So first I am assuming everyone or the majority test takers works in the asset management industry or somewhat related, did you feel the work experience/day-to-day work has some added-value to the exam? For example, if I worked at an exchange or brokerage firm, I would found the equity section faily easy in the past levels…?
just a thought after reading this post and very curious, http://www.analystforum.com/forums/cfa-forums/cfa-level-iii-forum/91345164?page=1
Work experience in the industry absolutely makes a difference in terms of preparing for the exam.
My work was not related to the biggest chunks of the exams and so I felt like I didn’t noticably benefit from it if at all.
It’s more difficult when you’re not surrounded by markets/investments lingo, but still a doable exam. If you’re browsing AF, which you are, then you’re in good shape, because this forum discusses so many of the topics with the proper terminology that you might be better prepared than someone who doesn’t browse AF, but works in the field.
As reference, I passed Level 3 this year (first attempt for L3).
My finance undergrad helped a ton for level 1, not so much for level 2 and 3. Being in the industry helps if you directly work in the field, i.e. a hedge fund manager
1 similar to finance ugrad degree.
2 and 3 if you are either a pm or er.
I am in ops punching in vlookups and tables so i had to learn it all.
Folks will probably disagree with me. I worked in private wealth management for a few years out of school and while the curriculum isn’t wrong at all, it’s all based on theory in a vaccuum. What you learn in the real world definintely clashes somewhat with the private investor portion of the exam. It was a struggle to discount what I had learned on-the-job and think only within the confines of the CFAI’s well defined box. The PWM portion of the L3 exam would definintely have been easier if my only knowledge had been from the textbooks.
99% of investors are not rational…