|
|
#11 (permalink) |
|
only Loeb spaces!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,075
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Maybe there are (at least) two "kinds" of Finance studies. The first kind has (at least) something to do with Brownian motion (and stochastics in general) and the other kind (more "intuitive") has nothing to do with Brownian motion (or any advanced mathematics).
_ _ _ _ SIG _ _ _ _
"It's easy to have faith in yourself and have discipline when you're a winner, when you're number one. What you've got to have is faith and discipline when you're not yet a winner." Vince Lombardi How to write a lazy proof Teaching yourself how to prove |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 (permalink) |
|
Trying to make mom and pop proud
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
![]() |
I think CFA is a really good program which covers the skill set required to work in the finance industry, but may not necessarily cover all the fundamentals needed to conduct research studies in the field.
As Our Finance Professor said: “CFA will definitely help you to get a job. But if you are keen to study Finance, get your PhD instead.” |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 (permalink) |
|
Life is too short.......
![]() ![]() Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 126
![]() |
I never said it covers all the fundamentals but it is however a good start and I agree they cannot in any way be the same. CFA exams are in no way a subsitute for a PhD in Finance but I think it can complement it.
I think if you do decide to go to Warwick you always have the opportunity to sit in some of the Mathematics classes they offer so there is that option. Good luck! |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 (permalink) |
|
Within my grasp!
![]() ![]() Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 204
![]() |
The CFA curriculum is irrelevant for those who are interested in the academia --- and for that matter, any one who is interested in "high finance / quantitative finance".
If you have absolutely no exposure to basic asset pricing and corporate finance concepts, get Bodie's "Investments" and Ross, Westerfeld, Jordon, Roberts' "Fundamentals of Corporate Finance". I think these two are quite standard textbooks for undergrad / MBA intro Finance courses. And I really think from these two books alone (perhaps, add in some extra readings from WSJ, FT and the Economist), you would be much better off than doing the CFA. One final point about the CFA ---- even if you pass all levels I, II and III, without getting a job at a "recognized" institution (i.e. banks, corporates, etc.), you cannot get the designation anyways; the work experience (I think it's 3 years?) is a required part of the CFA. Disclaimer: I did not do the CFA and WILL NOT do the CFA precisely because I think it offers very low value. If you want to be a retail broker and want to pawn crap mutual funds to retired old grandmas, then having the CFA is a great stamp on your business card (even though, you technically can't put the CFA letters after your name as it is a designation, and not a degree like Bachelors, Masters, PhD, etc.) |
|
|
|
Contact TestMagic TestMagic Forums Archive
Link to TestMagic
TestMagic Locations
Legal
Privacy
Partner Sites:
GMAT Sentence Correction
SAT 2400
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright © 1998-2008 TestMagic
Ad Management by RedTyger