Back Office CFA???
I saw this headline on the bottom of my bloomberg today in the area that just keeps scrolling news, and I thought it was a spoof from some website like Dealbreaker, but its real.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873240...
http://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/claritas/Page...
Its called Claritas. They have a website where some annoying British woman talks about how you will be so smart and ethical.
Now the CFA gets a lot of shit on the forum, and probably rightfully so. I think the accounting information is great, and the basic intro to stats, economics, bond pricing, financial statement analysis is great. The portfolio management and advice on analyzing stocks is criminally bad. I'm taking Level 3 this June, only just because I put the time in the first two before I realized that people don't really care. I know levels 1/2 are a sunk cost, but i guess its a misplaced pride thing.
Anyhow, the idea that they are also offering this ridiculous piece of bullshit is a bad idea I think. You do have to put a lot of time into CFA and not be mildly retarded to pass the tests. It does help in recruiting for mutual funds, insurance companies, pensions, equity research, etc. Adding another certificate just cheapens the whole certification thing. There is a reason why insurance and real estate brokers are a joke, they all have 18 different bullshit designations that nobody takes seriously.





Ugh, as someone taking the
Ugh, as someone taking the Level 3 in June that this makes me pissed at the CFA Institute. It does cheapen things. I can't complain too much, passing Level 2 when I did definitely helped me get interviewed/hired/+better salary for the job I have now than if I wouldn't have had it. So the CFA isn't all bad.
i hate this. This is what
i hate this. This is what FINRA exams (CSI here in canada) are for.
Fucking CFAI
Check out my Blog
Agree with the above, but
Agree with the above, but still, this sounds like just a certificate... nowhere near the actual CFA designation. If someone is evaluating your candidacy they would surely comprehend the difference, no?
The CFA is already the
The CFA is already the back-office CFA. Go on any CFA candidate or charterholder forum (especially on LinkedIn) and it's flooded with IT, operations, and accounting professionals. This is not a criticism of those people, they met exactly the same requirements as anyone else. The number one thing the CFA could do to make the designation more useful to charterholders in front-office roles would be to be much stricter about what counts as qualifying work experience, though of course they won't because it's not how their incentives align.
There have been many great comebacks throughout history. Jesus was dead but then came back as an all-powerful God-Zombie.
Kenny_Powers_CFA: The CFA is
The CFA is already the back-office CFA. Go on any CFA candidate or charterholder forum (especially on LinkedIn) and it's flooded with IT, operations, and accounting professionals. This is not a criticism of those people, they met exactly the same requirements as anyone else. The number one thing the CFA could do to make the designation more useful to charterholders in front-office roles would be to be much stricter about what counts as qualifying work experience, though of course they won't because it's not how their incentives align.
but then you're slipping in the zone of it being an elite distinction (good), for only elite people in the first place (bad). i agree that they need to firm it up somewhat, being related to an investment decisions mean jack if people in ops can get away with it, may as well give it to the cute receptionist too, but there has to be an element of egalitarianism at a certain level....
Kenny_Powers_CFA: The CFA is
The CFA is already the back-office CFA. Go on any CFA candidate or charterholder forum (especially on LinkedIn) and it's flooded with IT, operations, and accounting professionals. This is not a criticism of those people, they met exactly the same requirements as anyone else. The number one thing the CFA could do to make the designation more useful to charterholders in front-office roles would be to be much stricter about what counts as qualifying work experience, though of course they won't because it's not how their incentives align.
I'm not sure why it should matter. The IT/operations/accounting professionals are submitting resumes and doing interviews just like the rest of us in order to have their experience evaluated by the people doing the hiring to see if they are a good fit for the job.
Is there any reason to think some bureaucrat in Virginia will be better at evaluating work experience than the interviewer?
If someone wants to go through the time and sweat of studying for the thing and they have 4 yrs qualifying experience, then I say let them have it.
NOMNOMNOMNOM: Kenny_Powers_
The CFA is already the back-office CFA. Go on any CFA candidate or charterholder forum (especially on LinkedIn) and it's flooded with IT, operations, and accounting professionals. This is not a criticism of those people, they met exactly the same requirements as anyone else. The number one thing the CFA could do to make the designation more useful to charterholders in front-office roles would be to be much stricter about what counts as qualifying work experience, though of course they won't because it's not how their incentives align.
I'm not sure why it should matter. The IT/operations/accounting professionals are submitting resumes and doing interviews just like the rest of us in order to have their experience evaluated by the people doing the hiring to see if they are a good fit for the job.
Is there any reason to think some bureaucrat in Virginia will be better at evaluating work experience than the interviewer?
If someone wants to go through the time and sweat of studying for the thing and they have 4 yrs qualifying experience, then I say let them have it.
No reason it should, just making an observation.
Given my experience with charter-holders and non-holders in both front- and back-office roles I would not give any weight either way for having the designation if I were responsible for a hiring decision. Just my two cents.
I am aware that this is ironic given my username.
There have been many great comebacks throughout history. Jesus was dead but then came back as an all-powerful God-Zombie.
Oreos: Kenny_Powers_CFA: Th
The CFA is already the back-office CFA. Go on any CFA candidate or charterholder forum (especially on LinkedIn) and it's flooded with IT, operations, and accounting professionals. This is not a criticism of those people, they met exactly the same requirements as anyone else. The number one thing the CFA could do to make the designation more useful to charterholders in front-office roles would be to be much stricter about what counts as qualifying work experience, though of course they won't because it's not how their incentives align.
but then you're slipping in the zone of it being an elite distinction (good), for only elite people in the first place (bad). i agree that they need to firm it up somewhat, being related to an investment decisions mean jack if people in ops can get away with it, may as well give it to the cute receptionist too, but there has to be an element of egalitarianism at a certain level....
Totally fair and I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm in the same place as Grey Fox personally; I will likely finish my designation but doubt it will ever actually be required or helpful in my career again.
There have been many great comebacks throughout history. Jesus was dead but then came back as an all-powerful God-Zombie.
Kenny_Powers_CFA: Oreos:
The CFA is already the back-office CFA. Go on any CFA candidate or charterholder forum (especially on LinkedIn) and it's flooded with IT, operations, and accounting professionals. This is not a criticism of those people, they met exactly the same requirements as anyone else. The number one thing the CFA could do to make the designation more useful to charterholders in front-office roles would be to be much stricter about what counts as qualifying work experience, though of course they won't because it's not how their incentives align.
but then you're slipping in the zone of it being an elite distinction (good), for only elite people in the first place (bad). i agree that they need to firm it up somewhat, being related to an investment decisions mean jack if people in ops can get away with it, may as well give it to the cute receptionist too, but there has to be an element of egalitarianism at a certain level....
Totally fair and I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm in the same place as Grey Fox personally; I will likely finish my designation but doubt it will ever actually be required or helpful in my career again.
Ditto. L3 this June, just want the 3 letters now, have no interest in learning out to structure a pension for auntie Dorris. However, I am starting to see positive reaction to the CFA (Europe) regarding work ethic and intensity of study required and it has undoubtedly helped me with arcane interview questions (studied econ., not finance, so never had the pleasure, before CFA, of learning black scholes etc..).
Up..ok, was searching for
Up..ok, was searching for Claritas on WSO, and this seems to be the only post that's so far comprehensive.
So any real deal on this certificate? or new updates? or reviews? I'm aware registration officially starts next month.
How bout all you CFA holders out there? what's your take on this?