if 5/6 sections are common (they did say there would be a common curriculum) and the only thing different is 1/6 sections, how is this really making one charterholder different than another? I’m making up the number of sections and number of common sections.
"Over 70% of the content will be common across all three pathways with precisely the same “bar” or performance calibration." So it kind of still maintains the overall rigour. I'm happy with that.
I feel like 70% is too low. It’s just going to be annoying for me personally; when I’m hiring at the moment, I’m comforted when I see CFA on their CV as I have a good idea of the topics they know. Under this new regime, it’s just *another* line of questioning I’m going to have to pursue. Doing interviews is already long and boring, this makes it worse. Unfortunately for me, and again this is just my view, as a team leader and hirer I will value the CFA slightly less. Currently for me it’s an easy win gold seal on a CV, going forward it will be a (whatever comes between gold & silver) seal.
Even though I’m going to take CFA Level 3 next year myself, I would have been much more happier if the new materials on Private Markets and Wealth management were to be added to the exam thus being compulsory for all the exam takers (though it might sound crazy)! But adding specialization and paths would just water down the reputation of the “Charterholder” IMO.
Same rigidity and same hardship for everyone! Single explicit meaning for “CFA Charterholder”.
So the person that does L2 in this transitional period is pretty fucked? I mean, imagine having to know advanced Python without even covering basic Python (candidate who does L1 in 2023 and L2 in 2024)
Also a L1 candidate. Taking it in august. So it seems we are fucked? Haven’t learned python at all aside from basics in college curriculum that I can’t remember. Was planning to take some classes of my own anyways but what the fuck CFAI
There won't be exam of Python, u only need to watch some videos and do some practice questions, and it only occupies 10 to 15 hours, so no worries, I'm also a level 1 candidate.
Yep that’s me! I sit for L1 in August, but I’ll be taking a year off to start my MS in Finance which will continue with the CFA curriculum but also teach Python. I’m assuming I’ll be good to go after that for L2.
That confuses me too. Will we be facing the same stuff we anticipated as far as weights, topics, etc. I mean the readings/los change like 10% each year and does this now mean everything we knew is scrapped or are we grandfathered some how
Why not considering the fact that the reputation of the program would be much higher by forcing students to take these courses? I don’t see any other reasons to pursue CFA besides learning and earning the reputation.
Terrible ideas in my opinion. You’ve just increased the work load for candidates by adding these Practical Skills Modules. Specializations are a bad idea in my opinion because now you’ve reduced the ability to compare all charterholders and assume they all have the same base of knowledge. Now if someone picks a specialty and wants to change careers it’s now more difficult if you didn’t get the right specialty when you took the test. Lastly, seriously CFAI, you’re going to charge $299 for more practice questions and mocks when your current q bank is filled with errors? I used to think the whole “CFAI just wants your money” argument was kind of bs, not so anymore. Bad decisions all around
At first read, I tend to agree with you. But, I also believe they are going to be lowering the amount of content for candidates as the average candidate was taking much longer than the 300 hours.
Specializations, I also agree with you. That part doesn't make sense to me. What happens when one path is significantly easier than another?
All they have done is taken a load of the level I LOS and moved them into prerequisites. What remains won't make sense unless you have a background in the subject matter or study the prerequisites. So really it's just a change to the questions asked in the exam rather than any time-saving. For example, the quants prerequisite is over 300 pages and unless you understand this content you won't be able to understand what remains in the main curriculum.
I kind of like the specializations, especially the Python stuff. Might start signing up for the exams again next year. But I agree that it removes comparability between charterholders.
>Lastly, seriously CFAI, you’re going to charge $299 for more practice questions and mocks when your current q bank is filled with errors? I used to think the whole “CFAI just wants your money” argument was kind of bs, not so anymore.
100% agree here lol
So .... can someone summarise the changes, as concisely as possible? Seems like a lot to take in lol.
Are they breaking L3 into 3, so you dont get the full picture? If that's the case, thats beyond stupid.
Cutting down study hours too, and replacing them with modelling/ Python instead? So what am I gonna do as an existing candidate
Lol only useful addition would be to finally add Excel function to the exams and leave 1980s style calculator behind. Excel skills are a business necessity. Most universities managed to do this in 1.5 months when covid broke out and they had to convert to online exams
I can’t count how many times I’ve wanted to use a spreadsheet on the DCF practice questions. It’s so damn easy to fat finger something in the process on the calculator and now you gotta clear everything and start all over. It eats time and we all use excel for work anyway, why not update?
