Mod Note (Andy): WSO readers qualify for a $100 discount to Jared's Daily Dirtnap daily market newsletter...just email [email protected] and mention "WSO Monkey Discount" You can follow Jared on twitter at @dailydirtnap
Who doesn’t love letters after their names? Jared Dillian, PhD. Jared Dillian, MD. Jared Dillian, Esq. Jared Dillian, CFA® .
My favorite is when someone puts “MBA” after his name. John Smith, MBA. Whoever does that, is the biggest tool known to mankind.
I first explored getting the CFA® designation when I was in business school, back in 1998. Some dude from AIMR (that’s what they called the CFA® Institute back then) came and spoke at the career center. He was a slug. I couldn’t possibly think of anything more boring to do with the next three years of my life. Besides, I had plenty of other shit to do. The CFA® would have to wait.
If memory serves me correctly, I decided to give Level One a shot in 2002, when I was working at Lehman. I passed. The following year, I was dealing with some personal stuff and wasn’t really emotionally available, but I took Level Two anyway, and flunked.
After that I gave up.
What I figured out was that I didn’t need the CFA® to do my job, which at the time, was running the ETF desk. Capital markets jobs, like sales or trading, don’t require CFA®s. Some people get them for fun or enrichment or the letters after their name, but they are not necessary. You get paid the same. And they don’t help you get a job somewhere.
But, if you want a career as an analyst on the sell side or the buy side, or if you want to be a portfolio manager on the buy side, especially at a pension fund or at a mutual fund complex, the CFA® is necessary. You can’t get a job without it, or if they hire you without one, you will have to pass the exams in short order.
If you’re not familiar with it, the CFA® sucks. When you go to college, or you get your MBA, you learn stuff. Nobody learns anything taking the CFA® . I didn’t learn anything by taking the CFA® , except how to memorize unimportant details. It’s not even an intelligence test. It’s a memorization test.
But what I really object to is the idea that there is a set of competencies that you must learn, at which point you will be a competent investor. But there is no correlation at all between getting the CFA® and outperforming the market, or your peers. I have never seen a study that shows a correlation. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a negative correlation, on the premise that being in possession of the CFA® gives people overconfidence.
The beautiful thing about finance is that there are just some things that cannot be taught. For example, I study sentiment religiously, and use it extensively in my investment process, sometimes to the exclusion of all else. You won’t find that in the CFA® . You won’t find a lot of stuff in the CFA® . Nowhere in the CFA® literature does it tell you that passing the exams and getting the designation will help you make money. I’m being serious. Nowhere are there any attestations that you become a better investor by doing this. So what is the point?
The point is that the CFA® is like a lot of things in life. Sure, you go to college to learn, but you also go to demonstrate that you have the discipline, persistence, and organizational skills to make it through four years of school. And if you’re willing to put in the thousands of hours that people put in to pass the CFA® , then I guess that’s a feather in your cap. But that’s not a good enough reason for me. If I’m not learning something, or even worse, if I am learning the wrong things, then I have no use for it.
When I was at Lehman, I saw a lot of young back office kids studying their asses off for the CFA® , in the hopes that it would help them move to the trading floor. Nothing could have been further from the truth. And nothing is sadder than a trade support guy with a CFA® . If you plan on doing this, go into it with your eyes wide open. It’s hard. You have to study a lot to pass. You will give up every weekend for three years, assuming you pass all the exams on the first try. You won’t learn anything. It’s frustrating beyond belief. It’s boring. And even after all that, there’s no guarantee you’ll pass.
But if you do, you get those letters after your name, for the rest of your life…that nobody outside of our business has any idea what the hell it means.
wow, pwn'd. being devil's advocate, I do know someone who moved from BO to FO, albeit at different firms, and he's certain the CFA got him in the door (non target, unimpressive extra curriculars, etc). I think if it's within the firm, definitely harder, but if you have the CFA and BB experience, it may make jumping ship a bit easier, and I'd be curious to hear your comments on this. I agree that having the CFA does not make you a better investor. it makes you a better analyst, but analysts are not always the best investors.
Assuming the rest of your credentials are in check the CFA is a game changer. Arguing otherwise proves the inability to network.
When I passed the first exam I ended getting looks I otherwise wouldn't get. It's just checking the boxes, much like a top mba
I think it may be more relevant in the current market where companies are needing to filter out a very high % of applicants in some kind of systematic way.
