I’m just saying that “the CFA isn’t valuable for the thing that I do” (because its too general and doesn’t force you to evaluate 100s of cases) is not e same thing than saying “the CFA isn’t valuable in the industry as a whole.”
We both agree that “the gold standard talk” is silly marketing speak. Though I’m sure your fund is the gold standard for whatever fund you’re at too. Everyone likes to be on the gold team (except when attacking the Death Star).
^ Haha, nice Star Wars reference.
My post was more as a response to kartelite. I thought your comments were good insofar as how portfolio construction/asset allocation can matter as much (if not more so) than individual stock selection.
Maybe I looked at things too literally but there is a real difference between saying something is “valuable” versus a “gold standard.” As you suggested, saying anything is the “gold standard” is a bit myopic.
The CFAI is not a charterholder.
gold is so passe. have you seen the price of gold lately? hipster CFAs are now using the phrase “The Industry Platinum Standard”. geez. get with the times.
True, but the real thing that is going on is that being a CFA charterholder does not deputize you to make claims about how this makes you a better investor or what the charter means (other than that you passed three difficult tests on financial topics). That power rests with the CFAI itself.
You can state that the CFAI calls the CFA charter the gold standard or whtever language they actually use, because it is a fact that the CFAI refers to it that way. You can’t really say that it actually IS the gold standard unless you are sure to distinguish your opinion (yes it’s the gold standard!) from fact (there’s no real agreement on what the gold standard is or would be for this kind of stuff).
You can probably get away with saying it’s highly respected in many parts of the industry, but that will either be redundant to people who agree with you, or a point of laughter for those who don’t, so there’s not a lot of value in saying it, other than to reassure charterholders that those who sneer at the charter aren’t necessarily the arbiters of all that is true and good in the world…
Either way, most people, charterholders or not, will instinctively start wondering if you exaggerate everything once you start claiming that these exams are the gold standard for investing.
Gold’ used to be really cheap compared to Rhodium. I had to have my wife’s wedding ring “re-silvered” because it started wearing off, and they used Rhodium to do it. At the time, Gold was about $1200 and Rhodium was about $9000.
I think this thread is starting to make me want to hurl.
^ Greenman is the rhodium standard of AF.
I am not sure if it’s an actual violation, although i think it’s borderline inappropriate but you may not get called out for writing that.
I am assuming you are putting it on your resume or cover letter or profile…
What i am trying to say is, you shouldn’t have to advertise the CFA program, it’s like you put on your resume you got your degree at UCLA, and you put a description of UCLA’s ranking and achievements. Or if you have worked for Google, and you put a description on how great an employer it is, and what a successful organization it is…
it’s so silly to have to tell people CFA is the golden standard, what does it even mean? so by being a charterholder, you are the golden stardard as well??
It maybe worth to create a slide show why it is not worth pursuing CFA charter based on all the feedback we have seen on the opportunity set for those who are not already practioniers or for practioners like FOF analysts wanting to go to equity/HY/PE analyst role.
Why can’t someone be a bond picker, Bchad?
You have issues with reading comprehension if you are assuming I would ever put that on a cover letter or CV, especially after what I just wrote. Why would anyone put that on a CV anyway? Doesn’t even make sense…try thinking a little, no serious finance professional would use such language on a professional document. It’s a hypothetical question to illustrate what I thought may be a bit of an instance of not practicing what one preaches by the “governing” body.
My question was whether or not the use of CFAI’s own language by one of its members would be construed as a violation. Again, UCLA and Google (to my knowledge) don’t have internal policies preventing employees from using the lauditive language in your example. A more salient example would be a company that disallows the use of certain offensive words by employees and then uses one of those words in a press release.
That’s why i put the “assumption”, i wasn’t exactly sure… because there were numerous other threads on how to describe their CFA candidacy/ charter on their resumes.
Anyway, i take it back, and what i said has nothing to do with your situation.
My view would be this: if CFA Institute refers to the charter as the gold standard in the investment in the industry, it’s OK to describe it as such, on your résumé or elsewhere; if they don’t, it’s not OK.
Yeah, I’d agree with that - obviously, now that they’ve used it themselves, a member really couldn’t get in trouble for using the same language, so I guess I should have framed it as a hypothetical regarding that type of phrasing in general.
I could totally see an Ethics question where they have someone calling the CFA designation some superlative akin to the “gold standard” - so as long as you don’t imply superior performance (although to what degree can you insinuate causality?) it’s okay?
I think that it’s OK from an ethical perspective. Nothing particularly unethical about it.
But it’s still kinda worthless. Of course CFAI will refer to CFA as “the gold standard”. Just like AICPA refers to CPA as “the gold standard.” And the CFP board refers to the CFP as “the gold standard” and the IMA refers to CMA as “the gold standard” and the IIA refers to the CIA as “the gold standard”, etc.
The employer (or client) will decide what they think the “Gold Standard” is. And if you have to tell them what it is, then you already have a good idea how highly esteemed it is.
But gold hasn’t been doing so well lately. Maybe it shouldn’t be the godl standard.
Rhubarb standard
Where has CFA Institute used that phrase? A cursory search of their website didn’t unearth any evidence.
I don’t recall the original poster asking if it were worthwhile or not; he asked if it were an ethical violation.
I agree that it’s probably pointless, but that doesn’t address the question posed.