Don't laugh....how about pursuing CIPM?

A

Ashwin

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2026
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
I was thinking of using this “downtime” pursuing CIPM. Do you think it’s a marketable differentiator for a small wealth management firm?
 
SuperiorReturn Wrote:
——————————————————-
> its a performance/attribution designation
yes, it is performance measurement designation; which can be invaluable in manager selection process.
 
Ashwin Wrote:
——————————————————-
> SuperiorReturn Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > its a performance/attribution designation
>
> yes, it is performance measurement designation;
> which can be invaluable in manager selection
> process.
If its invaluable, why dont you do it?
Collect them all!
 
Ashwin Wrote:
——————————————————-
> I was thinking of using this “downtime” pursuing
> CIPM. Do you think it’s a marketable
> differentiator for a small wealth management firm?
Go f@ck something instead. That would be a better use of your “downtime”.
 
If you are serious about equity analysis, I wouldn’t even bother
 
I had the same idea Ashwin. u can complete it in one year, and when i saw the LOS of the 2 CIPM levels, it looked as an logical extension for the last 3 S.S of Level 3. Iam considering taking it after finishing Level 3. Hope to Pass :))
 
The 1st level of the CIPM is nothing but a rehash of the performance material from L3 (only easier)….
The second half seems to go a little further into performance attribution and evaluation.
I am currently a performance analyst, and there’s no way in hell I would take the CIPM out of fear of getting labeled as a “performance guy” forever…
Also, McLeod81, CFA, CIPM just doesn’t look right. I think it would take too much focus away from the more important letters.
 
CIPM is pretty much useless in the manager analysis field. For top Fund of Fund shops a CFA and top MBA is pretty much a staple.
Performance measurement isn’t a horrible field and you can make decent coin if the CFA ever decide to make mandatory verification by 3rd party firms. But all the top performance guys have both CFA and CIPM so having the CIPM alone will make you look bad imo.
 
great inputs guys! thank you so much. I guess I’ll put the idea of pursuing CIPM to rest.
McLeod81, what other letters in Finance do you consider more important along with CFA/CFP?
 
Why is CFP in the conversation? If you want to be Asset Management CFA is the best. If you want to do FoFs/ Pension Funds CFA is still the best, but the CAIA is gaining traction, and pretty much becoming a staple. End of discussion.
 
Ashwin Wrote:
——————————————————-
> great inputs guys! thank you so much. I guess I’ll
> put the idea of pursuing CIPM to rest.
>
> McLeod81, what other letters in Finance do you
> consider more important along with CFA/CFP?
If you plan on staying in wealth management, CFP would definitely be more valuable. Your clients will know what the CFP is (or at least be able to figure it out if you tell them what it stands for).
It’s not that the knowledge from CIPM isn’t valuable, I just don’t want to clutter my name with a whole collection of letters. I think it makes a person without much experience look like they don’t know what they want.
The reason I wouldn’t take the CIPM is that I already know everything I need to know about performance and I want to move on as soon as possible. I would rather spend the time doing reading on my own and learning more about the areas that I want to move into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top