I think it’s a fallacy to say that the CPA exam is MUCH easier than the CFA exam. I have said before that I do believe that the CFA exam, in total, is harder than the CPA exams (again there are components of the CPA that are more difficult than the CFA, most notably that you need to pass all 4 exams in an 18 month period or you will have to retake exams you’ve already passed). The most telling statistic about exam difficulty, in my opinion, is passing rates. If you look at the 2014 pass rates (http://www.aicpa.org/becomeacpa/cpaexam/psychometricsandscoring/passingrates/downloadabledocuments/passrates2014q1.pdf), they are roughly in line with CFA exam pass rates (http://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/cfaprogram/exams/Pages/cfa_exam_results.aspx), and keep in mind that CPA candidates are arguably more qualified to take the CPA exam than CFA candidates are to take the CFA exam given the many pre-requisites needed just to sit for the CPA exam compared to the CFA exam.
Additionally, I don’t think the CPA exam has gotten easier through out the years; it has simply changed. True, the CPA exam used to be given like the CFA exam, in that it was an all-day exam, which is admittedly a more grueling process than just one 3-4 hour exam in a day. But, I can tell you that the CPA exam covers much more than it used to (albeit older versions I think went in more depth on questions), and given how the exam difficulty is based upon your performance (the exam is computerized and offered in booklets, if you do well in one booklet, the next booklet will be harder), you’re never going to have an easy experience. Also, the CPA exam now has written portions on all the exams, whereas before I believe it was all multiple choice.
+1… I took the last pencil and paper CPA exam in 2000. It was a brutal two days of testing, 3 hours each for 2 subjects, 4 hours each for 2 other subjects. The new format is much more flexible, especially for working professionals. Flexible does not equal easier-- pass rates are about the same, I think only 18% pass all four parts on first attempt. Candidate pool is much more qualified-- now each candidate must have 150 semester hours of university education with so many hours in accounting. Many candidates do a BS (120 hrs) + a MS (33 hrs), so definitely the pool is more uniformly qualified than the CFA pool, which can be a BS in anything. Here we are 15 years later, CFA still using 20th century pencil and paper.
“Beaten to death” doesn’t equal “proved my side right.” It continues to be debated because it’s unresolved. And, to be honest, your argument for isn’t that convincing. If having L1 2x a year is a “big money maker” (your words, not mine), L2 2x a year should also be revenue additive. My bigger point, however, is adding a second L1 has not degraded the charter, and the L2 can be modified in the same manner (lower pass scores).
Your argument about it having a lower pass rate doesn’t address my point that the CFA has L1 2x a year. You still seem to be addressing this issue from a standpoint of “what’s best for me.” That’s cool, but keep it real and say “I don’t like the idea for selfish reasons.”
I can’t understand why this debate is ongoing. Giving the exam once a year filters out failing candidates who do not want the designation bad enough, adding value to existing charterholders, which is the end goal.
I personally hope this exam will not be given twice a year. The level 2 of the CFA program holds some kind of prestige and it’d be ridiculous to lose it.
If you want to ask other people to be respectful you should start with yourself.
If you think playing with the MPS and timing of the exams will lead to a better pool of charterholders, I disagree.
If you are demotivated by having to wait a year to resit the exam, quit.
The thing all of you seem to be forgetting, or worse are unaware of, is that at work your boss doesn’t want to hear about the problems you have in succeeding all they want to hear is how your going to overcome those probelms. I’ve worked with a few guys who wanted to become analysts, break into front office, whatever. The ones who made it did not complain about how the board was stacked against they, they worked harder to resolve the problem. The one’s who complain all the time about this not working or that not working will never make it.
So I’ll say it again, if you’re worried about failing and having to wait a year to resit; work harder, make sure you don’t fail, put in 400 hours instead of 300.
All this doesn’t mean I don’t understand what you’re going through. Everyone of us who is a charterholder has been there, but if you’re put off by the chance of having to wait 1 year instead of 6 months then I don’t think you’re going to enjoy working in finance.
And you’re not any different. You want Level 2 to be twice a year, because you don’t think you can pass it in one go, or am I missing your selfish reason?
In any case you’re not answering the most important question - Why is this in the best interest of the investors?
I massively agree with this. The coursework of the CFA is not difficult, what makes the exam difficult is the structure of the examination process.
If I’m looking at two CVs where one guy has the CFA and one does not. All else equal this does not tell me the guy with the CFA knows anything more, what it does tell me is that they had the perserveance to complete the program and that can be worth more than the investment knowlege. you can always teach a new hore what they need to know, but if the attitude is not there, that’s a lot harder to solve.
The truth is, nobody likes to hear the truth when it bites. Charterholders fear dilution, which is a reasonable and valid fear. But why not say it simply so, rather than dilly-dally with reasons of clients this and study hours that!
