Equivocation Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “Do you really want to answer 120-240 problems in > six hours that require you to create an answer for > every possible contingency and inefficiency in the > economy and markets? No, you assume markets are > fairly efficient, unless the problem tells you > that so-and-so has found that X will outperform Y > through extra analysis, and then you practice the > concept or idea that’s in the curriculum.” > > @bchadwick, > > Have you ever thought that it is not about getting > the piece of paper? I would rather study 2000 > hours if the subject matter was actually a > reasonabe approximation of reality than study even > 300 hours of material I know is wrong simply > because it is the “orthodox” way of doing it (my > personal guess is they don’t change the curriculum > because they don’t have anything to with which to > replace it) > > I am surprised by how well you memorized the CFA > curriculum and by how little you consider the > underlying basis for the theories you expouse. > Come on think a little. > > Derivatives are fully dependent on an efficient > market hypothesis, that is the definition of > arbitrage pricing! Talk to commodity traders they > will laugh if you tell them that markets are > efficient and that you can setup a trade to > capture that “risk-free” arbitrage. See how you > can explain backwardation. > > CAPM is a TERRIBLE approximation of value. When I > was writing valuation opinions, I could literally > alter the value of a company by 50% and still have > a legitimate defense for my valuation. What do > you want me to manipulate? Betas? equity risk > premiums? Small cap? Illiquidity? Just tell me > the target value and I will get you there. The > reason CAPM seems to work is only because > appraisers adjust the inputs so as to provide for > a “reasonable” cost of equity… but the whole > purpose of using CAPM in the first place is > supposed to be precisely to provide an unbiased > quantitative valuation. In the end, it is just a > way to add credibility to a pre-selected > valuation. > > Next on economics. The topic is far more complex, > and you probably have not read anything on the > matter other than what is on the curriculum so > there is not much to discuss. Suffice it to say, > all economics schools covered in the CFA > curriculum use Keynes as a base for their > assumptions; even Monetarists use core Keynesian > assumptions. In fact CFA really only presents you > two schools; Keynesians and Monetarists. > > @MattLikesAnalysis > > Your credibility is suspect when you claim you can > pass the entire CFA on 300 hours. But hey! I > hope you are as smart as your friends. > > Let’s assume it is true what you say. 300 hours is > not enough to read the curriculum. I would have > to assume they only memorized the Schweser > summaries. So in real terms your self-respecting > friends know precious little about finance but > they have a nice piece of paper stating that for a > brief 3 month time span they memorized how to > execute every equation in each level. > > About Austrian economics. It would be dogmatic of > me to suggest to fully replace Keynesianism with > the Austrian approach. However, in the curriculum > it is not even mentioned, whilst highly > controversial Keynesian concepts are left > unquestioned. > > > > In conclusion. The curriculum is dogmatic, and > does not reflect cutting edge knowledge. Make not > mistake, I have learned a lot, and it was a great > base to understand other financial approaches. > However, has memorizing equations for 4 years been > a good use of my time? Honestly not I will be fair to you and call you an idiot, for that is what you are. Go spend another year trying to pass one section of the CFA, you may be wiser.
A lovely insightful critique. AD HOMINEM? Why not? It would be dandy if you would bother to read the full thread… I do have my 2 levels just like you whether you like it or not. Oh! I forgot, you must be one of those guys that only reads the summaries and then considers himself to be well informed…
You know what? This is pointless. You guys are obviously very young (God I’m only in my early 30’s and I am saying this). You will learn after much pain. I am happy that I finally get to transfer to the prop desk. 2011 will be a good year for me and my iconoclastic theories. The P&L will tell us who is wrong. PS: Hope you get your finance job quickly after you get ther charter… the great recession of 2012 is looming strong.