Obtaining the CFA doesn't make you a better investor just like learning Excel doesn't make you a better investor: in the hands of a someone with talent, it magnifies their skills. Speaking purely from a security analyst perspective, the CFA gives you a bunch of tools that will help you become a more effective and efficient analyst. At the very least, you will end up having an in-depth understanding of US GAAP and IFRS accounting. Hard to see how anyone could pass all levels without learning something.
US gaap won't exist in a couple years anyways, so it's even more useless than you thought.
I agree with parts of your post, but this is dead wrong. Maybe in your day it was a little different, but the material today is a pretty decent collection of foundational knowledge about a broad range of topics. It won't necessarily help you make money in markets, but to say you don't learn anything is ludicrous. Sounds like you're just bitter you flunked level two.
You're right. You learn how to pass a test.
Also unmentioned is that once you get the designation, you now have voluntarily submitted to an additional regulatory body. One that censures you if you discuss exam questions two weeks after the exam and suspends your membership if you expense flying a Cessna for work travel as car milage.
Look I enjoy dealing with a homeowners' association as much as the next guy trying to get approval to repaint his house the same color, but there is non-trivial regulatory overhead for an ethical person to be a member of the CFA. Oh and you have to pay $300/year for the designation.
I really think that I learned something. While I agree, that it may not be the most practical information, the foundational knowledge that you learn is important IMO. They present you with the basic questions and material, but the test itself uses abstractions of that material that makes you think a little deeper than just the topical applications. The quant section is complete bullshit to me, but many of the financial statement analysis and correlations between different line items on them proved relevant for me.
I would note however, that I am in research. So perhaps it holds a little more weight in my little brain.
Apparently you didn't even learn that...
I usually like your posts and find them insightful. I wish I could say the same here.
agreed
The only thing worse than failing a CFA exam is passing level 2. That means you HAVE to finish. Im glad its over and done with
As someone who is done the CFA exams (last year) and still needs a year of work experience to get the letters, I have to disagree with this post.
One thing I will agree with though. Once you have a job where most likely you are not moving, no one gives a shit. Maybe in a few years I decide to move careers and the designation is going to help me, but right now, the fact that I might get three letters beside my name on my card only helps me in picking up finance chicks.
Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've read, the CFA is only useful for those aspiring to be portfolio mangers, however in that field it is essentially becoming a mandate.
I am currently studying for the CFA and I am learning a lot so far. My education level is that of a senior undergraduate finance major.
Whether or not you learn something from the material depends on your background. If you have been in the industry for years of course you are not going to learn much.
Reading the material you will surely at least learn a few new things. If a hedge fund manager were to read the CFA material I am sure there are at least a few things in the material that he would not know.
It is all about expanding your knowledge base. Some people will learn more from reading CFA material, some will learn less. It depends on your background.
What a fucking dumb post. Nobody taking the CFA exams ever said it will improve their performance. In fact, CFA Institute does not allow such a statement.
Your post basically applies to most of the designations out there. Hell it will even apply to university degrees in extreme cases. People get their degree, designation, or whatever else it may be to DEMONSTRATE that they have worked hard and have the passion towards something.
I agree in that there are scenarios where the CFA might mean nothing, IMO however I think that the CFA is a good way to set you apart from a pool of candidates specially coming from a non-target like myself and having the desire to break into something like Asset Management or an analyst role. Having the designation or just having passed the first level/second can show an employer the amount of discipline that you have and your desire to succeed in the industry (talking specifically something in the buy side).
In regards to the first note about the "MBA" designation, has anyone else found that only those from garbage schools throw a ", MBA" onto the end of their name?
The person should be able to be defined by his name after making use of the skills he has learnt from a good business school. There's no need to dilute it by adding "MBA" after it.
I'm having a tough time with this. On the one hand you're totally on point with refusing to admire education/learning for the sake of learning. However, on the other hand there is demonstrable value to the knowledge base contained in the curriculum. Saying that the body of knowledge is trivial is simply incorrect.
I think that possessing the CFA after attaining the knowledge (wether you had it to begin with or not) is rather effective signaling, especially in the AM space. An effective practitioner knows what knowledge is valuable and what has to be discarded in order to make successful investment decisions.
I think i'll agree with Jared in the sense that i've seen way too many sophists who drivel meaningless bullshit because three capitalized letters entitle them to an 'opinion'.