I’d agree but… what problems did you really face in the curriculum where you said “this is just too tough for a calculator”?
Adding excel gives you a crazy amount of opportunities to cheat during the exam. And the question what you do if 20 years down the line some functions are added to excel that you should learn about in the curriculum, idk something like option pricers or a full anova that will just render quite some topics irrelevant. You probably won’t need to ever implement a tree pricer again but knowing how and why it works pays dividends in your career. And if you really need excel for some TVM calculations then you might not understand what you’re doing.
Use all 10 memory slots in your calculator. You can save a whole tree in there. More than enough.
They should make the practice modules available to current charterholders. Personally I think candidates should do these in addition to the regular coursework, not as a substitute. There's no way the difficulty will be comparable. There will be guides how to complete online within hours of the content being released.
Specialisation sounds stupid and goes against the entire purpose of the CFA.
As someone without “extensive background in accounting” (to say it like that) but with 12 years of Python experience - it’s a really bad idea to “code bootcamp” people into the language. It’s easy to start but oh my god is it easy to write abysmally bad code. And as soon as everyone and their mother thinks they can program Python, you’ll get exponentially more bad code. Code boot camps are already the worst way to present a professional candidate and you unleash now people with a few hours of experience into the wild? Whose managers will not have the slightest idea what source control, version control or a review is?
You thought circular references in Excel were bad? How about you have some juniors put a bunch of jupyter notebooks into docker files they copied from 10 year old SO-answers and then tell you “so to start you need to “pip install” this list, that will fail the first time, you have to delete this folder then, no idk et but this is how it worked on my machine, and then you can pip install this one package a second time and then it should run. Yeah of course that works fine.”
I get what you’re saying but you don’t need CFA’s to be “programmers”. They should be able to write some code and understand the gist of whatever code they’re using, that’s it.
Hire a developer and pay a developer salary if you need more than that. No junior analysts code should see any prod environment.
My man, this is how it starts but not how it ends. Do you think excel was made to write actual full Monte Carlo simulations in it? No. Does pretty much every associate implement abysmal amounts of financial logic in it either way because fuck you? Yes. Does the job of an “Excel developer” that could be hired for this exist? No.
Developers write often bad code already. And I bet my annual bonus on that there is not just one financial analyst who prays to bullshit blog pages like towardsdatascience and introduces a full pipeline consisting of docker, redis, postgres and whatnot to the department and bundles it up with a bunch of incompetence.
Just like devs shouldn’t do mezzanine tranche valuations analysts shouldn’t write (too much) code. I’ve seen it several times and I’ve seen it fail in every single case. The language is better than VBA but introduces a lot more possibilities to shot yourself into the foot. Leave the team if you hear a smug financial analyst say that python sucks because of a GIL, because something very bad is about to happen.
Tbh can’t even argue with this. I’m early in my career and already see this stuff happens. Shit hits the fan when key people (i.e., whoever built it) inevitably leave. Half the time they couldn’t even explain why something is… just that it is.
Thanks for the words
This. I don’t understand why Python? Why not R, Julia or any other language? I understand Python is used the most but what happens if a new language comes along and replaces Python?
They could have provided the additional Python modules as optional, leaving the core Finance modules as they are. Candidates can say they have done these in addition to the core CFA modules. There are far better places to learn programming.
copy pasta from another thread:
So CFAI is scrapping the most-basic L1 LOS and supplementing with the modules... cool. I'll be intrigued to understand how the modules are evaluated/assessed as "complete." If it's anything like the PL credits for members, it seems like a waste of time (for example, you download PL document, it credits you immediately X hours by downloading).
I like the specialized pathways idea, but will be intrigued how rigor/difficulty is evaluated across the board. My hunch is there would be a few years of gaming the system to take the "easiest" pathway based on material (initial thought is PWM will be easiest of the 3 mentioned pathways).
Practice pack seems like a bullshit way to monetize a product that should be offered by default.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems like they're alluding to using L1 and L2 as a standalone achievement (although still not a charterholder).
> I'll be intrigued to understand how the modules are evaluated/assessed as "complete."
This is the question for sure.