Take it or leave it, we all are being selfish in a way - I, talking from my perspective as a candidate who wants to earn the Charter, and you, from your perspective as a charterholder who doesn’t want dilution. So expectedly, this argument is bound to resort in a tug-of-war of some sort.
That said, the least we both can do is to present our respective opinions and leave the other to reason it out, rather than try to forcefully sink our opinions in on the other, because no matter how hard we haggle, the inevitable remains I am not on the same boat as you are presently, so the way I reason will be different, till maybe when I join your side of the boat.
So, how can you explain current level 2 candidates siding with current charterholders? We really haven’t seen any charterholders arguing for L2 twice a year, but we have seen some L2 candidates arguing to keep L2 once a year…where is the bias for these candidates? Clearly it’s not that they’re a charterholder “protecting” the charter.
as an afterthought, couldn’t there be an argument that the value of the charter increases with the number of charterholders? Take the MBA for example, a ton of people have the degree, but it doesn’t necessarily make it any less valuable, especially if you go to a top 10 MBA program, you will most likely get scooped up and placed into a nice career. The CFA charter could become more valuable as the number of charterholders increase. In other words, the price of a good can increase along with an increase in supply so long as the demand for that good increases by more than the change in supply
The caveat here is that the charter currently serves to advance people already in the investment industry, and less frequently helps place people into the investment industry. If the number of charterholders increase, the charter would have to help more people place into the industry (or other finance roles) to maintain or increase the value. As more people outside of the investment industry understand the coursework and commitment necessary to obtain it, they would undoubtedly be impressed and I could see them wanting to hire more charterholders and candidates in the future. Existing charterholders wouldn’t be threatened assuming they already are in a satisfactory role and have years of experience to maintain some cushion/barriers to entry
not sure if i believe this would actually happen, but i certainly believe its possible
No charterholder will ever argue for level 2 to be held twice in a year, my brother. Expecting that would be like waiting for the moonlight at dawn. And as regards some Level 2 candidates subscribing to charterholders’ idea as well, well bro, the fact they do doesn’t make them right or we on the other side wrong; besides, this is an argument, and everyone is free to pitch his/her tent wherever is so desired. Come to think of it brov, Judas even gave Jesus christ away, yet he was part of Jesus “group”. So being in the same group doesn’t guarantee sameness in reasoning.
I wouldn’t say that no charterholder would ever argue for it, unless you and CFABeatmeup aren’t going to be charterholders (if that’s what you’re implying, but I hope not). If I recall, both of you stated your viewpoint won’t change once you pass L2. If we suppose you get the charter, then you’d be supporting L2 twice a year (unless you flip flop…)
Also, there is no such thing as moonlight. What we perceive as moonlight is the light from the sun reflecting off of the moon’s surface. The moon doesn’t emit light. Lastly, the moon can be seen at various times throughout the day, not only at night (also depends on your geographic location). I’m not saying either side is right or wrong, but I’m asking for this occurrence to be explained, since it appeared that (one of you implied) this all came down to the bias on each side…I don’t recall ever saying that the same group implies same reasoning, though… To your Judas reference: are you suggesting that an L2 candidate not supporting L2 twice a year is committing a betrayal? If so, who is being betrayed?
If I remember correctly CFA doesn’t cover astronomical phenomena until level 3, so it’s probably a little unfair to be referencing it in the level 2 forum.
Hahahahaaa Tickersu. The only question I find worthy of clarification is the last, all others have either been thoroughly discussed before now, or at best, a figment of your interpretation.
To the Judas analogy, I don’t see anywhere in my comment where I had used the word “betrayal” as contained in your rejoinder, and if you insist that I had implied that, then I might also argue that all you said you couldn’t recall were what I thought you implied before I responded. So, let’s not drag that any further. No betrayal was stated or implied. Simple! Now to put it simply, that analogy was only meant to buttress the point that it is possible you belong to a particular group and still have a contrary opinion to other members of the group (Judas belonged to a group of twelve but didn’t see Jesus the way the remaining eleven did) and going by the context of that statement, this should be clear to a discerning mind.
Per the moonlight tutorial, thanks so much for the enlightenment. I appreciate the knowledge gained. But if I may ask you, does this reflection off the moon’s surface occur during the day? If it only occurs during the night, then the light from this reflection is what the world calls the moonlight. If otherwise, well…
Eitherway, I have spoken about the moonlight broadly and in fact generally, and what I have stated is the opinion of many, but as earlier said, I am glad to now learn that the moon can be sighted at any time of the day, and this I have added joyfully to my knowledge base. So, kindly permit me to stop here now, as I intend going out to check if I can see the moon. Time check: 4:27 PM…Wish me luck, Tickersu.
As has been covered in subsequent posts, I will still think L2 should be offered 2x a year if I pass or not. Even if I get the charter, because I think it really isn’t tremendously value destructive.
And it really doesn’t hurt nor help investors (just as L1 2x a year hasn’t hurt the charter’s value), the tests are still hard.
