New to the forum: Greetings and background

C

CareerChangeCA

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2026
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
I found this forum today and I have enjoyed reading it so far. Personally I am switching vocations from law to finance. I live in Alberta, Canada, so I am fortunate that I think the level of competition for employment is much lower. I wrapped up my law practice on March 31st and I just finished both parts of my Canadian Securities Course. My overall goal is ambitious but admittedly vague: all I know is I like finance and banking so much more than law. Law really sucks.
I recognize that a CFA designation will not be immediately applicable to a sales position (probably where I’ll end up starting), but I am figuring it cannot hurt. I picked up a copy of the Schweser notes and honestly the material does not appear to be hard.
My unfinished undergrad degree was in psychology so I have no formal finance experience. I’m 37, but I don’t see this being an issue as I still look like I’m 27 and I’ll probably get hired before anyone finds out. I have a few questions for those in the know:
1) A quick flip through the material and I see a lot of GAAP. As a Canadian, how annoying will that be while studying for the CFA?
2) Is the 1st exam curved or pass/fail?
3) How much more in depth is the course material compared to Schweser? I learn for knowledge now and not to pass tests in the most efficient manner possible (again, that was law school). Concise is one thing; leaving out important info is another.
4) If anyone answering this is Canadian, what percentage of this material overlap at all with the CFP exam? I can challenge that exam if I care to (due to law society status) without taking the core curriculum.
That’s it for now. Additionally, if anyone can recommend any outside textbooks/books that they found invaluable that would be of great value as well. I don’t have a job so I have lots of free time. I probably won’t start looking for work until about March/April of next year. I figure I’ll need about a year to get “up to speed’ with the various prereqs of this vocation.
 
CareerChangeCA wrote:
I found this forum today and I have enjoyed reading it so far. Personally I am switching vocations from law to finance. I live in Alberta, Canada, so I am fortunate that I think the level of competition for employment is much lower. I wrapped up my law practice on March 31st and I just finished both parts of my Canadian Securities Course. My overall goal is ambitious but admittedly vague: all I know is I like finance and banking so much more than law. Law really sucks.
I recognize that a CFA designation will not be immediately applicable to a sales position (probably where I’ll end up starting), but I am figuring it cannot hurt. I picked up a copy of the Schweser notes and honestly the material does not appear to be hard.
My unfinished undergrad degree was in psychology so I have no formal finance experience. I’m 37, but I don’t see this being an issue as I still look like I’m 27 and I’ll probably get hired before anyone finds out. I have a few questions for those in the know:
1) A quick flip through the material and I see a lot of GAAP. As a Canadian, how annoying will that be while studying for the CFA?
2) Is the 1st exam curved or pass/fail?
3) How much more in depth is the course material compared to Schweser? I learn for knowledge now and not to pass tests in the most efficient manner possible (again, that was law school). Concise is one thing; leaving out important info is another.
4) If anyone answering this is Canadian, what percentage of this material overlap at all with the CFP exam? I can challenge that exam if I care to (due to law society status) without taking the core curriculum.
That’s it for now. Additionally, if anyone can recommend any outside textbooks/books that they found invaluable that would be of great value as well. I don’t have a job so I have lots of free time. I probably won’t start looking for work until about March/April of next year. I figure I’ll need about a year to get “up to speed’ with the various prereqs of this vocation.
Click to expand...
A few things.
Material is not hard, it’s all very common language.
Age may be more of an issue than you think. If you are 37, how do you explain the big gap from school to now? Or have you left off education completely and only have law school?
Wait, how did you even get into law school if you have an unfinished undergrad?
Finance jobs, especially at the entry levvel jobs, generally hire young people. For you, I would see if there’s some finance position that would combine with your law experience.
2. Exam is Pass/Fail. But they never reveal the the pass score
3. Schweser is fine to pass. Plenty have done it.
 
I lack the necessary attention span to read your entire post, but welcome to the neighborhood.
 
I agree with Itera on this one. You mention law school, yet don’t seem to have an undergrad. Is that the way they do it in Canada?
How do you figure that “I’m 37 and nobody will find out until after I’m hired”? If you put “graduated from university in 1998” (if you did, in fact, get your bachelor’s), then they’ll know.
Why switch from Law to Finance? Just go into securities law. Go into some type of finance-oriented law. Finance and Law are not mutually exclusive, and JD>CFA.
Something about this strikes me as very trollish.
 
