder, not that it actually matters. Just for the sake of completeness.
Have you ever met Halmos? His classic book on measure theory really moved me. Back in the day, I used to drive my wife to Duke for classes and hang out in the lounge drinking coffee and doing homework from Halmos. Great days… I think the most famous mathematician lawyer is Fermat of Fermat’s last theorem fame.
Propanal… I call BS. Law has nothing to do with logic & math. NOTHING! It has more to do with squabbling, greed and a little history. You sound just like a lawyer…“um… let’s consult a dictionary to get the specific meaning of a word that everybody knows.” My lawyer says stuff like that when he’s losing his arguement. Play the words when all else fails. Then you quote a “fun fact” that’s about as much as a fact as my current post. Hey, I have a fun fact for you! It is a FACT that “generally” in some circumstances, lawyers are full of Bs most of the time. That’s just like your fun fact! No need to post a link to any real statistical study that compares the math portion of SAT scores of successful lawyers vs. successful financiers. Why? Because it’s a “fun fact”! I pulled it out of the air. I’ve never heard of Halmos but I love statistical studies of math & language rapped in somebody’s autobiography. I’m very excited… got my weekend reading set. I Love stuff like that! (not)
So pick up his measure theory book and get cracking (http://www.amazon.com/Measure-Theory-Graduate-Texts-Mathematics/dp/0387900888/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-0843345-3700868?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189181666&sr=8-2) = $42. Cheap.
Law (really in common law countries) is based on three principals – logic, legislature and precedents. Actually I lost my car collision case since some precedents treated such collision as my fault though logic based on legislature treated it as the other party’s fault (OK based on my understanding anyway). So, it’s not a pure logic. And precedents take over the logic anyway unless you don’t want to argue your case up to a Supreme Court.