Is There a Detriment of Having to Many Certifications? Is it Worth It?

E

equity_analyst

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
"But when the calibre of your colleagues render CFA just 'another' exam, then putting it on the namecard is really superfluous. "

Come on you don't really believe this nonsense do you?

I have been around the block myself and have exchanged business cards with scores of other buyside analysts, and sellsiders as well--not once have I come across a charterholder that left CFA off their business card because it might be perceived as "superflous".

Now if your company has some policy regarding this, well, I would look for another firm since they don't their arse from their elbow. And if this is your own policy too, well, you and your firm will be in good company : )
 
i can understand the mentality... if you have it... why not put it?

but when you're talking to a really good senior analyst (both sell-side and buy-side) and or a PM, does it really matter if have a CFA or not? do you even care? all that matters to me is whether they know their space, or can they make money

i mean having one or two levels under your belt definitely makes a lot of entry-level positions more attractive. but once you're in the door at a good shop, do you think there is much added value to pusuing the CFA? i would think the time would be better spent learning the markets, or actually learning how to make money in stocks...

i'm sure there's a good rebuttal, ie CFA makes you more promotable etc. etc. but at this stage in my career and working the hours i'm working, it's a question that's been nagging at me recently.
 
UAECFA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, I can't believe its more difficult than the
> CFA exams. That was really suprising to hear
> that. I mean if the CFA pass rate is 39%, what is
> it for these exams.
>
> Second, how do you give up your job or become a
> career student to do a PhD full time. I mean what
> woman would put up with this.


It depends on the school. Some of my undergrad professors earned their PhDs in the South at state schools, but could not pass the CFA LI. It may be because they didn't feel the need to study, that they felt that the CFA was beneath them or because many of the universities in this region think of finance and economics as a waste of time. The students in those programs usually end up working as bank tellers or selling insurance. There are very few that look towards Wall Street and unfortunately the curriculum is not designed to help them progress in that direction. Actually, there are two professors that are charterholders but nobody took their classes because they were too tough. One was a student of Don Chance so of course he used the derivative textbook to teach risk management. After a year they ended up dropping the course from the curriculum because the average score on the exams were 35 out of 100.

Although, one of the professors pulled me to the side and said that his PhD program had virtually no math whatsoever. Imagine that, a finance PhD with little or no math.

Anyway, I've been thinking about the question as well. How do I give up my salary to become a PhD candidate for the next four years?? I found an article online that helped me answer this question. I don't want a PhD because there is nothing else to do or to prove that I'm the best finance student to come thru our university in the last 5 years. I want a PhD because I have to have it in order to do what I want to do.
 
Great, now I got to very conflicting views by you and Joey.

One saying how easy it is and the prof. couldn't pass L1 and the other telling how much harder the entrance exams are over the CFA!!!
 
Joey's saying how much math was involved, and your saying no math!

Thats what I love about CFA, its uniformity around the world! Who gives a f*(@#& about Wharton, Sloan, Cheesepeeke U., or Polk High. That's so old school!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Friday, July 20, 2007 at 10:48AM by UAECFA.
 
I said it depends on what school you went to. Not every PhD went to the same university and not all universities have similar programs. The article I referred to pointed out that you have to think of PhD programs like a business. Somebody is funding your education and its usually a professor that acquired funding outside of the university to do research. That research usually determines what and how much you learn. In states like Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee, most of the funding comes from insurance companies and local banks. Most of whom aren't interested in the complicated math that a top-tiered university would put its PhD students through. For example, I had a few professors from the University of Oklahoma and UIUC where math is a strong element of their PhD programs, whether its in finance, accounting or econ. These professors usually ended up leaving our university because the type of research that they were interested in doing the university did not support. The university wanted them to write papers but how to save or invest for your retirement while these professors had more rigorous training than some simple financial planning. So they usually left in disgust.

So, I suggest you decide which university you would like to attend. They will tell you how difficult their program is because it varies significantly. You can attend the U of Mississippi and never see any math (which may have changed since 2000). Or you can attend Carnegie, Vanderbilt, University of Toronto, or Stockholm School of Economics which either expects you to sit the GRE Math exam (which almost assumes that you have an undergrad in math degree) or they put you through at least 10 or 12 intermediate to advanced math courses before you sit your qualifying exams.

You also have to remember that Joey earned a PhD in statistics or econometrics - correct me if I'm wrong - which makes the CFA quantitative section a small joke.
 