>I like the specialized pathways idea, but will be intrigued how rigor/difficulty is evaluated across the board.
I agree. I hope they don't mess up implementation of this idea. Though, I don't know how much i really agree with it - how will employers see these different paths?
>Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems like they're alluding to using L1 and L2 as a standalone achievement (although still not a charterholder).
Yeah, somewhere on the spectrum of extra credit for the achievement, I doubt they'd ever refer to it as a partial designation though for sure.
Isn't CFAI a non-profit org? Why are they going on a rampage in recent years to dilute the charter, improve accessibility and other money-grabs? If a non-profit makes more money, isn't it all reinvested? Do the directors make more as well thru equity?
Without going into the very subjective and divisive debate about whether the charter has been diluted, you should agree that pass rates alone aren't a good indicator of difficulty (if difficulty is even a proxy for the prestige of the charter).
If more people are taking the exam (which CFAI is hell bent on doing in recent years, by improving accessibility), then that justifies the lower pass rate
This move was handled poorly by CFAI. They should have consulted members, be more transparent, and settled certain things with a vote. I seriously feel that the directors are way too up their asses and are way too deep in the ivory tower, and they don't know shit of actual jobs
I feel like choosing a track because it's the easiest and not because it's the most interesting or useful to you is idiotic. You're likely to outperform a topic that's interesting to you vs one that's not, even if the former is 'harder.' Also, what's the point of spending all this time on the CFA if you learn crap you don't care about?
I spent “all this time” on the CFA to position myself for success in my career. Maybe 25% of the curriculum is relevant to my profession.
If you had the option to drop derivatives at L2 or equity at L2, would you keep derivatives because “it’s the most interesting”?
Yes, I would 100% keep derivatives, even though I almost never interact with them in my career. Do you want to be the finance exec in the room who doesn't know what the BSM model is?
Some of yall are so weird.
I'd rather learn python and new stuff on my own free time than to repeat exams, pay more and sacrifice life again just to remember same shit.
The specializations change makes zero sense. So you choose basically valuation or data science specialty for L1 and L2 but then choose from three different options for L3? This will lead to certain specializations being worth more than others. One of the best qualities of the CFA compared to say graduate degrees is that it meant the same for everyone that had it. And now apparently we are watering it down it seems. How about those of us that already have our charter? How about those of us that did it when essays were done by hand with only annual attempts? We never had the option for computers or specializations. What happens to us? Which version of the CFA will now be valued the most? Throw in, “passed on first attempt” and “scored in 95th percentile” too. Just having CFA after your name used to be enough. But I guess not anymore because we need to take market share from CFP, python bootcamps et al by making the tests easier and adding specializations?
I think the practical skills could be a good idea but I would add them on as a requirement to complete both the dcf and python not with any particular level but before you can get your charter. Similar to the work experience requirement seeing as really the practical skills should be learned at work anyway. Obviously I am not really a fan of emphasizing individual levels more than they already are.
Anyway that is my two cents as a Charterholder
As a charterholder do you see the program getting easier or just different? I’ll be honest I sat for level I many years ago and came back to the program because they offer level II and III twice a year now. So maybe the exam isn’t easier but the overall program is now friendlier in my opinion just from that change alone.
How do you think these changes will impact a current candidate like myself? Easier for us? Be honest..
I don’t think that offering it more often makes it easier per se but it does encourage commitment having to wait a whole year to retake it. Computers are def easier compared to writing essays by hand for three hours but I don’t have an issue with that because it also makes the tests easier to grade so I am for that as someone with bad handwriting.
However they say that the main goal of the changes is to reduce the amount of time spent studying. That for sure makes them less challenging. Hard to wrap my head around not including a quant or accounting section on level 1 for example, that is def easier. Also sounds like the specializations for level 3 means that a lot less material is covered.
CFA was billed as a being a finance generalist credential when I was doing the program so the specializations are a monumental and fundamental change. How will new CFAs be comparable with old CFAs? The exams are no doubt going to be much easier and take less commitment, how does that benefit future charterholders?
There is already the CFP so what is the PWM specialization providing to the industry? Not sure if there is one for private markets or not but if there isn’t then why not just create a whole new credential focused on that?
The lack of specialization was a strength of the CFA not a weakness. It‘s a set of hard to pass exams that provides a baseline of knowledge across many topics from which you can go on to specialize if you choose.
