ysundaram, have you actually thought out the implications of your suggestion?? How in the world is a higher pass rate going to create a level playing field. It would just dilute what the CFA designation stands for. Its outright lunacy
ysundaram Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think CFAI has to take an objective and a fair > view of the issue. The Simplest solution is to > jack up the pass rate from 55% to 75% . That would > ensure a level playing field for everyone and > would be in the best interests of the students. i agree. set the pass rate this year to 90% than lower it every year after (assuming i’m in that 90% 
Wasn’t the last CFP pass rate around ~50%? I think the low pass rate is due to the quality of candidate, not the rigor of that exam. Guess I’ll find out because I’m going to take the CFP in March, possibly November.
XSellSide Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wasn’t the last CFP pass rate around ~50%? I think > the low pass rate is due to the quality of > candidate, not the rigor of that exam. Guess I’ll > find out because I’m going to take the CFP in > March, possibly November. how many hours you expect to put in?
most of the people i know who took the cfp ain’t that bright. not the same for the cfa. if you have your charter you can sit for the CFP without the education requirement btw.
thetank Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gemini76 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > >>GIPS - anyone seen this used? << > > > > Apparently you’ve never responded to an RFP for > > new business… > > > nope, again, what does preparing performance > reporting have to do with being a financial > analyst. when i think of financial analyst i > think of equity analyst, fixed income analyst, > currency, mbs, etc, analytical stuff, not putting > together performance reports. just my 0.02. I’m assuming you dont work in the industry .
former trader - I have no idea. I haven’t touched the books yet. I tend to over study for things, so I’m thinking perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 of the time I spend at L3. I’ll have to get into the material to see what I really need to do. Yes, I have the charter so I’m skipping right to the test. Back to the original post. Shouldn’t any test taker adjust to the exam in front of them? If you don’t figure out early that you’ll have to be brief in your answers, that’s not book smart vs. street smart that’s good test taker vs. bad test taker.
zarvan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Data_monkey, you cant always ask for clarity and > more information in the real world. Infact I would > say tht in most cases you have to make do with the > limited info and time that you have to make a > decision. In the real world if you waste too much > time getting clarity and information the > appropriate time to make a decision would have > passed. Even the CFA code of ethics recognizes > this situation and is flexible saying reasonable > basis, meaning you do not have to turn the world > upside down to get full clarity after all nothing > is certain. Agreed - ALWAYS is the key there - you have the flexibility to know when you have to make a split second decision and when you have wiggle room to gain more clarity. On the test however, you ALWAYS don’t have the flexibility to gain clarity on what they were asking and this reflected in the scores. As long as reasonable basis that you refer to is reflected in the curve setting, I think most of us will be fine. 2400+ pages, I dont expect to know it all well - nor should the CFAI, It does force us to have it in our heads when we think something looks wrong and be able to react (research, judgment call, educated guess, involve the right team of players (Equity, compliance, legal, etc) - thats what I think the program does for us. Its just hard to test that big of universe accurately.
thetank Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gemini76 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > >>GIPS - anyone seen this used? << > > > > Apparently you’ve never responded to an RFP for > > new business… > > > nope, again, what does preparing performance > reporting have to do with being a financial > analyst. when i think of financial analyst i > think of equity analyst, fixed income analyst, > currency, mbs, etc, analytical stuff, not putting > together performance reports. just my 0.02. IMO level 2 is more about traditional nuts and bolts investment analysis, level 3 takes a perspective at a leadership level. In that context I believe GIPS has a place. I don’t believe CFAI makes the exam solely for securities analysts…in fact I think they rather like having people in positions of leadership to have the charter as well. i am an institutional fixed income pm and part owner of a firm. I agree gips does not fall into traditional equity analysis or fixed income analysis, but it does fall into what i would consider the monitoring portion of the investment management process. consultants and clients request presentation of our information in gips format because it helps ensure information is being presented fairly rather than gamed. In this sense I think it goes beyond analysis and speaks to an ethical framework for both firm leadership managing the investment process and consultants/clients monitoring the investment process.
XSellSide Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > former trader - I have no idea. I haven’t touched > the books yet. I tend to over study for things, so > I’m thinking perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 of the time I > spend at L3. I’ll have to get into the material to > see what I really need to do. Yes, I have the > charter so I’m skipping right to the test. > > Back to the original post. Shouldn’t any test > taker adjust to the exam in front of them? If you > don’t figure out early that you’ll have to be > brief in your answers, that’s not book smart vs. > street smart that’s good test taker vs. bad test > taker. i’ve been told it’s about as much work as level 1.
XSellSide, I was just generalizing to draw a parallel to the real world. It essentially boils down to thinking on your feet quicker than other ppl around you!!