Either way, made me think.
Full disclosure : i'm hoping to become a Charter-holder, because who i work for has made it clear that it is a value to their practice and i will be compensated for the effort.
The difference is that Universities emphasize learning. The CFA emphasizes memorization. Was I exposed to material that I wouldn't otherwise have been exposed to? Sure. But I didn't retain any of it, because it was pump and dump for a stupid test.
To be frank, attempting to pass Level II simply through memorization is why you failed.
On top of that, saying that the university system is superior is straight up bullshit. How many useless projects has everyone done during their undergrad or business school (if applicable) that has absolutely nothing to do with what they do at work on a day-to-day basis. It doesn't matter if you learned it in class or on your own, if you don't use the knowledge regularly, you won't retain it.
This is the reason you failed. That you honestly believe this is precisely why you failed.
The exam did exactly what it was supposed to do: weed out the children who haven't learned to take responsibility for and learn from their failures. Instead of accepting that you weren't prepared to overcome the challenge of the exam, you go on to a forum to say "you know what, I didn't need it anyway."
People are being far too nice. I'll say it plainly: this post is trash.
CFA candidate here. I agree with OP on that the usefulness of the CFA is highly dependent on your industry and function (and for many, it's nothing but three letters) and that less structured learning on the job (and spending evenings/weekends with coworkers and networking in your industry instead of studying*) may get you just as far, if not further. I can also second the pump and dump effect to some degree; that is one of the weak points of the program IMO. Yet, having a business/finance master's, I found the CFA curriculum / Schweser Notes to be the most comprehensive package on finance theory I came across. It covers a whole lot really quickly and I actually use it to look up concepts I only come across rarely in my job.
Why am I a candidate? My firm requires anyone to show some designation (anything almost) 4 years into the job to let you step up the ladder. So I picked the CFA for the versatility (vs. CPA, CVA, CAIA, etc.) just in case I may want to switch industries later on (currently in TAS).
*this drawback luckily disappears if you get paid leave to prepare.
I'm going to put BBA next to my name
I actually have found it of use in one field, at least so far. In the Life Sciences industry, where everyone is suffix-happy, they pretty much need to know upfront whether they're dealing with a scientist, a doctor, or a "suit". That's because it literally affects the type and depth of jargon that will be used in the dialogue. By adding MBA after my name, I signal that I'm qualified to discuss business/strategy/finance; but not science, engineering, or medical topics other than at a light level.
Quick question. Everyone saying that having a CFA is very important for PMs, does this include macro PMs as well?
Also, it seems to me like the CFA is only useful if you didn't come from a target and/or didn't get a good front-office job after graduation as it might help you get a second look that you may not have gotten otherwise. Also, I've heard its important in AM however when I interned in S&T last summer most traders and salesmen told me that the CFA was mostly just a huge fucking waste of time.
Anyone who puts degrees or certifications next to their names is big a d-bag. But for some reason "John Smith, MBA" drives me up the wall.
CFA is a tool. and it's about users, not tools.
Disagree entirely with the post. A CFA designation, even Level 1 is a foot in the door.
If you're going into an industry where the CFA designation isn't required, don't fucking waste your time.
However, if you're in finance, or accounting, a CFA designation often means more opportunities and a higher pay grade.
This really is a stupid post. You admit yourself you failed and it's pretty obvious your completely unaware of the contents anyways. How do you even have an opinion.
bro... did you read the post? why do you people get so personal...
this entire post is insane. if you passed your L2 and continued on there's zero chance you'd feel the way you do or write this piece. as an L1 candidate, i find it almost impossible that you didn't learn anything from the prep or test itself.
the institute comes right out and says from the start the CFA title doesn't make anyone a better investor or imply "superior" performance. did you skip that part in ethics?
The benefits of a CFA designation are different for specific roles. IMO, it's most helpful for research and traditional buyside shops (aka Asset Management). Not so much for trading or sales.
Sure it's a huge time commitment, but personally it enabled me to go from operations to a "front office" role at a different mutual fund. I learned networking and interviewing from grinding it out, but I would've never been given these opportunities if I hadn't at least passed a couple exams. Especially for those coming from less than stellar schools, it adds a degree of credibility. Let's face it- if you can get the charter, you're probably intelligent enough to have gone to a top undergrad school.