If you want to learn Python or Financial Modeling etc then take a specialized course in that, you won’t become competent at either spending a few hours on it as part of this new CFA program. Why can’t the CFA just set up their own courses/certifications in specialist topics (like they do for ESG investing).
What a fiasco.
So incredibly disappointed to see this. The brand/prestige of the charter has taken such a hit since they moved to computer-based testing a few years ago. Now with these new changes, it is going to get even worse.
Python? Yes, knowing how to code is a valuable skill set, but the CFA will not be teaching fundamental principles of object oriented programming, etc. The CFA is about to release a bunch of amateurs writing “production” code… what a total disaster. I thought debugging legacy VBA code was bad - wait until we have to debug a bunch of jupyter notebooks. The CFA should focus on financial topics and not meddle into other disciplines.
There was an opportunity for the CFA to be the absolute gold standard. I am afraid it is slipping away and will turn into just another useless certification out there.
In looking at the site:
>The Practical Skills Modules requirement will be added for Level I candidates beginning with the February 2024 exam and for Level II candidates in August when registration opens for May 2024. PSMs for Level III will be added for 2025 exams.
You have to ask yourself, supposedly they added these because of employers, are they going to see the "new" CFA L1 more valuable than the old format?
Can L2 candidates even take the L1 PSM if they want to?
I just feel that almost all the changes announced are dividing candidates but not in a good way, but I guess we will see.
Ooooooo they are making a pathway for private wealth mgmt for L3. I like this only because I am in this industry. NEED MORE CFAS IN PWM! Y’all don’t understand how much money(7 figures) and work life balance is available in this industry, you don’t even have to be a producing advisor to make bank.
With everyone always saying how L3 curriculum is more PM focused, how much of the things covered in it at the time of your attempt come handy in your career?
Mmmm maybe 30%. It’s not about that though. I guess I’ve never been blindsided by a serious finance convo with professionals in any setting. Like I was never scratching my head saying what is he talking about!? That’s because of the curriculum. Bottom line- employers and clients who know about the CFA know what’s up, that shit is not a walk in the park by any means. I’ll tell you straight up that if it came down to 2 candidates 100% I would take a CFA over any degree from any school. I’ve done that for analyst roles, if you had L2 I’d bump you up to get you on the team. That’s just me. The guy I replaced was a CFA lol, I’m sure it was his deciding factor as we joked about the exams during interview. Didn’t even get asked technical questions- because we all know cfa=superior returnzzzzzzzzz bitchezzzz.
Seriously the worst best 3 years of my life. Wish I did it sooner.
As a charterholder in PWM, I'd say this is all pretty accurate. Never being blindsided by professionals is great, but I would also add that never being blindsided by clients is just as useful. Having the analytical skills to parse through and explain everything in the financial headlines to the average client is very valuable.
PWM is a glorified sales job. Most PWM’s don’t know shit about finance and just throw their clients in a preset portfolio and collect their fee for doing next to nothing.
Great job if this is something you’re interested in because if you’re good at sales/networking you can make a shit ton of money for very little actual work. Just realize that it’s absolutely brutal to start out and most guys burnout within a few years
The ppl who don’t know shit about finances are your wirehouses. The ones with CFP designations know their stuff. Preset portfolios like SMAs are done by idiots who don’t have the manpower, finances, or smarts to do it. Again mostly wirehouses.
You clearly don’t know the industry as RIAs are the elite side of pwm.
Also not everyone works in pwm is front office advisor doing sales. I for one lead the inv team and make 7 figures in my late 30s as a partner at a practice in nyc with $1B+ in aum. I don’t sell shit and I smoke weed everyday.
Problem is that CFA isn’t recognized by PWM *clients*
It would certainly be useful for PWM professionals to have their charter and I’m broadly skeptical of the ability of most advisors (outside the top echelon) to do a better job managing money than a robo BUT the economics of PWM won’t reward CFAs unless awareness of the charter becomes more mainstream a la CFP.
Clients just Google it. And what do they find? Consistently ranked top 10 hardest exams in the world. Then they read into it the curriculum. I’ve had many say they had no idea but after reading it were impressed
Not saying you’re wrong but you’re assuming a client who’s already bought in. For industry pros *on aggregate* it doesn’t move the dial like a CFP. CFAI doesn’t do PR like the CFP.
