With a new post every other day titled “CFA for MBA” and emphasis on MFE/PHD in most discussions, I wonder whether the charter is still a “Gold Standard”. David Harper, CFA himself confesses that PHDs/Quants consider CFA as just another extra-curricular activity and have a typical disdain for anything below a PHD. Of course a MBA in Finance from Stern or Wharton can get you better positions/wild card entry in PE/Investment arms of Banks. Are we fooling ourselves here? Of course I haven’t worked in the industry and that might reflect in the question above but isn’t a top PHD or Ivy League MBA the Gold Standard? Regards.
hm, I see many PhDs taking the CFA exams. PhD for investment bankers is absolutely irrelevant imho.
anupamjain008 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Of course a MBA > in Finance from Stern or Wharton can get you > better positions/wild card entry in PE/Investment > arms of Banks. Or, if you don’t have prior PE experience, an MBA can price yourself out of the market. I’m about to join a PE firm (albeit in investor relations, but with chance to join investment side), and the partner never would have hired me if my salary expectations were out of whack with the value I could add (which would be the case if I were fresh out of Wharton with no PE experience). He was QUITE happy that I had passed CFA L2 and said an MBA would not be required to advance in the firm. In fact, he was quite discouraging when I mentioned that if I didn’t get what I wanted, I would probably go to business school in a year (I expect to gain admission from HEC for Sep 09 in the next few days).
.
I must point out that we should be comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges. When you are talking of a “Gold Standard” in Finance, it should have an edge ceteris paribus. Maybe there is no supreme course which is better than “everything else” in finance, but my point is if that is the case, then none qualify as the Gold Standard. Neither CFA Charter nor a CMU MFE/Stern MBA. I am NOT saying that CFA is irrelevant for someone who has a PHD, all I am saying is that when you compare a top PHD in Finance with a CFA Charterholder, who would command more respect, usually. That said, there are PHDs/MFEs who pursue the Charter and there must be Charterholders who pursue other programs. The programs may be complimentary in many cases and might make sense to go for both. Danteshek, I do understand that your case does exist where an MBA is discouraged, however is it more of an exception or a norm? I also would say that comparing a CFA Charterholder with an MBA without work-ex is not justified. That is lame defensive attitude IMHO. You must compare people with similar backgrounds when deciding which designation is the “Gold Standard”.
> Danteshek, I do understand that your case does > exist where an MBA is discouraged, however is it > more of an exception or a norm? I also would say > that comparing a CFA Charterholder with an MBA > without work-ex is not justified. That is lame > defensive attitude IMHO. You must compare people > with similar backgrounds when deciding which > designation is the “Gold Standard”. In more developed markets like the US and the UK, people tend to be more narrow minded in their hiring practices than in developing markets like Russia and China. In the US or UK, top PE firms will obviously prefer someone with prior PE experience and with a top MBA. If they can’t get that, they will probably consider someone without PE experience, but with some other interesting background and a top MBA. In Emerging Markets, what matters more in my experience is language ability and personal relationships (i.e. how well you fit in with the team, personality-wise). For someone without a top MBA, the CFA can often give them enough reassurance that you understand finance principles. And once you are in the door, there often isn’t a need to go back to school. You just get ahead and get on with it. Does that make sense?
I think the Gold Standard is how much money (ie gold) you can create for your boss. 
So going by ymc’s logic, the question becomes: “Do *most bosses in Financial Firms* think that a CFA Charterholder can create more Gold or a Harvard MBA can create more Gold for them (assuming similar background and only one of the above)?”
They’re just different. I’m proud of my CFA charter and my Ph.D…
By “Gold Standard”, I don’t think they are implying that it is THE BEST. Obviously a Ph.D in finance or an MBA from a top 5 school is much better.
MBA in Finance from NYU= pay for grades… CFA or PhD sets you apart since you either must pass three exams or do research
PtrainerNY Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MBA in Finance from NYU= pay for grades… I tend to agree with some of the sentiment that is put forward here. What is the dropout / fail rates in MBA programs? They tend to be very low. This means that there are two possible explanations: 1. They recruit very well, 2. They will pass those who they bring in. No doubt the better the university the more stringent the “pass mark” is for gaining entry, but can they say that they have a 100% success rate of selecting good candidates, maybe they should be spending their time choosing stocks instead of students as the return on investment would be much higher.
DirtyZ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By “Gold Standard”, I don’t think they are > implying that it is THE BEST. Obviously a Ph.D in > finance or an MBA from a top 5 school is much > better. That was always my assumption - until I had an interview with an exec at a top 5 AM firm & the guy told me that the cfa is way more important to him than my top 5 mba. He actually asked me why I bothered getting it…
> What is the dropout / fail rates in MBA programs? Good thought. Even in top schools, what’s the fail rate? Schools are schools…you go in, do your best and you get out. With certifications, like the CFA charter, you go in, you do your best, but you may never get out. CFAI doesn’t care if you linger for 10 years…they won’t sympatheise with you, they won’t give you a break. That’s a major difference. All employers should think about that.
You also have to consider that the two courses have similar and dissimilar learning outcomes. Both a MBA in Finance and the CFA will teach some hard skills (financial skills) but an MBA will also teach soft skills (management, HR, Leadership) that the CFA does not cover. If you were to ask which program will produce the better better entry level analyst then it is likely that it is the CFA. If you were to ask which one would produce a better leader / manager in a financial setting that would very much be more subjective.
Hi JoeyDVivre, which topic/area did you do your PhD? I have interests in research and have been thinking of doing a PhD, but I know it is a long way to go. Would you be willing to share some info if you don’ t mind or we can talk offline on email? Thanks.
Dreary Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > What is the dropout / fail rates in MBA > programs? > CFAI doesn’t care if > you linger for 10 years…they won’t sympatheise > with you, they won’t give you a break. That’s a > major difference. in MBA, if you have a GPA < 2.8, you g on PROBATION, so it is no cakewalk. I went to top 20 and they were crushing us
daj224 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I went to top 20 Wow, why haven’t you mentioned this before? Oh, wait… I guess you have.
The CFA is very difficult and you learn a lot going through it. Also, the 4 or 3 years work experience in investments is probably worth as much as any MBA. I think you need to set a reasonable threshold for “Gold Standard”. I mean you can’t say gold standard = Rhoades Scholarship or the whole thing becomes kind of absurd.
Then, Why is CFA called a graduate level qualification when actually it is considered better than MBA in finance by most of us?? this really kicks me off…