Sure, you can cherry pick examples of back office guys studying for the exam and going nowhere because they lack social skills (especially for roles like trading where it's valued more). Keep in mind there are also those who are intelligent and hungry enough to eventually break in because they learn from their mistakes and bust their ass at all times.
For anyone studying for the exams while working a job they absolutely despise, keep going. It's worth it. Just remember that you'll need to learn how to network and interview properly as well.
Much-needed contrarian viewpoint, thanks @"Jared Dillian" And don't worry about all the personal attacks in this thread; by any measure you've been more successful than many.
edited: agree with ITF,
1) lots cognitive dissonance in this post
2) to all the haters out there, Jared can write this post because of his experience, his success in other ventures, and he's smarter than you. whether he's right or not, well that is up to you guys to debate
So a guy who failed LII over 10 years ago is allowed to opine on the content of a program that he knows nothing about because he has been successful in other areas? Tremendous logic. While the CFA curriculum has many weaknesses and will not guarantee access to front office jobs it does provide a solid foundation upon which to build an investment career.
Next up, Dick Fuld's front page essay about the value of a medical degree. It makes sense because of his glowing success as CEO of a global investment bank.
I think everyone is missing the point Jared was trying to make. The CFA designation pales in comparison to the combination of a goatee and spray tan. But in all seriousness, anyone pursuing the designation is grateful for people like you who fail and give up on the program. Not only do you making passing easier by making up the fat 'fail portion' of the bell curve, your dropping keeps the pool of CFAs smaller.
You are basically stating that education leads to inefficient use of someone's time.
Although the CFAI exams do not lead to better investment decisions, it does lead to a better understanding of the information that is required to make better investment decisions to an inexperienced professional.
I agree with some of the arguments you bring forward, but your overall analysis of the benefits of professional designations sound like a personal grudge against one's failure.
I am a CFA charterholder, and I believe there was some benefit to doing the program:
-There are some useful tools that you will be exposed to, which should help you frame your thoughts/ideas as an analyst or PM.
-It can help your career, but it is a marginal benefit and not a golden ticket. However, for SOME people that extra marginal benefit that comes from having the CFA designation is what will help them take the next step forward in their career, while for others the CFA designation won't make much of a difference.
There are also clearly some CONS to doing the program:
-Inordinate amount of time to complete... is it worth it for you? only you can decide. Was it worth it for me? Undecided, but I'm sure happy it's behind me.
-While you will encounter information you like, you will encounter a lot of other dull material that you have to memorize: GIPS in level 3... ouff that wasn't fun!
Good luck and courage to all of you that are committed to the program.
I fully endorse your statements Astraeus, as a fellow charterholder as well.
I think we can all agree that some agree and others don't.
didn't mention this earlier, but to anyone who's curious about how the CFA helps your ability to be a PM, the answer is it depends on how you run your portfolio. it would not help you if you're a concentrated investor like Pabrai, Munger, or Berkowitz, nor will it help you if you're an activist like Ackman, Icahn, or even the late Phil Fisher (not really activist, but heavy in scuttlebutt). it will help you if you're quant and qual, fundamental equity/FI to an extent; but we have a charterholder in our office (not a partner of mine, but another big practice), and he'd tell you that trial & error, a diligent process, knowing industries, understanding how companies create value, and probability/handicapping are more important. none of those are taught in CFA unfortunately except maybe statistics on how to calculate correlation & vol for portfolios & their holdings, and maybe some remedial probability.
the probability stuff is great, but probability is fancy guesswork, nobody knows the true probability of what a stock's going to do. when a BB assigns 50% probability to base case, 30% to bull case and 20% to bear case, they're pulling numbers out of the sky so it can make the math work. if you've read my posts you know I'm a value guy, so I rely more on diligent analysis, knowing how a business creates value, and buying a price where there's a wide enough gap between price & value than I rely on knowing the probability that a stock/earnings/margins/whatever will go up, down, sideways. I do this so that even if I fucked something up in the math, I'll still get a good return (this is called a margin of safety).
what's helped me (and I don't consider myself a great PM yet, I'm always learning) is having a co-PM more than anything. he and I think very similarly on a lot of things, but differently enough that we challenge each other and it's made me revisit my thesis on holdings numerous times before adding to the portfolio or not. every decision has to be unanimous, so I think the challenge of justifying your decision to someone who's your equal will make you better. likewise, for analysts, when you propose an idea to your PM, take the questions as constructive, it will make you a better analyst.
