Thoughts on this?- PhD in finance says he would pass all three levels without ever opening a book

Well, it’s possible that a finance Ph.D. might know enough of the material to pass, but it’s unlikely that they would be able to answer enough questions correctly in 6 hours per level without drilling beforehand to get the format and making sure that all of the info is ready-on-demand and there isn’t lots of time wasted trying to remember stuff.
It’s a pretty douchey statement to say “I could walk in and pass those exams without studying.” My guess is that they underestimated the preparation and concentration required. The Ph.D. may have been exposed to and studied most of the material (though knowing the professional standards stuff would be a surprise; that’s pretty unique) and was commenting on that, without necessarily knowing how bad it makes him/her sound by saying it.
Joey D’Vivre said it was unlikely he could just walk in and pass today, and he already passed the exams (his Ph.D. admittedly was in mathematics, not finance, but he had plenty of financial experience that he applied his mathematics to).
 
Could it happen? Absolutely. Would it happen without looking at ANYTHING before each test? probably not.
 
There are probably very few people who can but they wouldn’t be the ones to talk shit about it.
 
hpracing007 wrote:
There are probably very few people who can but they wouldn’t be the ones to talk shit about it.
Click to expand...
I think this is probably most accurate. I think there are people on Earth that do exist that could pass all three without looking at the material. Just a matter of actually being one of the few
 
^I doubt there’s anybody who can.
First, you have the Ethics and GIPS, which represent 10-15% of the entire exam across all three levels. A finance PhD with his Master’s in Math and Bachelor’s in Accounting has never been exposed to these.
Plus, there’s all the stuff that isn’t covered in school or a PhD program. (At least as far as I know, it’s not.) Things like “the seven qualities of a good benchmark” and the various trading strategies aren’t taught.
Then there’s things that CFAI does that are different from the way you’re taught in school, such as how to calculate price elasticity. I was always taught that it was % change in price divided by % change in demand. But CFAI does it just a little differently. (I don’t remember CFAI formula off the top of my head, but I know it was different.)
And there are all the little inconsistencies in CFAI stuff itself. EG - at Level 2, they teach the HHI model in one reading using decimals, then they teach it in another reading using percents, and the interpretation is very different. Another example is the multiplicative vs. additive problem in L3. (If you have 5% inflation and 5% real return, what is your nominal return? Is it 10%, or is it 10.25%?)
Not that any of these things are difficult to understand or internalize, especially for a finance PhD. But they are something that you have to have seen at least once before you take the exam.
 
Greenman72 wrote:
^I doubt there’s anybody who can.
First, you have the Ethics and GIPS, which represent 10-15% of the entire exam across all three levels. A finance PhD with his Master’s in Math and Bachelor’s in Accounting has never been exposed to these.
Plus, there’s all the stuff that isn’t covered in school or a PhD program. (At least as far as I know, it’s not.) Things like “the seven qualities of a good benchmark” and the various trading strategies aren’t taught.
Then there’s things that CFAI does that are different from the way you’re taught in school, such as how to calculate price elasticity. I was always taught that it was % change in price divided by % change in demand. But CFAI does it just a little differently. (I don’t remember CFAI formula off the top of my head, but I know it was different.)
And there are all the little inconsistencies in CFAI stuff itself. EG - at Level 2, they teach the HHI model in one reading using decimals, then they teach it in another reading using percents, and the interpretation is very different. Another example is the multiplicative vs. additive problem in L3. (If you have 5% inflation and 5% real return, what is your nominal return? Is it 10%, or is it 10.25%?)
Not that any of these things are difficult to understand or internalize, especially for a finance PhD. But they are something that you have to have seen at least once before you take the exam.
Click to expand...
True. But also keep in mind, though, that the guy i was mentioning also works as a PM on the side. So his knoweldge would not simply be that from academia, but also from real world PM experience as well
 
Greenman72 wrote:
^I doubt there’s anybody who can.
First, you have the Ethics and GIPS, which represent 10-15% of the entire exam across all three levels. A finance PhD with his Master’s in Math and Bachelor’s in Accounting has never been exposed to these.
Plus, there’s all the stuff that isn’t covered in school or a PhD program. (At least as far as I know, it’s not.) Things like “the seven qualities of a good benchmark” and the various trading strategies aren’t taught.
Then there’s things that CFAI does that are different from the way you’re taught in school, such as how to calculate price elasticity. I was always taught that it was % change in price divided by % change in demand. But CFAI does it just a little differently. (I don’t remember CFAI formula off the top of my head, but I know it was different.)
And there are all the little inconsistencies in CFAI stuff itself. EG - at Level 2, they teach the HHI model in one reading using decimals, then they teach it in another reading using percents, and the interpretation is very different. Another example is the multiplicative vs. additive problem in L3. (If you have 5% inflation and 5% real return, what is your nominal return? Is it 10%, or is it 10.25%?)
Not that any of these things are difficult to understand or internalize, especially for a finance PhD. But they are something that you have to have seen at least once before you take the exam.
Click to expand...
+1
I don’t think that any one will pass CFA level exams if they have not solved atleast one mock per level.
I don’t think even a PHD in finance will find it “easy” to solve MCQ’s and item sets asked in cfa l1/l2 exams without going through at least 1 mock for each level.
 
If someone knows 55% cold, and makes pure, uneducated guesses on the other 45%, that’s 70%.
Level III’s essays would rough though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top