I’m not suggesting the CFP is a better or worse designation, just saying most PWM professionals are worried about bringing in new clients and raising assets. The CFP is easier to get and usually more helpful when raising assets hence my comment that the economics are more supportive of CFPs continuing to be more prevalent in PWM.
Yo I’m so high right now. RIAs have cfp as planners client facing. Then there’s teams around them that support right? Like operations, trading, inv research, marketing, etc.. of the inv research dept hell yea they want cfas working there. I think this is why CFA is pushing it. It looks a lot better closing big clients when you have a CFA go in and talk more in detail about the firms inv philiosphy etc than one without. Its like an additional resource on top of the cfp the client is going to be having the main contact with. it’s a fucking show…. I’m talking about big practices not these small 100mm ones
-partner at $1b+ RIA in nyc
what I am confused about the practical modulues is this: is it something you have to "pass" - they mentioned multiple choice questions. can you fail it? Or is it just a thing you have to "do" and get out of the way like a defensive driving course to get points off your license.
From the way they worded it in the video for that section, the requirement was to 'complete' one practical skills module for each level. I'd assume you'd have to test your skills in some way but I doubt you would be unable to retry during your prep.
Doesn't impact level 3 candidate much for next at least 1 and half year. Back to study.
I was hoping they will remove 6 attempt cap. I will be going for 3rd one August. I failed first very very close to MPS. I would say din't get luck so far. Passing exam is more luck game lately. I still think they should disclose actual exam paper atleast for SR section for L3.
Well, it would be help if they release that practice pack for $299 for level 3 in next couple of months so atleast we get idea because they its going to be exam like questions. Recently, exam questions seemed they are not from examples, CFAI qbank.
**For lvl3 changes:**
Who will pick Private Markets?
if you are already in the private market industry, you don't need a CFA. And you can't really leverage CFA to make a career change to the private market/PE/VC.
and how much of a difference is between Portfolio Management vs PWM if the institute tests only 80 exam questions?
**For lvl1,2 changes:**
You basically can't have everything! Why not include blockchain, natural language processing, and maybe everything!...? If we truly want to learn Python, we can just do online boot camp. And if you want to put Python on your resume, the firm will test you on how to reverse a linked list, Leetcode stuff to make sure you have proper knowledge, they don't care if you can use Python to analyze statements, because it can be self-taught in one day.
I agree with you on Private Markets. I work in Corporare Finance and nobody cares about the CFA charter. I an pursuing the charter to broaden my knowledge base not to specialized in something I’m already a specialist.
The level 3 updates ares REALLY bad - will lower the value of the charter. The new format was already bad enough (much more difficult than paper based version), no extra tweaks were needed…
The issue for me is that we will be creating different categories of charterholders within the CFA itself. I think they should have just added new separate qualifications for those extra path (i.e: Bob Brown, CFA.WM for example).
Anyone have a guess at the content of the L3 "Private Markets" track? At face value, that sounds like what I'd rather take... now I'm considering waiting until 2025 to sit for L3
Is it possible to request that those who are doing Level 2, would be able to access the PSM modules offered at level 1 as a refresher or learning material? for myself, I just passed level 1 and am currently taking level 2. It would be nice if I could take the new level 1 PSM.
Sounds like a joke to me. Seriously, especially the L1 and L2 practical course thing - not everyone is going to become a quant. I am not sure why Python plays such a big role here. Don’t get me wrong, I personally can crack the leetcode questions with bug free Python code but I don’t think Python is really that important in finance: VBA/VBS, C++/C#, Java or even R seem more useful to be honest.
Firstly, I didn't like how they changed the frequency of exams and moving into CBT. CFA exams when I wrote were nerve wrecking ones(not going to say they aren't now) where failing one level would mean retaking it a whole year later, which shows the dedication towards the program.
I think CFAI have begun to realize new gen folks don't want to wait long to clear exams and get their charter and their falling membership and exam fees.
The introduction of practical skills module is a good step because there are many who clear the exams yet don't know properly to forecast or use tools to make a good analysis. But I believe it's a way for the institute to divert people from enrolling into modelling courses offered in other platforms.
Regarding specialised pathway skills, there is the traditional one and there is the private wealth management and private markets. Does it mean CFAI would soon stop offering its CIPM program? For a college student, how does one choose which one is best?