Lets make this simple.
1 If you want to work/ want to work in AM/ER/PM role, I'd suggest doing the CFA. (HF is maaybe.. they care about making $).
2 It doesn't get you a job, just helps in process.
3 Doesn't help in teaching you how to invest. Good for cursory background in accounting and general wall street.
I think it's pretty clear that CFA charterholders and candidates will back up this designation because LEARNING the material is quite arduous and the curriculum itself both broad and deep. The curriculum, like any academic resource, is very theoretical (which we all know the real world is not as black and white as a text book). In my opinion, this is highly valuable because a solid foundation of knowledge gives the user the ability to apply that to real world situations. This is where intelligent people can leverage their knowledge of the curriculum for success; a stupid person that spend years and years studying to pass will just be stupid person, CFA.
Where I think the OP is being beyond naïve, for lack of a better word, is the fact that he failed level 2 and has no idea what the level 3 curriculum consists of. Would you ever listen to an analyst’s buy/sell opinion if he only read 2/3 of a 10k and there were errors in his use of the second third of information? Probably not...
The CFA designation is great if you’re looking to learn and have a very well rounded and in depth knowledge of capital markets and gain other ancillary skills. What the CFA isn’t, is a direct route to a FO role. If you want to be a BSD than start stretching your butthole at a young age and get a FO gig becuase you're going to be taking it for quite some time. If you are more aroused by research and learning, earn the CFA designation.
A final note, if you do attempt to earn the CFA designation, pass all three tests of your first try. Failing just looks like you have poor time management and/or you just are not that bright...
Ask anyone who does regressions for a living what "Breusch-Pagan" or Durbin-Watson means and they will give you a blank look. Then ask them how to test for conditional heteroskedasticity and they'll say "You can start by regressing the square of your residuals by your explanatory variables. But that's only the first step. You look at the actual regression plot too and try to make sure it's white noise before saying there's no conditional heteroskedasticity"
The CFA's theoretical foundation for quantitative methods clearly sucks- it misses the fundamental stuff that lies at the heart of statistics and the CFA believes the answer to "Am I done after running these three tests?" is "Yes", when the correct answer is clearly "No". On top of sucking, it adds a whole bunch of terms that the average practitioner has never heard before.
I'm giving the CFA a pass on the accounting and equity valuation section- I would not consider myself an expert in these areas, although the stuff I know about accounting seems to agree with them, but the quant methods section is clearly lacking. This is a big problem when you're writing an exam that tries to capture the nuance of understanding 3-4 different principles in one question.
Honestly I think CFAI needs to get rid of its quant methods section. Or it needs to get a bunch of profs from CMU Tepper or NYU Courant to rewrite it so a whole bunch of math and stats PhDs and professors aren't staring at the exam guessing what the CFAI thinks the right answer is.
Let's not kid ourselves. Taking the CFA exam means you've learned more BS about regressions than actual stuff. And their treatment of GARCH and AR models barely even scratches the surface.
I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but on the quant section, Jared has a really good point- the exam is about memorizing, not learning. Getting an MFE, you spend two years actually learning stats, then if you take the CFA, you spend two months memorizing what CFAI believes about statistics.
If I had seen the curriculum beforehand, I wouldn't have signed up for it. It was actually quite marginal in the first place. The only thing that even got me here was a tax deduction, free time, and inertia. I don't think I'll take another exam unless I'm getting a tax deduction for the exam fee and I have a lot of free time on my hands.There's no need for that drivel to convey what everyone knows: the CFA curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Huh? So to be clear- the CFA isn't worth it because a 5% section from ONE of the three levels isn't as comprehensive as a two year advanced degree in that topic? See that shocks me because I woulda sworn people only got hired with the CFA because of their ability to build autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models. Yup, cancel the whole program.
The fact that you'd spend 100+ hours of your time on something because of a miniscule "tax deduction" is mind blowing, lol. Makes me wonder how much free time you have and how you must value it...
I'm sure the CFA Institute profusely apologizes that its brief introductory section on quantitative methods falls short of Princeton's two year Masters program.
Interesting to read about someone talking sh*t about something that he was not able to understand. Makes total sense.
Not going to get sucked in to a stupid debate, but just want to point out that statisticians are generally familiar with Durbin-Watson and Breusch-Pagan. Not that obscure really; it's first semester grad school stuff. carry on.
