Any CFAs in here? If so, how has it helped in your trading (if any)? What do you do now that you did not before CFA-ing yourself out? Thanks
It’s counterproductive. According to the CFA curriculum markets are efficient and trading has no purpose.
I took level 1. It's useful for those who don't have a background in finance, because it'll get you caught up to speed on 75% of the foundational stuff you should know.
I have a Master of Science in Finance and took the 3 CFA levels. I had to unlearn it all to become profitable. Been trading full time for 16 years after unlearning and do not have to work again.
Thanks both! What's the 25% that's left out to know/learn about? Good to know. That's their opinion I guess. Which means it can be ignored (and a will). Also good to know
Sounds like you already had a strong background in finance. And, in my understanding, the efficient market hypothesis is just a useful framework to start studying anomalies. If you assume information should reflect in prices, then you can look for examples where that's not the case and can exploit it. At least that's how I learned it.
The mechanics and market structure. Again, CFA is very basic and is probably comparable to taking undergraduate courses in economics, statistics, and corporate finance. So it's not rocket science and is not going to lead you to a real strategy -- but it does help build the background. I've noticed that people with stronger backgrounds tend to perform better than those w/o a background, except in extremely technical strategies (such as in legal, where a law degree is more useful, or computational/latency driven, where compsci training is more useful). I'll admit that I didn't feel like I learned anything new when I did level 1, and the roles I had didn't really care much about it. Generally, client facing roles will prioritize CFAs, while risk taking will prefer you have an actual skill.
I'm building a background in finance and off the bats the EMH screams absolutism to me (yes yes there's the weak/mid/strong forms). And there's really only 1 absolute I have seen consistently applying in my lifetime: death. Everything else has a degree of variability (aka the word "always" does not always apply). So I agree 100pc that it can be used as a gauge. I assume you're alluding to market microstructures and the like. I suspected that would be the missing piece there if that's the case. Personally I'm doing it for the learning but also to have proof that I "know some stuff" if/when I ever decide to move from soft/platform eng to finance in a corp env. Otherwise my goal is to be independent.
Take Mark Meldrum's CFA prep! Mark Meldrum, Ph.D I sadly did not but I still watch his youtube videos. He's very good as drawing connections across the literature, which is the kind of example you'd want to have for a CFA. The only thing I do not like about his approach is that he's still not even semi pro, so is missing out on the kind of added layer of info you get on the sell side. But for what it is, it's great. Probably a lot easier and cheaper to just do a CFA than to take 2-3 courses in economics, 1-2 in stats, 2-4 in corporate finance, 2 in accounting, etc.
Familiar name and under my radar yes. Thanks for linking. I may throw some money at his courses later. But I'm not sure. Probably not as time is scarce, I'm not young and impatience levels are on the top right side of the chart. "Always".