Data_Monkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > zarvan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Data_monkey, you cant always ask for clarity > and > > more information in the real world. Infact I > would > > say tht in most cases you have to make do with > the > > limited info and time that you have to make a > > decision. In the real world if you waste too > much > > time getting clarity and information the > > appropriate time to make a decision would have > > passed. Even the CFA code of ethics recognizes > > this situation and is flexible saying > reasonable > > basis, meaning you do not have to turn the > world > > upside down to get full clarity after all > nothing > > is certain. > > > Agreed - ALWAYS is the key there - you have the > flexibility to know when you have to make a split > second decision and when you have wiggle room to > gain more clarity. On the test however, you > ALWAYS don’t have the flexibility to gain clarity > on what they were asking and this reflected in the > scores. As long as reasonable basis that you > refer to is reflected in the curve setting, I > think most of us will be fine. 2400+ pages, I > dont expect to know it all well - nor should the > CFAI, It does force us to have it in our heads > when we think something looks wrong and be able to > react (research, judgment call, educated guess, > involve the right team of players (Equity, > compliance, legal, etc) - thats what I think the > program does for us. Its just hard to test that > big of universe accurately. ------------------------------------------------------------------- You are right its difficult and futile to test such a big universe. That does not mean that CFAI is wrong in testing small obscure pieces of information on the test. The whole point of testing these obsucre pieces of information is to introduce an element of real world pressure and stress. It is probable that CFAI does not even want ppl to attempt to get it right but to be smart enough to do a quick cost / benefit analysis and move on with the paper instead of getting stressed out. Not more than 10% of the test had these stress questions. Anyone could have easily passes just by attempting the other 90% of the paper. But it was here tht CFAI attempted to separate the boys from the men by knowing tht most ppl would spend more than 25% of their time on these questions.
Zarvan - you are so right on this as was Gemini76… and thats why nobody gets 100% on this test. I think a lot of us go into this test with the thought that its like a college course and you learn A,B, C and then dump that knowledge on the test. Its 75% that and 25% time management, problem solving, prioritization, etc. Its that 25% thats frustrating.
bump
Is it nice to be know GIPS? I guess. But they skipped topics that are more essential to business of making money on the open market., like: More readings about the use of financial statements. There is certainly a lot of FSA in the curriculum, but not a whole lot about comparing several companies’ 10-Ks in an industry, and gleaning the overall best financial picture. I know more about picking out the best corporate givernance system than I do about picking the best balance sheet. What about leverage and debt? How much debt is too much? 20%? 80%? The CFA doesn’t’ go into that. More exploration on some of the weakness of the cornerstones of modern financial theory. It was mentioned in LIII Shweser that equity returns exhibit skewed distributions - that is an OMFG statement, considering the proliferation of standard deviation use in the CFA curriculum. The ramifications of that staement are massive - scew GIPS and corporate goverance. Same thing with beta. Buffet says it’se useless, and we get it jammed down our throats like the word of God. How about a reading exploring its relevance and true ability to predict future co-movements? I would imagine that, in reality, assets often move in ways not predicted by their beta. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There’s a lot of stuff that is more relevant than a lot of stuff on LIII…
this is absolutey retarded. A.) “preparing us for the real world” makes you sound like your in high school. FYI - this is the real world B.) while some of the subject matter in the cfa is interesting, most of it isn’t used. Its good for perspective’s sake, but really, its pretty much B.S. Its a passport (with dwindling importance, i’m afraid) to a slightly better CV, a good top level overview of the industry and not a whole lot more. FYI - start buying baskets of financials now through earnings.
thetank Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gemini76 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > >>GIPS - anyone seen this used? << > > > > Apparently you’ve never responded to an RFP for > > new business… > > > nope, again, what does preparing performance > reporting have to do with being a financial > analyst. when i think of financial analyst i > think of equity analyst, fixed income analyst, > currency, mbs, etc, analytical stuff, not putting > together performance reports. just my 0.02. Not being able to interpret the meaning of performance numbers would be completely inappropriate in a PM capacity. You have to be able to distinguish good decisions from bad ones (note that that is what was tested, the interpretation). Some companies may not have all the resources to put together and verify all this data without the PM’s input.
Etienne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thetank Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > gemini76 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > >>GIPS - anyone seen this used? << > > > > > > Apparently you’ve never responded to an RFP > for > > > new business… > > > > > > nope, again, what does preparing performance > > reporting have to do with being a financial > > analyst. when i think of financial analyst i > > think of equity analyst, fixed income analyst, > > currency, mbs, etc, analytical stuff, not > putting > > together performance reports. just my 0.02. > > > > Not being able to interpret the meaning of > performance numbers would be completely > inappropriate in a PM capacity. You have to be > able to distinguish good decisions from bad ones > (note that that is what was tested, the > interpretation). Some companies may not have all > the resources to put together and verify all this > data without the PM’s input. If you made money then it’s a good decision. If you didn’t then it’s a bad decision. All that GIPS and macro/micro stuff is way too granular for a PM, that’s MO/IR work. And I agree with what joemontana said. Instead of learning how to interpret results, how about teach more on how to produce them.