JOE2010 is the biggest idiot on here. He never posts anything worthwhile. Join me in laughing at him. I get what you are saying although I wouldn’t go as far as you (it’s certainly not an old boys club, in fact if anything it is highly meritocratic - especially now). And there are plenty of others who have posted much the same (CFABlackbelt started a long post on the same subject as did Bromion). I don’t go for the CFA zealotory I see here. And I have my CFA. It helped me get the multi 6 figure number package. I got a front office position partially through doing it (having the head of portfolio management telling you he is sure you will pass is certainly a good enough motivator). I am grateful for that alone. I still wish it was designed better and that after all is what you are saying. Don’t let the bstards get you down…
Thank you Muddahudda. I appreciate it. For me Level 3 has been painful especially because I was always the over-achiever type. Rereading theories I do not agree with for the nth time is torture (LOL it would be torture even if I agreed with them). You are right that it will be more meritocratic on some level… of course, the guys raising the entrance bar got in on a much lower standard and are not volunteering for retesting (they also voted down the mandatory yearly trainning provisions). Thanks again for the good vibes.
300 hrs is enough to read the books through twice and I’m a slow reader. i do have a bba in finance so i may have an advantage over most, but anyone in economics, stats or math should be able to get through the material quickly as well. due to my educational background i was able to skip sections like L1 intro basics, corp finance, basic macro and micro stuff, and some accounting stuff. I also have a background in psych and work in AM so i was able to get by just reading the LIII texts over once. LII took 160 of the 300 hrs due to my less than impressive accounting experience. 90 on LI and 50 on LIII. many of the friends mentioned are CAs with BBAs so they could skip most of the accounting stuff along with the stuff I mentioned. background is a major factor. if you have a BSc in Kin then yeah, it’ll probably take you 2000 hrs. and yes, i do agree with you that the CFA cirriculum should at least mention Austrian economics. i do think liquidity and investor behaviour should play a larger role in what is the widely accepted economic theory. that said, keynesian econ holds its ground in certain areas of discussion.
but one more thing, since you’re being a bit of a jackarse, it doesn’t make you look pretty when you claim to have a greater understanding of finance than those who have their charters… if your understanding was so profound, you’d have passed all exams on the first try with 70+ in each category.
the curriculum has changed a lot over the years and it will continue to change in the future. no one said that this is the end-all of finance here. the bottom line is that it is a respected designation with good fundamentals taught that relatively few people put the time in to pass, giving it value. to go on here and flame the curriculum… come on. do you expect CFAI to accept new theories every year and weave them into the curriculum? if something is important enough today it will be important 5 years from now and maybe CFAI will think it should be part of their curriculum at that time. many portfolio managers have failed L3 because they did not “agree” with the material. if you have been in the industry long enough to not need the charter for street cred, more power to you. if not then take the tests, pass and move on. did you agree with 100% of what you learned in school? did you make a fuss about that too? it cost you way more and took more time than the CFA program.
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 300 hrs is enough to read the books through twice > and I’m a slow reader. i do have a bba in finance > so i may have an advantage over most, but anyone > in economics, stats or math should be able to get > through the material quickly as well. due to my > educational background i was able to skip sections > like L1 intro basics, corp finance, basic macro > and micro stuff, and some accounting stuff. I also > have a background in psych and work in AM so i was > able to get by just reading the LIII texts over > once. LII took 160 of the 300 hrs due to my less > than impressive accounting experience. 90 on LI > and 50 on LIII. many of the friends mentioned are > CAs with BBAs so they could skip most of the > accounting stuff along with the stuff I mentioned. > background is a major factor. if you have a BSc in > Kin then yeah, it’ll probably take you 2000 hrs. > > and yes, i do agree with you that the CFA > cirriculum should at least mention Austrian > economics. i do think liquidity and investor > behaviour should play a larger role in what is the > widely accepted economic theory. that said, > keynesian econ holds its ground in certain areas > of discussion. You are not a slow reader if you could go through and comprehend all of the text, in 150 hours. That’s almost how long it took me to get through the L2 books…
starbuk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the curriculum has changed a lot over the years > and it will continue to change in the future. no > one said that this is the end-all of finance here. > > did > you agree with 100% of what you learned in school? > did you make a fuss about that too? it cost you > way more and took more time than the CFA program. very well said. College tuition costs way more than the CFA program, and everyone still forks it over.
