I became aware of the CFA due to my previous boss (DOO) encouraging me to take it. I am now at a different company where my current boss (CFO) also appreciates the exam and is very suppportive of my taking on the endeavor. So when I find articles like these while getting my brain ready (a little internet surfing while the caffeine kicks in and I organize my day) it puzzles me–does bleach have a well spoken older brother? The articles below, written by a marketer, disgusted me. A little excerpt:
“If you’ve been in school most of your life, you’ve been conditioned into thinking that grades / degrees / certifications = success. So by extension, you might think that the CFA = success. Just one small problem: the real world doesn’t work like that. Everything is based on money , rather than grades or paper designations. If you want to make a serious amount of money, you need to generate a serious amount of money and take a percentage of it – via investments, sales, clients, and so on.”
While I am only a Level 1 candidate, I have been enjoying this process because I believe the training and knowledge is improving my ability to do my current job. Much of it is a more in depth review (with more difficult content), but it’s making me better. This author seems to suggest that these kinds of personal improvements are worthless and instead we should all be focusing on networking.
All that said, I am curious to get the opinion of those who have achieved the CFA charter regarding the impact of such articles. Do articles like these promote the wrong kind of future investors? Does anyone take them seriously? Does his thought process have any merit or is he merely trying to legitimize his own profession?
(Side note, I was merely typing in words of interest into google. I do not surf “how to get into investment banking” websites, lol. Not my direct industry. And never trust any site that has “Like Us On Facebook!” taking up half their site.)
I agree with frankz888. I’m not a charterholder, but am currently on the buy-side and I can tell you that people here respect the CFA and expect that you get it. They respect credentials and degrees, but more than anything they respect experience.
I know you don’t need it for investing, but I think it says a lot about your competence if you have it. Opinions about the CFA seem highly polarized–it’s either praise or “why? you don’t need that. Do you want to manage portfolios?” I just haven’t received much neutral feedback.
I have no intention of managing portfolios. But Level 1 meshes extremely well with my current position. Does the content in Level II and III differ drastically? I know once one achieves level 3 it is strictly asset/portfolio management–but for those working for companies that wish to appeal to portfolio managers and investment bankers (ie, those attending management access conferences), I would think the CFA designation would be a perk.
I will give you neutral feedback - CFA is worth doing for many people, for knowledge purposes, and since it’s pretty easy to get compared to an MBA. However, it’s probably not going to change your life.
Promoting wrong kind of future investors? In my opinion, no. I would say the average half hour of watching Jim Cramer on CNBC or reading a few Robert Kiyosaki books is far more 'hazardous to your wealth" than spending time reading an article that says that a certain professional designation is not the best way to break into a certain industry. Note my italics.
The author isn’t saying that all professional designations are the worst wayto develop yourself for all industries. The author is saying that if you want to break into M&A and investment banking (the entire purpose of their site, and the first sentence under the masthead), there are better avenues than spending 1,000 hours and a minimum of 18 months passing all the exams. Heck, I have the charter, and I’d probably agree with that.
Does anyone take them seriously? Meh, not really. Most people in the industry, I would hope, know the difference between saying “The CFA isn’t a great ROI for getting your foot in the door” and “The CFA is completely useless.”
Does his thought process have any merit or is he merely trying to legitimize his own profession? It’s got merit, but I wouldn’t take the extreme POV the writer espouses. If you graph the “number of hours spent” vs. “increased likelihood of breaking into M&A or i-banking”, the CFA probably is a really, really poor choice compared to some other options like networking or getting a couple of quality internships. However , if you’re going to work in asset management, buy- or sell-side research, equity or credit analysis, etc…the CFA is not just a networking tool or a way to get your foot in the door. It’s a resume builder (“I take my professional development SRS BSNS”) and a hell of a way to get a solid understanding of a lot of the concepts used in your day-to-day work.
