Have any of you read the suggested amendment to the CFAI Articles of Incorporation regarding the work experience requirement? (It’s in ballot that all members got in the mail) It basically says CFAI should be able to change the definition of acceptable work experience from what has been written in the CFAI Articles of Incorporation for years because “the definition now may not reflect the current state of the investment profession”. The suggestion is to remove the “very specific” definition from the bylaws so it can be reviewed (and changed) by the board. Does this concern anyone else?? They are already getting extremely liberal with the application of the current definition despite the fact that it is somewhat specific (I listed it below). “Acceptable Professional Work Experience” shall be defined by the Board and shall include those activities related to the professional practices of financial analysis, investment management, securities analysis or other similar activities." IF they go and remove the definition from CFAI bylaws, what’s to stop them from accepting garbage like “Teacher’s Assistant for Finance 101” as acceptable work experience because it’s hard to get a real job in finance? Thoughts?
Agreed. I’d suggest a campaign against it. It’s simply so that CFAI can have more members. Already they want 150,000+ people paying for an exam each year, now they want to expand the membership of CFAI even more. More dilution of the CFA brand.
I’m sure as hell voting against it. The problem is, most people probably don’t even read the changes and just rubber stamp the whole ballot because “The CFA Institute Board recommends that each Regular Member vote FOR the proposed amendments…” They also have something in there about relieving the board of their responsibility of establishing the MPS… I don’t like where this seems to be headed. I think they need 2/3 of votes to pass the change. I’m guessing 1/2 don’t even read the ballot.
CFAI is a business first (like any other educational institution)…you would think the skyrocketing level I exam fees would be enough to satisfy the $ hunger, but once you’ve tasted champagne its hard to go back to beer i would imagine that CFAI members remain members for ~20 years (with low attrition), so they probably value the membership as bond coupons and rely on that income for whatever and want to see it grow not fall off
Now that they have approved my work experience, yes, raise the bar!
Here’s a question: how many CFA charterholders globally is a reasonable number? Do we want to see 500,000 or 1 million other people out there with the CFA? Well CFAI obviously seems to. When does it stop? At what point has CFAI expanded enough? When you need a CFA to get a job as an entry-level data input monkey? Unfortunately I bet the CFAI execs receive salary and bonuses based on revenue increases, not the added value to the brand. I’m not sure if it can be called the ‘gold standard’ in investment qualifications if the society’s main aim is to ensure as many people in the world hold the CFA. How is that in the best interest of members?
I’ll say it again: The CFA does not give you anything except proof that you have a solid understanding of the basics of finance. As long as the material is quality the CFA will retain its current value. There are other credentials that need to worry about too many peeps in the field, like actuaries. The actuaries do have jobs directly related to their exam progress and an over saturation leads to reduced salaries. The CFA does not have this so there’s no reason to worry. Start worrying if the quality of material goes down - then your credential will be devalued.
------ They also have something in there about relieving the board of their responsibility of establishing the MPS… I don’t like where this seems to be headed. ------ does this mean that they will make the exams easier to pass in the future? I doubt former band 10’s will appreciate this.
Danny Boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’ll say it again: > > The CFA does not give you anything except proof > that you have a solid understanding of the basics > of finance. > > As long as the material is quality the CFA will > retain its current value. > > > There are other credentials that need to worry > about too many peeps in the field, like actuaries. > The actuaries do have jobs directly related to > their exam progress and an over saturation leads > to reduced salaries. The CFA does not have this > so there’s no reason to worry. > > Start worrying if the quality of material goes > down - then your credential will be devalued. Agree. Also, the hardest part of the CFA should be passing the exams and not getting the actual charter. Why would the CFA make it harder to get the charter once you have passed all the exams? You have already proved that you know the material, getting the charter should be just mechanical. If the CFA doesn’t want to dilute its value, it should make the exams harder.
newsuper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed. I’d suggest a campaign against it. It’s > simply so that CFAI can have more members. > > Already they want 150,000+ people paying for an > exam each year, now they want to expand the > membership of CFAI even more. > > More dilution of the CFA brand. How many levels have you passed?
The CFA charter WOULD be just a bunch of exams that anyone with reasonable intelligence can pass if not for the work experience requirement. The purpose for the work experience requirement is to make the charter somewhat exclusive to those who at least work in finance. In my opinion, the work experience requirement should be much MORE strict than it currently is. CFAI is already taking too much liberty in expanding “professional practices of financial analysis, investment management, securities analysis” to apply to software developers and auditors.
McLeod81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The CFA charter WOULD be just a bunch of exams > that anyone with reasonable intelligence can pass > if not for the work experience requirement. The > purpose for the work experience requirement is to > make the charter somewhat exclusive to those who > at least work in finance. > > In my opinion, the work experience requirement > should be much MORE strict than it currently is. > CFAI is already taking too much liberty in > expanding “professional practices of financial > analysis, investment management, securities > analysis” to apply to software developers and > auditors. I agree and I would also like more strict experience requirements. However, if it doesn’t go in that direction, there is still lots of value in the exams and materials. Perhaps it’s because I sat for so many actuarial exams, but the content on those things is 50% garbage. The CFA is >80% quality IMO. It’s refreshing.
Finally i will get chartered!
bodhisattva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > newsuper Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Agreed. I’d suggest a campaign against it. It’s > > simply so that CFAI can have more members. > > > > Already they want 150,000+ people paying for an > > exam each year, now they want to expand the > > membership of CFAI even more. > > > > More dilution of the CFA brand. > > How many levels have you passed? All 3, what difference does that make?
everyone has to remember that the CFA’s main goal is education not experience. its not like CFAI brokers experience. the only reason it requires experience is so it can be called a professional designation and not just a designation. if you want to be ANYWHERE in the designation world, you have to be professional. I’d rather the CFAI make the exams more difficult and make it an exercise of weening out those with lower IQs, than those with ineffective networks. then at least the charterholders will be stronger thinkers and that way there will continue to be a hardline difference between CFA and MBA. also, all degrees/designations are being “diluted”. even masters degrees. even phds. even post doctorates. one day, unless you hold phds in physics and nanotechnology, you won’t be respected for your academic achievements.
Harder Exams, Broad work exp allowed (within reason) Lets consider what type of person pursues a CFA designation. If you are an accomplished IB guy, PM, or well known analyst, then a CFA is not going to add much value. You have already demonstrated your competence, some basic finance test is almost insulting. If you are a young person, working in finance or related role trying to take your career to a higher level then the CFA will add value. The CFA can signal your ambition, willingness to learn technical issues, and passion for the industry. Considering this, it makes sense for the CFAI to make adjustments to the process to support the type of candidate that sees value in the CFA. Technically challenging exams, with some work experience to keep out the totally unrelated roles seems reasonable.
I think candidates shouldn’t be allowed to take L3 unless their experience is approved. That way the CFAI would still have its cash cow from L1 and L2, and people in the industry would keep at least some level of differentiation from the random guy taking every test under the Sun.
I think CFA exams should be 3x harder
make them harder make them harder, but only after I rock L3 in June.
agreed. pull that drawbridge up once we get in. wayyyyyy up