RecoveringAccountant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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’re already a PM, then your track record speaks for you. Some organizations will still want the letters so they can boast to their clients that they have them, so I’d agree there. But a good analyst won’t necessarily know how to manage a portfolio, and a mediocre analyst might actually be a decent portfolio manager, because risk management and portfolio construction are not necessarily highly correlated with figuring out whether a specific asset is overvalued or undervalued (though there is some correlation, risky stuff does need to be discounted more). So CFA does cover a broader range of issues than might be encountered by people who just have an awesome record as an analyst, and can help you expand your skill set.
Where did you see this amendment? I am not aware of it. Thanks
RecoveringAccountant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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 agree. This would be the best. With almost everthing, as time goes by there will be more and more people with CFA and or masters degree. THe number of people having the charter will increase. I would love to see the work experience change to more of a broad view. Then most people here and I will have those three letters sooner.
mik82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where did you see this amendment? I am not aware > of it. Thanks It’s in the voting materials that you probably got in the mail (if you’re a regular CFAI member).
The CFA work experience requirement is too broad as it is. Why would anyone who is a CFA charterholder want to make it any MORE broad? The charter is and always has been awarded to those with experience in investment management, security analysis or other direct involvement in the investment process. Why would the experience requirement need to be any broader than that?? I don’t see any great need to open up the charter for IT professionals, accountants, and college professors (to take a few random examples of how CFAI could end up expanding the designation). Those who pass the exams but don’t have the work experience can still say “I passed all three exams”, which is all the charter will indicate anyways if the work experience requirement is lessened any further.
Yes, I agree with what you said, McLeod81. I just want the CFA to acknowledge jobs such as index analyst to be accepted into their job experience. I may be wrong but your job needs to involve 70% or so in investment analysis or recommendation etc. 70% is pretty hard to come by these days coming from an average 4 year university. Jobs such as index analysis or even index fund management or junior traders, I think should be accepted as an exprience.