So if you’re using the CFA merely as a networking tool - then yeah, the writer a point. If you’re using the CFA because you stand a snowball’s chance in hell of using the material in your profession, then the exams probably make a lot of sense for you.
Good deal. Thanks for the feedback. Not looking for a life changer–just curious as to why some are so negative about it.
During one interview, the subject of studying for the CFA came up and the interviewer commented 3 separate times about how it was useless and couldn’t understand why I would bother with it. Since he mentioned earlier in the conversation that he had not passed it, I figured he just had a chip on his shoulder.
I just figured that CFA affirms you know what you’re doing in a finance related field. If it will only have clout in portfolio management as so many have pointed out, then that’s unfortunate.
Haters gonna hate, etc, etc. Sounds like the guy was a textbook example of sour grapes; we get some of that here, too (oh god I think after QQQBee, this bleach guy might be my favorite poster on AF).
I am hoping that by the time I finish the CFA that the economy will be back on its feet (couple years), and then it might be helpful. Otherwise, right now, it’s probably an overqualification and backfires like having an MBA while looking for work. Structural shift in they way hiring is, they want pure hands on experience or they want young kids in their 20’s. Used to be, get an MBA and you could go into any industry. I’m pigeonholed in Financial Services.
With that said, I’m also studying the CFA because I really like the subject matter. Except the Ethics stuff.
I think the problem IBers have with the CFA is the sense of entitlement that comes with the designation. IB is more about putting in 80 hour work weeks, busting your ass, and earning your stripes. In addition to the CFA not being all that applicable to IB, IBers are also pissed you’d spend the time studying when you could be working.
IB is a transaction based business, not unlike sales. There is more analysis in IB than in most pure sales kinds of things, but CFA is way overkill for professional IBers who want to stay in IB.
So they see CFA as a waste of time, because you spend time learning extraneous stuff (not all of it is extraneous, but more than half of the curriculum is probably irrelevant to IB), when you could have been using that time either to bring in new deals or to cheat on your spouse under the guise of entertaining clients.
If you actually have responsibility to deliver a return on investments, as opposed to just getting someone to do a deal with you, then you will find the CFA much more valuable - both for the knowledge set, and for the respect it commands from others who do the same.
I like the emphasis on ethics. Sometimes the wording trips me up but the concept of stressing the importance of ethics in finance is a great benefit of the program (imo). But after hearing some of the stories people from various industries have and being in Houston during Enron I guess I’ll always be a little biased.
I assume most have seen it but “The Smartest Guys in the Room” documentary was really well done.
Did I repeat that so much? I didn’t realize it. I do feel like financial salespeople are a bit like highly paid used car salesmen, except that the used car salesmen may understand how to value a car better. So maybe I’m envious about the returns to what may be essentially nothing.
It has been on my mind, but it’s more in the context of “why is it that the industry sees being in top physical shape as being disciplined, but going out and cheating on one’s spouse isn’t considered undisciplined.” Seems to me that either both should matter, or neither should.
It is true that in the hedge fund world, a HF manager going through a divorce is considered a major strike against, because it means their mind is not on the game.
Yes, we are well compensated. However, the days of the philandering salesman - at least in finance - are not what they used to be. Too many rules about spending money and entertaining clients. There’s a lot of travel so if cheating is simply the function of being away from one’s spouse, then I guess there’s that. But, that’s hardly unique to financial professionals. I don’t really see a higher percentage of my peers out cheating on their wives than a normal cross-section of men you’d find anywhere else. And, I take it personally that you’re implying I do so.
As for the lack of respect, that comes with the territory. It’s funny though. It may look like we just take people out to a steak dinner and then they open their books to us, but if that was the case every sales guy would be successful. No, we actually have to convince those buy-siders - the smartest guys in the industry - to allocate capital to our products. In many cases telling them what they’re currently using was a bad choice and what we offer fits better in their portfolio. Now tell me, if we’re so poor at evaluating our products, how do we get very intelligent people to give us their money? Must just come down to strippers and blow.