The best way to test for heteroskedasticity is to look at a plot of the residuals and confirm that you're looking at white noise. The human eyeball can pick out stuff that a regression line simply can't. If you think Breusch-Pagan is a sufficient test for vetting a regression against heteroskedasticity, I'm taking away your statistics card. And most of the time, the human eyeball can flag the absence of white noise in a plot. Breusch-Pagan is at best one of many tests for determining whether there's any statistical significance to it, and if variance increases along any of the regression coefficients. Of course with the human eyeball test on the residuals, that next step is pretty intuitive. But you also might want to test if the interval [-1,1] has statistically higher variance. So Breusch Pagan isn't necessarily necessary, and it's certainly not sufficient to test for heteroskedasticity.
***tempaccount may have learned stats differently 5, 10, or 20 years ago and stats was probably taught differently then. So this isn't an argument against him personally. To the best of my knowledge, Princeton, CMU, and NYU have not been teaching Breusch-Pagan in the past few years. And hopefully tempaccount can see what I'm getting at- that Breusch-Pagan doesn't come anywhere close to ruling out statistically significant heteroskedasticity.
What has been learned cannot be unlearned
I agree it's not the best method, or even a very good one, but it's still taught and people have heard of it. And for better or for worse some people use it. The CFA has a lot of material in all sections that I or you don't necessarily agree with, or even actively oppose. The exam tries for comprehensiveness, but it's up to practitioners to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
If you know more than the curriculum writers, just email them and let them know the corrections to the source text, which is in plain sight. I've done this before and they made changes after some brief discussion. They publish errata every year, as the curriculum is constantly evolving and they make no claim that it is infallible. If you don't do this though, then you have no right to complain, and you should either abstain from taking any more tests or stfu.
When I began to contemplate the idea of a career change to finance two years ago, I used the CFA as a litmus test for myself. I knew the CFA exam wouldn’t be enough on its own to start a new career, but it would at least be a start and I didn’t have to sacrifice anything in my current career to pursue it. I learned a ton, I confirmed my ambitions in finance, and I decided to apply to b-school. I sat for level 3 a couple weeks ago, and I start at an M7 school this fall. I have no doubt that the CFA was instrumental in demonstrating to admission committees my initiative for a career change. In certain situations, the CFA is invaluable.
So let me get this straight: You only passed level 1, failed level 2 AND never even had a chance to try level 3.
Do you even have the right to talk about what people learn when they actually PASS all three levels?
Maybe you didn't learn anything because you didn't learn enough to pass.... Enough said..
Does a divorced guy have the right to opine on the benefits/drawbacks of marriage?
+1 well said hahah
What a poor analogy. Your analogy only makes sense if you say, does an engaged man have the right to opine about divorce seeing as he never actually made it to the alter. Good try though. Also, why would anyone bother to criticize the content of a program (10 years after the fact) when he never even completed the program. Everyone here in support of the program concedes that it has many flaws I just think the original post lacks credibility with respect to the criticism of the content. I agree with him about everything else.
LOL. Cool your jets there, bro.
We can agree to disagree about the validity of my analogy, but your opinion about his right / ability to opine on the benefits or lack thereof of the CFA program is just that - your opinion. Just like the opinions of a man married 50 years about marriage/relationships isn't necessarily more valid than an engaged man's. We all make decisions/form views based on imperfect/incomplete information- any self-respecting investment professional should acknowledge that - so why should someone necessarily take your view as more valid than his just because he only has experience with the first two levels?
Thank you for reminding everyone of the existence of the first amendment. Looks like before you showed up to the party it was long forgotten. Everyone should have an equal voice...let the people speak.
Congratulations on adding even less value to the thread with your second post than you did with your first. Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion so thanks for pointing out the obvious. I am simply saying that your mom is a more credible source regarding the joys of child birth than say, Kate Upton. Talking about something that happened 10 years ago when only making it 2/3 of the way through the curriculum is questionable at best but the OP accomplished his goal of promoting discussion and eliciting stupid analogies about marriage/divorce so, well done.
My $0.02.
I am a charterholder who passed level III in 2007.
I've had a totally different experience compared to OP.
-I learned a lot by going through the program, given that my undergrad was in engineering and when I started the program I couldn't tell the difference between debit and credit.
