ER - my first 6 mo & why they don't care about your CFA I/II

I think the CFA designation is more of a screening tool for certain positions (ER in particular) rather than a designation that provides you with the skills to do your job. In essence, it is a licensing requirement for ER (although it is not a license obviously). Most SS and buyside ER shops want CFA candidates or charterholders not because of the knowledge they gained, but because it shows them that you are a hardworker and serious about the profession. Plus, it looks good on their marketing materials and so forth. I do think there are many aspects of the program that make you a better analyst than somebody without the CFA.
 
Bromion,
I am currently on the SS side and would eventually love to make a jump to the buyside. I would get in touch with you on your gmail address in the next couple of days.
Thanks.
 
Same here Bromion. I’m in SS and would be interested in how you made the jump to the buy side.
Thanks
 
Sure you can email me. I don’t have a specific available job to network you into, nor contacts I’d be willing to share, but I can give you general advice on how to market yourself and what skills matter. I’ve been tasked with recruiting for my firm in the past and have a good idea of what a hedge fund manager would look for when hiring, as well as what the key differences between sell side and buy side research are (having worked in both).
 
Captain Windjammer Wrote:
——————————————————-
> bromion, would you please remind me what you do
> again?
I am the lead analyst at a smallish (several hundred million) long/short and special situations hedge fund. I cover domestic and international equities on an opportunistic basis, some fixed income (mostly distressed debt), and recently have engaged in some LBO transactions. Prior to that I worked on the sell side in a junior role covering manufacturing & industrials, retail, and tech.
I realize that my perspective is just one of many, and that there is no “right” answer about how much value passing the CFA exams might add to someone’s career or knowledge base. That said, I do work in one of the jobs that most people starting the CFA program hope to get, and I can tell you from real experience (almost 5 years) that most of the content in the CFA program is not useful for this work. The CFA program can be a good way to break into the industry (but no guarantee), however, I find it to have been a frustratingly low return on invested time in my case. It did help me get a job, which was my ultimate goal, but not because the content was worthwhile (it has signaling value).
 
sjv1030 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> I think a clear distinction should be made between
> professional designations (i.e., CFA) and academia
> (i.e., MBA).
>
> A professional designation should teach you a good
> amount (obviously not 100%) of on the job skills.
> A great example is the CPA.
>
> An academic degree is there to teach things in a
> vacuum (to an extent) and to make sure the
> foundation is there so one can build on it with
> work experience/knowledge.
>
> Therefore, I agree with Bro and BlackBelt that the
> CFA designation isn’t really carrying its weight
> in that regard. It shouldn’t try to replace the
> education learned in a Masters of Finance program
> or an MBA program.
>
> Instead, the CFA designation should bridge the gap
> between learning about FCFF in school (or some
> book), and how to arrive at it via pro-forma
> statements, etc. This is why although individuals
> on this forum have passed some level of the CFA
> designation, there are still so many inquires
> about Excel/Modelling courses.
>
> I personally work in ABS, and can tell you that
> CFAI is really behind on this stuff. Yet, I read
> all these reports from S&P and Moodys from analyst
> with their CFA charters and wonder what benefit
> they got from it. I’m studying for level 2 and
> the MBS/ABS section is weak. Actually, my Masters
> in Finance taught me more of a foundation. In
> that regard, the FI section of level 2 is
> completely useless IMO.
There is some ABS content in the curriculum. Given that the sector has been almost totally frozen of new issuance over the last 3 years, I can’t imagine it is CFAI’s top priority for adding to the curriculum.
I think level 2 had quite a lot of material useful for SS equity research in terms of valuation methods, quality of earnings analysis etc. Surprised that a few people seem to have found it next to useless.
 
The CPA will not prepare you to audit Exxon. The Bar exam will not prepare you to argue a case in court.
sjv1030 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> I think a clear distinction should be made between
> professional designations (i.e., CFA) and academia
> (i.e., MBA).
>
> A professional designation should teach you a good
> amount (obviously not 100%) of on the job skills.
> A great example is the CPA.
>
> An academic degree is there to teach things in a
> vacuum (to an extent) and to make sure the
> foundation is there so one can build on it with
> work experience/knowledge.
>
> Therefore, I agree with Bro and BlackBelt that the
> CFA designation isn’t really carrying its weight
> in that regard. It shouldn’t try to replace the
> education learned in a Masters of Finance program
> or an MBA program.
>
> Instead, the CFA designation should bridge the gap
> between learning about FCFF in school (or some
> book), and how to arrive at it via pro-forma
> statements, etc. This is why although individuals
> on this forum have passed some level of the CFA
> designation, there are still so many inquires
> about Excel/Modelling courses.
>
> I personally work in ABS, and can tell you that
> CFAI is really behind on this stuff. Yet, I read
> all these reports from S&P and Moodys from analyst
> with their CFA charters and wonder what benefit
> they got from it. I’m studying for level 2 and
> the MBS/ABS section is weak. Actually, my Masters
> in Finance taught me more of a foundation. In
> that regard, the FI section of level 2 is
> completely useless IMO.
 
bromion Wrote:
——————————————————-
>
>
> content in the CFA program is not useful for this
> work. The CFA program can be a good way to break
> into the industry (but no guarantee), however, I
> find it to have been a frustratingly low return on
> invested time in my case. It did help me get a
> job, which was my ultimate goal, but not because
> the content was worthwhile (it has signaling
> value).
All your talk about the CFA being useless is garbage, because you just admitted it helped you land a job. Thousands of people doing the CFA program are trying to do just that. They need that foot in the door, the need to just get noticed and land that job that can teach them the real world skills.
So if being in the program helps you land the job you wouldnt have got, hell yea its worth spending 400 hours studying for it.
 
And your comment on how your firm encourages passing L1 and then discouraging L2 and 3 sounds pathetic. L1 is a freaking joke, doesnt prove anything in todays world
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top