Being productive outside of work for career's sake
I'm in a state right now in which I am in banking and working in capital markets. I've learned a lot in the past few months/years and would like to transition to something more buyside focused (or at least not as an advisor/consultant) but am coming to regret not doing traditional coverage/M&A. The only plus right now is that I work ~70hours a week and have some free time.
I know a lot of you may tell me to chill out, stop being an ingrate, and enjoy my time and continued employment. But my type-A gene is telling me to do something right now to help me move eventually to a more desirable position. Anybody in a similar situation? Uncreative thoughts that come to mind are apply to bschool, take the CFA, or just read up and learn about whatever in finance/economics that interests me (although it's far riskier given the lack of a certificate/designation at the end). Obvious downfalls are that bschool apps for 2010 won't be for a while (little sense of urgency), CFA's value given time/money commitment is a bit questionable (would love to hear more on this), and that I cannot put "Learned shit on my own in my free time" on my resume, which is the first filter for most headhunters/hiring firms anyway.
I would think a lot of you on the board are similar, in that you are extremely confident in yourself but need something (whether a designation) to prove it to others. Or maybe I should just network like crazy?
read.
if you are particularly interested in a specific hf strategy, get some of the well known books
while you cant put in on your resume, you will be able to speak more intelligent in interviews if you are well read
Train for and run a marathon.
iambateman, I would love to do just that and have full conviction that it represents the highest return on my time. But even getting an interview right now for any desirable job is a low probability occurrence because of my background and the markets. I guess, optimally, I would read and network, and eventually land an interview that my reading has allowed me to nail. But would that be preferable to taking the long and arduous route of, for example, getting a CFA, which would not only allow me to speak more intelligently (albeit much less so than just reading and focusing on a strategy or topic) but also raise the probability of getting the interview in the first place? Maybe the answer is yes.. Of course, the problem here is how long it takes to pass all 3 levels of the CFA.
I understand that there is no clear cut answer here, and I have one point of view now (thanks iambateman). Maybe 2, if I am in the market to destroy my body in preparation for running 26 miles. Am curious if anybody else has gone/is going through a similar thought process.
CFA is highly regarded everywhere, and CFA+MBA is a strong combination to excel at buyside. I would suggest to start with level 1, since it doesn't require much time committment, and then re-evaluate next year. Level 2 is the heart of cfa.
also read, network, and maybe get involved in community service.
All these things will help you to move on to a more desirable position.
250 hours is recommended and i think most of my friends studied 200+ hrs. in my mind, that is a pretty serious time commitment
Seriously. I'm too lazy to take the CFA..well that and I'm pushing 100+ weeks.
The world has changed. And we must change with it.
regarding: "Of course, the problem here is how long it takes to pass all 3 levels of the CFA."
Do you mean how many hours of studying would it take to pass? Or how many years before you get through the entire program?
Hours - depends on the person, how much you already know about finance/accounting/economics/statistics
The other - assuming you pass all exams on first try... June 2009 (or December 2009) level 1 June 2010 level 2 June 2011 level 3.
im far too lazy as well. would prefer a 2 yr vacation in bschool to giving up all free time for months to pass each level of the CFA
If you regret not doing M&A / traditional coverage then the CFA might be just the right thing. You will get a good review of corporate finance and accounting (along with other things). The CFA program was founded by the Graham-Dodd following of value investing and it prepares one for more fundamental analysis type investing. The CFA is very well regarded in mutual funds / hedge funds, and to a lesser extent in PE. It takes time but is well worth the knowledge. Also, it helps you get jobs but the program also sets you up really well to do well in buyside roles.
Why not consider a masters in finance or masters in financial engineering. The latter choice would open doors to some good funds. The former choice if done in the right school (i.e princeton, oxford, etc.) should also give you some good opportunities. These programs are only a year long, so it wouldn't require too much of a time commitment. You learn all the stuff that you do from taking a CFA and perhaps a little more plus you have a degree and access to career resources and alumni. It's a lot more expensive though. You can also do a part-time MFE program at Columbia I think but the rigorous program coupled with the work you have might just end up killing you.
MBA>MFE imo
Did think about MFE, liked the idea of learning rather than taking a 2year vacation (I really don't sound like I did banking for the past 2 years, do I?). Unless you want to do risk management, trading, or quant-focused buyside, a top 5 MBA would be better. Spoke with someone from Princeton MFE and he even admits that the shakedown in finance will hit the program proportionally harder relative to comparable MBAs.
Re: CFA commitment, it's definitely the time before I actually have the designation. By June 2011, I would hope that I'm already in a better place...
Like I said, learning and researching in my free time is most desirable, but the risk of ending up a bit smarter but without any proof of my time commitment and effort is pretty high. It's really a balancing act.
Thanks all for your responses so far. Really much appreciated.
I may suggest, that you don't regard the CFA route as a "safe harbor" by any means. The designation won't do much if it's not backed by credible experience (of course, at least 4 years of qualifying experience is a requirement for the charter, but not all qualifying experience is relevant). Also, there is no guarantee you will pass all three levels on the first try (if at all), many people do fail.
On the other hand, if you do work in a decent place, earn a CFA charter and are a good specialist in finance and investments, you may lateral to a post-MBA position in a top firm, without doing an MBA (i.e. effectively saving a huge amount of money, especially considering implicit costs of an MBA, and 2 years).
Karma goes a long way.
If I wanted to work buyside, which is more valuable - CFA or MBA? This is considering that I have "credible" experience (2-3 years), and am not relying on either route by itself.
Ivan, fully understood. I am in banking in a front office role right now so I would hope the trials and tribulations of the past year are credible.
This is an interesting post. Would the pursuit of the CFA (say level I candidate) help in securing a pre-MBA PE gig after two years in IB, or would it have zero effect?
Basically: Would the CFA candidate distinction make me stand out more to the headhunters who do PE recruitment?
(Sorry if it seems I'm taking over the thread - just didn't want to create another topic.)
Et quis voluptatem blanditiis consequatur et dolorem. Quod expedita eum animi omnis. Blanditiis et dicta occaecati qui excepturi nam non. Est est autem doloribus qui id quia in. Aut non libero magni voluptas.
Nihil nostrum quam asperiores nesciunt harum impedit. Cum omnis facilis sed autem unde facilis. Quos ad minus in. Voluptas sint at nostrum eum soluta dolor similique.
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...