CFA & Private Equity.

But Big firms look for MBA from top B-school not from any B-school
And for these people getting a charterholder is not tough
 
So what you mean is CFA has completely lost its value compared to top-school MBA.
I suspect a top-school MBA with a CFA or progress towards it is still more welcome than a top-school MBA without.
And then one can compare CFA to a non-top MBA and it still looks good, given that there are 150,000 new MBAs in the US alone *every year* and there are a little over 100,000 Charterholders in the world.
Anyway, the fact that many more people are taking the exams does make it a less niche/elite designation, but that’s different from saying it’s “completely lost its value.”
 
GIXX3R wrote:
But Big firms look for MBA from top B-school not from any B-school
And for these people getting a charterholder is not tough
Click to expand...
There are many, many, many more MBAs from top B schools than charterholders.
 
bchad wrote:
there are 150,000 new MBAs in the US alone *every year* and there are a little over 100,000 Charterholders in the world.
Click to expand...
I was going to make this same point.
This is also a big reason why when I see “MBA ” on a biz card, I think ‘wow what a dbag’
 
iteracom wrote:
bchad wrote:
there are 150,000 new MBAs in the US alone *every year* and there are a little over 100,000 Charterholders in the world.
Click to expand...
I was going to make this same point.
This is also a big reason why when I see “MBA ” on a biz card, I think ‘wow what a dbag’
Click to expand...
Yes, this bothers me too. But these are usually people from a no-name MBA program, no?. I don’t think someone from a T15 MBA program would put MBA after their name.
 
bchad wrote:
So what you mean is CFA has completely lost its value compared to top-school MBA.
I suspect a top-school MBA with a CFA or progress towards it is still more welcome than a top-school MBA without.
And then one can compare CFA to a non-top MBA and it still looks good, given that there are 150,000 new MBAs in the US alone *every year* and there are a little over 100,000 Charterholders in the world.
Anyway, the fact that many more people are taking the exams does make it a less niche/elite designation, but that’s different from saying it’s “completely lost its value.”
Click to expand...
There may be 150k new MBAs in the US *every year* but there are only 5,600 new *top 7* US MBAs (assuming 800 per class) every year. You’re not competing against the 144,400 non-top MBAs for a PE job. On the other hand, all CFA Charterholders are the same (same brand, same test) so the CFA has less of a “branding effect” if that is what you think will get you a PE job.
 
AFloverboy wrote:
bchad wrote:
So what you mean is CFA has completely lost its value compared to top-school MBA.
I suspect a top-school MBA with a CFA or progress towards it is still more welcome than a top-school MBA without.
And then one can compare CFA to a non-top MBA and it still looks good, given that there are 150,000 new MBAs in the US alone *every year* and there are a little over 100,000 Charterholders in the world.
Anyway, the fact that many more people are taking the exams does make it a less niche/elite designation, but that’s different from saying it’s “completely lost its value.”
Click to expand...
There may be 150k new MBAs in the US *every year* but there are only 5,600 new *top 7* US MBAs (assuming 800 per class) every year. You’re not competing against the 144,400 non-top MBAs for a PE job. On the other hand, all CFA Charterholders are the same (same brand, same test) so the CFA has less of a “branding effect” if that is what you think will get you a PE job.
Click to expand...
Talking about the CFA charter and PE is meaningless. Less than 5% of people in PE are charterholders (wild-ass guess). The whole point of the CFA is for people to engage in fundamental analysis of securities, not do deals. Therefore, comparing the “prestige” of a top MBA vs. that of a CFA charterholder is meaningless. Now if you want to compare a CFA charterholder gunning for a top buyside “stock-picking” role vs. that of a top10 MBA candidate…then you’re comparing apples to apples a little more.
 
I’ve meet a ton of CFAs working for PE FoFs, tons. But i’ve also seen a ton of top MBAs in PE FoFs as well.
I’ve seen this career path -
1) Find a local HNW, family office, big endowment, investment consulting firm and get on their PE team. Pass all levels of the CFA while you’re there. 2-5 Years
2) Jump to a great PE FoF shop where they actually do co-investments, you’ll get to know the big PE firms pretty well at this point. 2-5 Years
3) Jump to a BIG SWF who do lots and lots of co-investments or even do their own deals i.e. Ontario Teachers (don’t know about CalPERs or TRS but i bet they do a lot of co-investments). 1+ Year
4) Jump to a PE shop, you should have enough real PE experience at this point. Might be able to get here from #2 as well.
Can you tell me what is a “turn of leverage” without googling it? If not, I suggest you do more research.
 
I work with a ton of PE firms and very rarely deal with charterholders, or at least they don’t use the initials or put it in their bios. I constantly deal with folks from 10 ten MBA programs and generally see a very high concentration of one or two schools at each firm. For example, Firm A looks like it hires almost exclusively from Wharton and Firm B looks like it hires almost exclusively from MIT. As others have mentioned, most PE guys seem to have made a stop in IB first. The big exception I see personally is PhD’s who worked in pharma and made the jump to PE due to their ability to understand the science of new drugs if that’s what that particular PE firm focuses on.
 
former trader wrote:
I want to know Greenman’s opinion about the CFP in PE.
Click to expand...
I think you know my opinion about the CFP in a corporate finance setting, and you’re being snide and argumentative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top