-Enrolling in the program DEFINITELY helped me switched careers.
-Back in the day, books + Schweser/Kaplan + registration fees + exam fees would run $3000 ~ $4000 tops for all 3 exams, which is a steal considering my alternative was to enter a top 20 MBA which would cost 6 figures easy.
That being said, I do agree to a certain extent that the ENTIRE program is not very useful in my daily work. Being an buy-side analyst I don't use any quant methods or derivatives. Being in equity research I rarely use fixed income analysis. If you're shooting to be an institutional PM, you can pretty much forget 50% of level 3 stuff and still function.
Now the very important point. People forget about the CULTURE of buyside. If you have ",CFA" after your name, and your firm is operated by a bunch of people with ",CFA" after their names, you're now in their fraternity which means you get to have priority status when your resume is reviewed. Getting a job is a % game, if Mr. 800 GMAT HBS/Wharton hotshot is competing with a similar candidate, but this similar candidate has progress towards CFA, guess who's moving up the list?
Some of the responses in this thread are insane (mainly those from IP). You are clearly hating on the CFA because you know you didn't pass level 2 and are preemptively embracing Jared's "didn't need it anyway" attitude of superiority rather than admitting failure (aka blatant insecurity...).
I am trying to respect your difference of opinion, especially since you and Jared are major contributors to this site, but your nitpicking of very minor quant LOS and acting like the CFAI is some kind of burdensome regulatory body is laughable to anybody who' actually completed the program.
Est totam ea magnam consequatur accusamus nam vel voluptate. Vitae qui rem est iste quia accusamus enim. Quae explicabo quo dolorem ipsa aliquam tenetur fugit. Quam in culpa odio rem hic quia. Occaecati dolore quia est nisi molestiae aut quis veritatis.
Perspiciatis perspiciatis dolore corrupti quo quis sint unde. Doloribus sint reprehenderit dicta et culpa.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Et inventore alias est temporibus qui magnam. Et et ut voluptas quia id. Ab magni expedita dicta temporibus illo.
Ex iure dolorem et incidunt cum numquam. Qui perferendis dolorem est non quod velit. Exercitationem deserunt et explicabo eaque itaque asperiores ipsam. Non ut voluptas suscipit omnis adipisci pariatur non voluptates. Ex repellat voluptas nihil ut quo eaque distinctio. Dolorum et eaque commodi.
Et sunt repellat autem molestiae magnam. Et asperiores et eligendi quia.
Perferendis explicabo voluptatem aut error. Modi voluptas repellendus veniam possimus delectus voluptatem mollitia. Assumenda occaecati vel similique modi totam nobis. Voluptatem nemo nemo ipsam aut ut.
Nihil maiores non fugit itaque error dolorem. Tenetur quasi et ut veniam sed excepturi quasi. Et est et aliquam impedit. Magnam non pariatur esse et eum ab consequuntur. Voluptas eum amet sed.
Officiis ut quis qui tempore amet dolorum qui expedita. Et est est doloribus aliquid autem. Qui placeat iste autem eum minus aut praesentium. At atque temporibus illo quis et.
Dolorem suscipit soluta nobis dignissimos saepe voluptatem rerum. Harum sit fuga soluta neque quos autem nesciunt. Asperiores consequuntur nesciunt in sit. Eaque enim ducimus veniam voluptas. Laudantium sed ipsam odit vel aut labore.
Consequatur suscipit et at veritatis. Dignissimos repellat necessitatibus ratione odit dolorum molestias. Reiciendis est reprehenderit eum aperiam optio cumque.
Odio fugiat impedit aspernatur minus vel. Cum quia qui veniam accusantium. Minima qui nihil laborum consequatur et error alias. Illo sapiente adipisci a. Aut harum amet libero omnis voluptatem.
Enim voluptates sunt omnis quo quibusdam. Ut animi debitis sit dolorem deleniti culpa quae. Enim recusandae eius et veritatis. Laboriosam natus est nisi odio unde labore animi.
Ea vel impedit eos explicabo explicabo illum. Ut modi harum voluptas repellat a perspiciatis. Et fugit sit atque distinctio accusantium. Voluptatem quo aut sapiente ullam voluptatem ea nesciunt exercitationem.
Ut error quod iste ut explicabo rerum. Dolores ratione qui libero exercitationem cumque. Voluptates quod quis impedit.