I’ll repeat, the CFA is the one designation that everyone notices when you don’t have and no one notices when you do have. Willy
J. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “You will rarely see a CA who has difficulty > landing a job in his/her field.” > > Indeed, but at the price of working at least two > years in auditing. I feel sick just thinking about > it… > > J. yes, i feel the same way about accounting and did not consider CA as one of my options. however, 2 years of pain in auditing and consequently earning a CA designation goes such a long way though, a lot more than CFA i think. and you are never expected to self-study like CFA candidates, who have to allot time outside of work. you attend really expensive classes your firms pay for, and take time off to study, isn’t that how it works? if i had the patience and the endurance to sit through 2 years of dreaded auditing, i probably would have gone the CA route. there is just so much you can do with that designation. i am a level 1 candidate in dec. and even if i pass i am seriously questioning whether to continue with the CFA designation.
@Former Trader It’s nice to see someone else from Montreal. I sure hope you don’t regret your CFA. When comparing what I’m learning in the program to what my friends learn in the CMA leardership or CA D.E.S.S, I know i’ll never regret it on a personal / cultural level. Do you work in finance? If so, could you tell us more about how your company values the CFA? @Approaching_c Your post is exactly describing the problem I mentioned earlier. You shouldn’t be allowed to do more with a CA than a CFA. Have you recently talked to a CA about the credit crisis? Most of them don’t have a clue about how it happened, or even its impact. A lot of my friends are CA / CMA and they are great ACCOUNTANTS. That’s what they’re trained to be, but somehow, in the midst of things, HR departments across Quebec seem to feel that a CA also makes for a financial analyst. I remember having a discussion with one of my friend who’s a financial economist where he said: “You can be a great CA without understanding the most basic economic concepts, but the same can’t be said for a financial analyst” That’s what separates us from the CA / CMA professionals. Therefore, emphasis should be put on what we excel at. Usually, the practical value of adhering to a professional order is that it gives one imputability. This is one of the reasons a P.eng is paid more than an engineer, or that a doctor is paid more than a nurse. If something goes bad, the responsibility falls on them. Reading the curriculum, it is evident that the CFA tries to aim at this, but somehow, I feel that in the realm of finance, imputability is not as important as in the other professional fields? What do you guys thinks about this? J.
@Former Trader It’s nice to see someone else from Montreal. I sure hope you don’t regret your CFA. When comparing what I’m learning in the program to what my friends learn in the CMA leardership or CA D.E.S.S, I know i’ll never regret it on a personal / cultural level. Do you work in finance? If so, could you tell us more about how your company values the CFA? @Approaching_c Your post is exactly describing the problem I mentioned earlier. You shouldn’t be allowed to do more with a CA than a CFA. Have you recently talked to a CA about the credit crisis? Most of them don’t have a clue about how it happened, or even its impact. A lot of my friends are CA / CMA and they are great ACCOUNTANTS. That’s what they’re trained to be, but somehow, in the midst of things, HR departments across Quebec seem to feel that a CA also makes for a financial analyst. I remember having a discussion with one of my friend who’s a financial economist where he said: “You can be a great CA without understanding the most basic economic concepts, but the same can’t be said for a financial analyst” That’s what separates us from the CA / CMA professionals. Therefore, emphasis should be put on what we excel at. Usually, the practical value of adhering to a professional order is that it gives one imputability. This is one of the reasons a P.eng is paid more than an engineer, or that a doctor is paid more than a nurse. If something goes bad, the responsibility falls on them. Reading the curriculum, it is evident that the CFA tries to aim at this, but somehow, I feel that in the realm of finance, imputability is not as important as in the other professional fields? What do you guys thinks about this? J.
J. Yes, I work in finance and no my company does not value the CFA designation. When I was studying for level 3 last winter, I didn’t even mention it to anyone at the firm. That would only raise suspicions that I am planning to leave.