itera wrote:
A few things.
Material is not hard, it’s all very common language.
Age may be more of an issue than you think. If you are 37, how do you explain the big gap from school to now? Or have you left off education completely and only have law school?
Wait, how did you even get into law school if you have an unfinished undergrad?
Finance jobs, especially at the entry levvel jobs, generally hire young people. For you, I would see if there’s some finance position that would combine with your law experience.
2. Exam is Pass/Fail. But they never reveal the the pass score
3. Schweser is fine to pass. Plenty have done it.
Click to expand...
Most Canadian law schools allow regular admittance after 3 years of undergrad and in special circumstances 2. I owned a business straight out of high school and only was a member of the bar for 6 years. I am simply leaving out my graduating years. So yeah, maybe they’ll peg me at 32/33, but more than likely I’ll come across as the youngest applicant with 5 years of litigation experience.
I’m actually surprised it is pass/fail. The questions do not look hard at all. Or is this sorta like an LSAT or an MCAT where you wonder who the bottom 50% are?
I see for some the allure of Schweser. After analyzing it further I realize I will not be using it: it is too condensed and I like some breadth.
I appreciate the tips!
 
Hello OP. Major issue that I see is that people will find it hard to overlook your history as a lawyer, given your age. Why hire someone who is almost 40 for an entry level job when you can get 22-year-olds who will have longer careers? Plus, at this point in your life, would you even want that kind of entry level job anyway? If your goal is just to work in some sort of finance business, and if you can stomach it, your most straightforward path might be to approach legal-related, compliance or documentation jobs.
 
Greenman72 wrote:
I agree with Itera on this one. You mention law school, yet don’t seem to have an undergrad. Is that the way they do it in Canada?
How do you figure that “I’m 37 and nobody will find out until after I’m hired”? If you put “graduated from university in 1998” (if you did, in fact, get your bachelor’s), then they’ll know.
Why switch from Law to Finance? Just go into securities law. Go into some type of finance-oriented law. Finance and Law are not mutually exclusive, and JD>CFA.
Something about this strikes me as very trollish.
Click to expand...
No, no trolling involved, promise.
And yes, Canadian law schools, which up until just recently were LLB programs instead of JD programs, allowed regular admission without a 4 year degree. Admittedly 90% of the class had one, but it was never mandatory.
The reason why I am switching from law to finance is because securities law is probably the most mind-numbing type of law you could ever practice. Litigating over misrepresentations in prospectus’? Should they have held a shareholder’s meeting? Nitpicking over solicitor/client privilege? Ugh, even tax law was more interesting.
The problem with law as a whole is that:
a) You are essentially leeching. You are not a “value added” component. (btw, i can live with this part)
b) You have absolutely no room for creativity. You never in your life will get to design something. You take the work of great designers and you essentially blow it up. Ugh.
c) There is very very little competition. Especially here in Canada.
d) Probably the worst aspect: no objective standard for evaluating your work. All the hard work in the world can be blown up by some idiotic Justice. I recognize there is a ladder in finance, and I also recognize that it can be a daunting proposition, but at the end of the tunnel there is an objective standard, and every train track gives you a bit more traction into pleading for an objective evaluation.
So that’s why I would rather stab myself than go back into law.
 
ohai wrote:
Hello OP. Major issue that I see is that people will find it hard to overlook your history as a lawyer, given your age. Why hire someone who is almost 40 for an entry level job when you can get 22-year-olds who will have longer careers? Plus, at this point in your life, would you even want that kind of entry level job anyway? If your goal is just to work in some sort of finance business, and if you can stomach it, your most straightforward path might be to approach legal-related, compliance or documentation jobs.
Click to expand...
I am really not worried about my age. I just need to find the HR manager who hires the best people. I’ve never had a problem overcoming what I consider artificial obstacles: when I was a kid I was able to get serving jobs at restaurants that “only” hired hot skanks, I got my first bartending job at a bar that only hired “experienced” bartenders. If absolutely needed (although I abhor the thought) I also have family and personal connections at a few of the big 6 banks.
 
Well, Charlie Munger has his JD from USC (which I would presume is a fairly prestigious law school). And he works in finance.
The CFA Charter is not a license–that is, it doesn’t grant you any legal rights or responsibilities that you need to do a job (unlike the CPA/CA or JD). In other words, you don’t “need” it to do any job. It simply distinguishes you from your competitors. It says, “Hey! I’m smart and can work hard!”
That being said, being an attorney also says the same thing. You don’t get through law school and pass the bar without having some brains and work ethic. However, being a lawyer puts you in a unique position to be able to practice law as well.
I really don’t see that doing the CFA program would be of real benefit to you. There might be benefit to learning the material, but you can do that without paying the money and having all the artificial stress of the exam. Plus, you can tailor what you want to learn to your job–this won’t be an option with the CFA. (You’ll have to learn GIPS–even if it has absolutely nothing to do with your day-to-day job.)
One last thing–and this seems to be a recurring theme throughout the regulars on AF–the CFA isn’t normally a ticket to a “good” finance job. Rather, it is an “add-on” for those who already work in the field and want to continue their upward mobility. But if you’re hoping that getting the Charter will automatically propel you from IT, engineering, or law into buy-side equity research, you’re probably barking up the wrong tree.
 
