CFA pass rates have declined since inception in 1963, although it's been plateauing in the past few years. But after eachexam, there will be a general rumbling of dissent on yet another low pass rate. Why on earth are the exam pass rates so low?
An extremely popular theory among candidates is that this is financially motivated. Low pass rates mean that candidates have to take the exam again, resulting in more revenue for theInstitute.
Let's explore this theory and see if it holds water.
We're not taking either side here, just applying reason and logic.
From an outside view, the Institute can be seen to have an incentive to continue to fail candidates. But this is merely when viewed at surface level; and when you take that train of thought a bit further, several points crop up:
A decrease in pass rate will almost certainly follow with a decrease in take-up rates and increase in drop-off rates. This will actually harm exam fee revenue in the long term, so it's hard to imagine that lowering pass rates is a key part of CFAI's revenue strategy.
Increase in variety of candidates.
In the recent years, the qualification has seen a lot of participation not just from asset managers, but now traders, investment bankers and even support staff are taking the exam. This will naturally lower the pass rate. The Institute is trying to address this by diversifying the format of the exams, hence their pilot Claritas program which is aimed at support staff.
Member renewal fees.
Remember that Institute continues to collect charter renewal fees - currently $275 a year. Although this is much less compared to exam registration, remember that this is at almost no effort or cost to Institute. Thus if we follow the reasoning that Institute modifies their program to maximize profit, Institute should pass as many people as possible, thus converting them into a steady revenue stream without having to worry about setting questions or organizing exams.
It's true that Institute makes money from administering exams and distributing material. It's quite a lot of money at that. Institute however has to report to quite a few regulatory bodies that audit all their processes annually, and these are not just routine checks.
Institute Board of Govenors.
The minimum passing score (MPS) is ultimately agreed on and approved by the Institute Board of Governors. There are two attributes to note about the Board of Governors:
- They are a group of independent hardcore investment professionals...
- ...who are not compensated for their work for Institute...
- ...and yet care enough about the importance of this process to volunteer for the job, which between a stressful job and family, is no small commitment.
These are the guys that ultimately decide the pass rate. I'll admit that it's not impossible, but it's just hard to believe that they systematically collaborate to increase
The charter is currently seen as the gold standard as far as investment and is concerned. Above all, Institute will regard keeping that status of utmost importance. There are many, many other rival qualifications that would love to take that place, and pass rate manipulation seems like a pretty risky strategy: gambling the incumbent status of the charter for the sake of a few extra percentage points in revenue for a few years.
We know that as a candidate it's difficult to assess this objectively. We do think that the opaqueness of results leads to a lot of frustration (hence our Analyze Results section to address this in our own way), but in the end reasoning on a macro level, pass rate manipulation makes little sense when you consider Institute's other options.
There are just many, many easier ways for Institute to increase their revenue streams without having to resort to the extremely risky (and heavily scrunitized) behavior of manipulating pass rates.
Do you really think pass rates are intentionally low to drive up Institute revenue? Air your thoughts below!