Does the fact that one only needs a bachelors or so and so equivalent yrs of work experience to qualify to sit for the exams lower its “prestige”? I know CPA and CFA exams are totally different things but ever since most states require 150 hrs equivalent to sit for CPA exams - being a CPA definitely gets approving nods. What if the same rules were applied to sit for the CFA exams?
janedoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does the fact that one only needs a bachelors or > so and so equivalent yrs of work experience to > qualify to sit for the exams lower its “prestige”? > I know CPA and CFA exams are totally different > things but ever since most states require 150 hrs > equivalent to sit for CPA exams - being a CPA > definitely gets approving nods. What if the same > rules were applied to sit for the CFA exams? You don’t need work experience to sit for the CFA or CPA exam. Requiring more credit hours to take the exam or to be licensed doesn’t make it more “prestigious”. You can always enroll in any community college to get the extra hours. I personally admire the Canadian CA designation (Canadian version of CPA), you must obtain a position at an approved accounting firm to be able to register for the exam. Imagine if the CFA embraced this rule.
aussie_jaco Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I think that this post to some degree highlights > some of the issue that this discussion is facing. > There are plenty of roles that the charter will > prepare somebody for that has little to do with > valuing individual companies. Work places such as > the SEC, ASIC and other government jobs (which in > times of economic downturn become more attractive > options) do value a chartered financial analyst > but the day to day work has very little to do with > detailed individual company modeling. If you > define the charter too narrow you run the risk of > specializing to a point where the only a very > small niche market values it (which I believe is > counter to the aims of the CFA Institute to > increase awareness and value of the charter). I disagree. Even if you are going for a job that requires zero financial modeling skills, you still won’t have the knowledge to to land almost any job in finance. It doesn’t really teach anything. It just provides an overview of multiple areas. To your example. I’d argue that the SEC would value much higher, someone with a CPA than CFA. The reality is that the firms that value the CFA most are buy side firms. Instead of focusing so much on overarching themes, shouldn’t CFA Institute provide the tools to be successful in those fields? The darn thing, which is supposed to be the end-all-be-all when it comes to finance designations, is totally irrelevant in banking and PE. Two areas which I’d argue require the most finance know-how. It’s a scam. An MBA is a much better group of letters to have by your name. At least in a masters program you can learn this type of stuff… and have an instant group of people with whom to network.
I’m not all the way through it (L3 Candidate), but I’ve received a variety of responses when telling them about my involvement w/ CFAI. “What is the CFA…are you an accountant?” “I heard those tests are impossible, you must be pretty smart” “Impressive!!! But sorry, we’re not hiring…I just hired my nephew to be our new Research Director, he just graduated from community college w/ a sociology degree”
J. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have you recently > talked to a CA about the credit crisis? Most of > them don’t have a clue about how it happened, or > even its impact. A lot of my friends are CA / CMA > and they are great ACCOUNTANTS. That’s what > they’re trained to be, but somehow, in the midst > of things, HR departments across Quebec seem to > feel that a CA also makes for a financial analyst. > i know what you mean. my sister works at one of the big4, she is pursuing the CA designation right now. i hate accounting and i’d never go that route but when i see her taking days off work to attend her CA classes or just to study, i kind of envy that because you would never receive that kind of treatment while pursuing a CFA charter. looking at the job openings i got that feeling as well, that a CA can sometimes substitute/override CFA but not the other way around.
Not Having it: Possibly getting dinged, when most other candidates have it - ATBE. Possible detriment to promotion in a firm where others have it. I would say it is close to a must (or at least be in the process of getting one) have in this environment for anyone in asset management (in a relatively junior role).
Some observations: 1. Among most of our investment managers (ranging from plain vanilla equity funds to long/short and multi-strategy HFs), the overwhelming majority of PMs/managing partners are not charterholders. Most often, they have MBAs from a top program (UChicago, Wharton, Columbia, etc.) 2. Slightly less than half of the analysts are charterholders. Again, those that are not charterholders have MBAs from top programs, and most who are charterholders also have top MBAs. Given my fairly limited experience thus far, this should be taken with a grain of salt, but I am starting to give more weight to MBA over CFA. I will probably pursue the CFA, but I think that when it comes to the more nuanced areas of analyzing a company, MBA trumps CFA. For example, consider evaluating companies based on strategy, business model, strength of management, competitive position, etc. This is something that is most likely covered in MBA curricula, oftentimes through case study, which the CFA curriculum can’t duplicate. I’m a big believer in self-study, but that model has some weaknesses. This could be a good starting point for more experienced people (perhaps with both MBA/other graduate education and CFA) to comment on.