Greenman72 wrote:
Well, Charlie Munger has his JD from USC (which I would presume is a fairly prestigious law school). And he works in finance.
The CFA Charter is not a license–that is, it doesn’t grant you any legal rights or responsibilities that you need to do a job (unlike the CPA/CA or JD). In other words, you don’t “need” it to do any job. It simply distinguishes you from your competitors. It says, “Hey! I’m smart and can work hard!”
That being said, being an attorney also says the same thing. You don’t get through law school and pass the bar without having some brains and work ethic. However, being a lawyer puts you in a unique position to be able to practice law as well.
I really don’t see that doing the CFA program would be of real benefit to you. There might be benefit to learning the material, but you can do that without paying the money and having all the artificial stress of the exam. Plus, you can tailor what you want to learn to your job–this won’t be an option with the CFA. (You’ll have to learn GIPS–even if it has absolutely nothing to do with your day-to-day job.)
One last thing–and this seems to be a recurring theme throughout the regulars on AF–the CFA isn’t normally a ticket to a “good” finance job. Rather, it is an “add-on” for those who already work in the field and want to continue their upward mobility. But if you’re hoping that getting the Charter will automatically propel you from IT, engineering, or law into buy-side equity research, you’re probably barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I am going to take the CFA only for the breadth of the material (and if I am going to cover the material I might as well pick up the designation).
Your first quote on licensing sounds like something I read on mergersandacquisitions.com yesterday. I was aware of that also. :) Brian DeChesare makes investment banking sound like the hardest job in the world to get into. I think he just sold out and couldn’t hack it and sells a more sophisticated brand of snake oil.
I decided today though to take each component of the CFA and turn it on its ear: rather than studying “book 3” to learn financial reporting and analysis I am going to simply dig deeper and spend the next week learning financial accounting and then spend the week after that incorporating that into examining CA IFRS templates (for a bit of real world experience). Hopefully that will be the appropriate background to really skim the CFA material and move onto the next section.
It is frustrating though: I know I learn a lot of this faster in a real world environment, but I refuse to get pigeon-holed. That is part of the reason why I feel like I might go designation crazy.
 
If you don’t have a sense of how financial types evaluate companies and construct portfolios, the CfA can help. It’s a lot of material though. The questions look easy but most test-takers will tell you the exams are tough and get tougher as you go forward.
 
bchad wrote:
If you don’t have a sense of how financial types evaluate companies and construct portfolios, the CfA can help. It’s a lot of material though. The questions look easy but most test-takers will tell you the exams are tough and get tougher as you go forward.
Click to expand...
It really does seem like a lot. I’m enjoying working through it so far. Thanks for your post.
 
I have a feeling that OP is not Caucasian. One of the many blessings of having colored skin is that you age really well.
I worked a lot on structured securities when I first got into fixed income. Having a legal background would be extremely useful in that arena. Just a thought.
 
spunboy wrote:
I have a feeling that OP is not Caucasian. One of the many blessings of having colored skin is that you age really well.
I worked a lot on structured securities when I first got into fixed income. Having a legal background would be extremely useful in that arena. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
100% Caucasian, but you are right, some of my black friends have aged just as well as I have. :) :)
 
Hey, I’m in Canada too. I’ll trade you identities. You get CFP, CFA Level II (soon to be done level 3 hopefully) and half an MBA. What kind of law am I going to be practicing?
 
Fraser wrote:
Hey, I’m in Canada too. I’ll trade you identities. You get CFP, CFA Level II (soon to be done level 3 hopefully) and half an MBA. What kind of law am I going to be practicing?
Click to expand...
Hmmm…that’s a good point.
I’m an American. If we trade, you get a very mediocre MBA, a CPA license, and (hopefully in August) a CFA Level 3 pass.
I wonder if I would trade all that for a licensed attorney. That’s a good question.
 
Fraser wrote:
Hey, I’m in Canada too. I’ll trade you identities. You get CFP, CFA Level II (soon to be done level 3 hopefully) and half an MBA. What kind of law am I going to be practicing?
Click to expand...
My last few years of practice were 100% Family Law. I will at some point miss the money.
However, I don’t think I have been this “in” to anything I’ve done since studying for my LSAT. The learning curve for this stuff is absolutely amazing. There aren’t enough hours in the day and I haven’t worked this hard at anything since my EQ raiding days. :)
I’m blown away by quantitative finance/financial engineering. I’ve worked my way through most of the level I stuff already so I have spare time: I’m spending hours everyday on basic Excel data crunching while reviewing calculus and brushing up on my C#.
The more I move into this the more I realize how anti-intellectual law practice was. A few clever charts and an hour or two framing facts preferentially was all you needed to be good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top