Models, Bottles, Fast Cars, Fame, Money, Success, Power!
Austrian economics isn’t even based on any empirical research, EMH while deeply flawed and axiomatic has far more empirical evidence to support it then the entire austrian school. In many ways steadfast proponents of the austrian school of thought are like religious fundamentalists their belief is more a question of faith then a well reasoned opinion bourne out through experience and observation
Prostitutes, Hungovers, Fines for Speeding, Arrogance, Greed, Envy, Corruption
CSK, Just reworded it for you 
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The reason we learn pricing on normal > distributions bud, is because the whole idea > behind exponential curves in complex systems means > we cannot use these theories to model. So yes, > you learn the shortcomings, which are covered in > the text, but at the end of the day, you need a > model. No doubt, it reminds me of all the post-modernists/structuralists in sociology. ‘It’s great that you’ve identified the obvious shortcomings of our theory but were going to need some sort of analytical framework if we want to do anything usefull.’ mandelbrot’s shit was cool to look at while dusted on lsd/mda at a rave tho.
Valores Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Prostitutes, Hungovers, Fines for Speeding, > Arrogance, Greed, Envy, Corruption ROFL!!
Because I want to fit in. --PB
jcole21 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 300 hrs is enough to read the books through > twice > > and I’m a slow reader. i do have a bba in > finance > > so i may have an advantage over most, but > anyone > > in economics, stats or math should be able to > get > > through the material quickly as well. due to my > > educational background i was able to skip > sections > > like L1 intro basics, corp finance, basic macro > > and micro stuff, and some accounting stuff. I > also > > have a background in psych and work in AM so i > was > > able to get by just reading the LIII texts over > > once. LII took 160 of the 300 hrs due to my > less > > than impressive accounting experience. 90 on LI > > and 50 on LIII. many of the friends mentioned > are > > CAs with BBAs so they could skip most of the > > accounting stuff along with the stuff I > mentioned. > > background is a major factor. if you have a BSc > in > > Kin then yeah, it’ll probably take you 2000 > hrs. > > > > and yes, i do agree with you that the CFA > > cirriculum should at least mention Austrian > > economics. i do think liquidity and investor > > behaviour should play a larger role in what is > the > > widely accepted economic theory. that said, > > keynesian econ holds its ground in certain > areas > > of discussion. > > You are not a slow reader if you could go through > and comprehend all of the text, in 150 hours. > > That’s almost how long it took me to get through > the L2 books… assuming i scanned and skipped maybe 40% of the mandatory readings in the texts, my total readable page count was maybe 2000. 2000 / 20 pages an hour = 100 hrs. 20 pages an hour isn’t crazy when only maybe 1 in 3 pages requires more than just reading and maybe 1/3 of every page has some chart that requires nothing but a quick scan. go over the 2000 pages twice more and you’ve gone over the tough stuff three times. also, i did no practice questions in preparation. ps. i call myself a slow reader as my wife can read over 300 pages an hour, so she’s my benchmark.
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > assuming i scanned and skipped maybe 40% of the > mandatory readings in the texts, my total readable > page count was maybe 2000. 2000 / 20 pages an hour > = 100 hrs. 20 pages an hour isn’t crazy when only > maybe 1 in 3 pages requires more than just reading > and maybe 1/3 of every page has some chart that > requires nothing but a quick scan. go over the > 2000 pages twice more and you’ve gone over the > tough stuff three times. also, i did no practice > questions in preparation. > > ps. i call myself a slow reader as my wife can > read over 300 pages an hour, so she’s my > benchmark. Not really interested in arguing about it, but for what it’s worth (and with all due respect) all of that sounds pretty highly implausible to me. Especially the part about your wife, if you’re suggesting she can read 300 pages of material like the CFA curriculum with the retention you need to pass the exams.
Also, you’re saying you went over the 2000 pages 3 times at 100 hours per pass, right? That is 300 hours for the one level you’re talking about.