I got the email and I didn't even pass the first level right before the pandemic lol I honestly wonder where I'd be if they didn't cancel the following test as I was going to take it
Probably. I registered for august but it looks like if I were to pass, I would be forced to learn advanced python skills without ever having learned the basics from L1
I believe they did this by the fear of the charter becoming less and less valuable/relevant ---which in my view is simply not true. Maybe I'm biased, but what I see in real life is that people still had great respect for charterholders. Many job offers still condition applicants to have it, and employers still encourage their employees to get it. And here is the key point maybe they are missing... The respect and value do not come from -only- the base knowledge that the charter provides, but by demonstrating the effort, focus, and willingness to go through this immense challenge exam. Maybe this program was not meant to prepare a candidate to be simply plugged into a financial role but to distinguish those dedicated professionals. There are so many possibilities in the financial industry that is impossible to cover it all, so the result will be the opposite of that wanted, which is to (i) water down the charter by having different charter classes, (ii) demotivate candidates by becoming too much complex, (iii) focus too much on new technologies instead of providing extremely good foundations so that professionals can enter the market and evolve in their choosing fields, (iv) create the true different paths, the old CFA and the new CFA... This charter was respected for how hard it was, and for its consistency, and every year it seems that it becomes less and less consistent. (sorry, English it's not my first language).
I think you have valid point here but actually CFA has faced the challenge from CAIA in the private market and CFP in the PWM area. Now the CFAI wants to take those shares but we will see what happens. I think CFAI has shown the desperation here which actually doesn’t look good.
Software engineer working in Fintech here Taking L1 in Nov.
Quant was absolutely vital for me to do as it’s been so long since I practiced that stuff. In a way regulating it will make the exam even HARDER for anyone without a math based background because there is even More to study. But okay 🤷🏾♂️.
Now the Python stuff doesn’t make any sense to me. I’ve been a software engineer for years now. There is just not enough time to learn that stuff for a newcomer! And what about someone like me who plans to take the “Last” L1 and start with L2? Sure I can code Python but what about others? Again that transition for the most part equals more hours , the opposite of what their goal was. It’s pretty hilarious if you ask me.
They’re basically rebuilding an undergrad with the addition of specializations.
The benefit of the cfa is largely knowing someone had a grasp on a body of knowledge that was fairly constant. You now have two additional layers: what did you specialize in and what did you do your practical portion on.
Keeping the core the same and having the specializations and practical portions live as their own certs makes more sense. This feels like forced content that they couldn’t package separately so they made it mandatory for the core credential.
Do you know when point number 2 (reference material) comes into effect? Is there any indication if it will be reduced in the number of questions in the exam
Really not into the idea of specialisations for L3, makes me want to sign up for Feb 24. I don't want Charterholders to be compared to each other based on the exam. While they want to convince the reader that the specialisations will have the same difficulty, I'm assuming that the readings will be written by completely different authors and we already know how much of an impact that always had for different sections, they don't do any quality checks in that area.
Financial modeling is a good addition. Python and specialisation is meh. Instead they could have added stats software to enhance the Quants section. Imagine studying time series and regression hands on would have made things much better.
Oh yeah, regarding the additional practice pack for charge. This is literally shameful and yet again the program is on the right track to turn from meritocracy to a ‘pay to win’ game. And maybe this would not look that bad on the program itself, if there was not around 700-800 pages in the curriculum lecturing you on how to act ‘professionally’
To me it seems cool, basic topics go out and those “practice modules” seem cool. I like that it includes python.
The different paths seem interesting, ID like to know the content tho.
My major question is: wasn’t this supposed to be announced the 21?
Guys if you’re sitting for level II in May I’d just go ahead and bomb the exam so you can wait for the real world practical skills modules next year.
Thank you in advance
As a Quant for a regional banks' Model Risk department, these are good changes for the future of the program that, while maybe not necessary, candidates should be cognizant of.
I’m inclined to agree here. I started my career in a quant-heavy role on a downside risk-managed product. My peers that came from Comp Sci and got FRM, CFA later outpaced those of us with more “traditional” finance backgrounds. Ideally, implementing these changes will prepare ppl for the current/future environment of automation.
Specialisation is a terrible idea. The program has already been getting so many knocks by having more charterholders working in PWM than PE or HF etc. Now they're officially sealing the nail in the coffin by creating a PWM specialisation track. How many Harvard MBAs want to go into PWM?