My degree is in Statistics but I would point out that it was from "in the South at state schools". But, yeah, I didn't study CFA quantitative section for even three minutes total.
 
JoeyDVivre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My degree is in Statistics but I would point out
> that it was from "in the South at state schools".
> But, yeah, I didn't study CFA quantitative section
> for even three minutes total.


It is funny because I also went to "a state school in the South" and didn't even get fantastic grades...Yet I managed to pass all 3 levels of the CFA within 2 years and am generally considered one of the top 5-10 analysts in my particular area of specialty.
 
here's another twist: it all depends on what you day-to-day. friend of mine went into strategy consulting after MIT and now he can't tell a riemann integral from a dunkin donut. just not part of his arsenal any more.

only reason Joey remembers his stats is
1) on the job implementation
2) after hours/personal interest



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Friday, July 20, 2007 at 12:51PM by MC Mario.
 
Actually, I have a curse that I don't forget things very well.

Edit: Except stuff that you wouldn't believe people forget. I am constantly losing my car. I drive some place, can't remember I drove there, and get home somehow. Then I try to find my car, not remembering where I've been.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Friday, July 20, 2007 at 01:10PM by JoeyDVivre.
 
JoeyDVivre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am constantly losing my car. I
> drive some place, can't remember I drove there,
> and get home somehow. Then I try to find my car,
> not remembering where I've been.


Sounds like you actually have a problem with alcohol...
 
Well, when I think of state schools in the south, I'm not talking about schools like UNC, U of Tenn., U of Texas, Emory, Vanderbilt, Ga Tech, Tulane or U of Florida - those schools have established reputations (wow, that's actually a lot of schools).

Ok forget I said that, actually I was referring to schools like Mississippi State where four members of our faculty attended - very little or absolutely no math at all. I applied to U of Arkansas and they said about the same thing. The U of Memphis also didn't believe math was a huge part of their finance program.
 
I realize that, I was attempting to correct my sweeping generalization of the south.
 
"i mean having one or two levels under your belt definitely makes a lot of entry-level positions more attractive. but once you're in the door at a good shop, do you think there is much added value to pusuing the CFA? i would think the time would be better spent learning the markets, or actually learning how to make money in stocks... "

Well, if your telling me that that person plans on staying at that one firm until they retire then sure I'll go along with you. The fact is that if you are on the buyside and don't have the charter(asuming your not a old timer) your leverage with potential employers will be pretty weak, should you want to make a move to another firm--which happens a lot. The only exception is if you have a strong "in" at a company, but even then the CFA charter will be nearly mandatory for new hires.

Now, you may counter and say "what if that person can write their own ticket?", to which I would respond--let them open their own shop if they are that good.
 
killamanjaro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I applied to U of
Arkansas

Arkansas actually has a VERY well regarded business program. If you can get into the portfolio management class ( You have to interview and I think they only take like 12 students) you are essentially certain to find a excellent entry-level job in either IB, ER, or PM after graduation. Oddly enough in all 3 of my jobs I have worked with someone who was in this PM class at Arkansas.
 
Yes, I met a two of those guys when I sat the CFA exam in June along with Dr Rennie who I think is in charge of the Portfolio management class, I think he was sitting LII. I asked them or him about their PhD Finance program. The only math that's required is econometrics I and II, and I think another advanced statistics course. I asked about the qualifying exams and the impression I got was that if I can pass the CFA exams I should be able to pass the qualifying exams.

But you are correct, they do end up at very nice entry-level positions. Which completely baffled me.
 
One of my friends is good friends with Dr. Rennie. He and I exchanged e-mails on the commodities markets for a while.
 
equity analyst; thanks for the insight.

equity_analyst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "i mean having one or two levels under your belt
> definitely makes a lot of entry-level positions
> more attractive. but once you're in the door at a
> good shop, do you think there is much added value
> to pusuing the CFA? i would think the time would
> be better spent learning the markets, or actually
> learning how to make money in stocks... "
>
> Well, if your telling me that that person plans on
> staying at that one firm until they retire then
> sure I'll go along with you. The fact is that if
> you are on the buyside and don't have the
> charter(asuming your not a old timer) your
> leverage with potential employers will be pretty
> weak, should you want to make a move to another
> firm--which happens a lot. The only exception is
> if you have a strong "in" at a company, but even
> then the CFA charter will be nearly mandatory for
> new hires.
>
> Now, you may counter and say "what if that person
> can write their own ticket?", to which I would
> respond--let them open their own shop if they are
> that good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top