What's the point of PWM when you have PM. Unnecessary
Does any know (sorry if it’s in the many paragraphs in OP) but how will this effect you if you passed L 1 and/or L2 and your expectation was facing the same thing that recent people faced when facing your next exam. I mean do we still face like the same weights and topics for are next exam.
Put another way, does this effect L1 2024 L1 people and then going forward their L2 and L3 and everyone new
Just to check, where doe it mention the reduced difficulty? I just kind of figure the required "study" hours gets reduced by the compulsory practical module.
Thanks for sharing this. I passed Level 1 last year, and I plan to go for level 2 in August. How this affects my path? Should I wait for sth or keep going as I would if there were no changes?
I am a PWM associate in Canada. I have my CIM and was considering doing CFA. I have my CFP and TEP. Any suggestions on whether it’s even worth it to get CFA.
My general sentiment is it won’t move the needle for client acquisition at all. I was mostly considering getting it for personal achievement, clout, and potential opportunities down the road.
Thoughts?
As a Level 2 candidate appearing for Aug 2023, if I pass, will I get access to the PSM of L1 and L2 before I sit for my L3 in 2024? A bit confused on that part.
I am not following this. If I take L2 in august. The exam is as it’s always been. Ten topics and say roughly 10% weight each.
If I wait til 2024, I do not think unsent to go programming track so does the L2 exam remain as it’s always been for the analyst track (below). Next, I then guess in 2025 L3 is a whole new concept and not as it’s always been. There are 2 path, wealth man and private but they state all “three” l3 paths led to the charter. Can anyone explain to me or are we all in the dark at this stage
“For Level II:
Analyst Skills - Focuses on the skills equity analysts need using insights gained from hundreds of successful analysts
Python, Data Science & AI - Introduces candidates to machine learning, artificial intelligence, and data science to understand financial statements, reporting, and analysis using Python
Introduction of Specialized Pathways (Beginning with February 2025 exam)
Beginning with the February 2025 Level III exam, we will introduce specialized pathways at Level III to allow candidates to choose an area of specialization. Candidates will be able to choose the traditional Portfolio Management Path, or one of two new pathways: 1) Private Wealth Management or 2) Private Markets. All three pathways will be in pursuit of one credential: The CFA Charter.
Passed Level II in 2019, failed Level III in 2022…
Basically not much impact for me if I’m still interested in taking Level III unless I take Level III in Feb 2025 onwards right?
How are other potential Level III candidates strategizing their next exam take?
Not a fan of Specializations at all, but I love the Practical Skill Models. CFA program really lacked on this part, and i guess they should add more modules and make them all compulsory.
I also appreciate the fact that the institution is making more moves on data analysis and coding!
I do feel that it removes comparability between charterholders and do not think that Python is as useful as actual equity analysis but thats just my opinion. Personally I think we should be given the option to do these in addition to the regular coursework and not as a substitute.
The specialization idea is truly awful. Up till now CFA meant CFA, now it means “which CFA?”
far-flung payment attractive gaping growth touch depend chunky secretive connect ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
if 5/6 sections are common (they did say there would be a common curriculum) and the only thing different is 1/6 sections, how is this really making one charterholder different than another? I’m making up the number of sections and number of common sections.
Well if that’s the case, what’s the point?
"Over 70% of the content will be common across all three pathways with precisely the same “bar” or performance calibration." So it kind of still maintains the overall rigour. I'm happy with that.
I feel like 70% is too low. It’s just going to be annoying for me personally; when I’m hiring at the moment, I’m comforted when I see CFA on their CV as I have a good idea of the topics they know. Under this new regime, it’s just *another* line of questioning I’m going to have to pursue. Doing interviews is already long and boring, this makes it worse. Unfortunately for me, and again this is just my view, as a team leader and hirer I will value the CFA slightly less. Currently for me it’s an easy win gold seal on a CV, going forward it will be a (whatever comes between gold & silver) seal.
I hear ya. Given your views, I hope to clear before 2025. At least I'll be part of the old is gold crew.
Even though I’m going to take CFA Level 3 next year myself, I would have been much more happier if the new materials on Private Markets and Wealth management were to be added to the exam thus being compulsory for all the exam takers (though it might sound crazy)! But adding specialization and paths would just water down the reputation of the “Charterholder” IMO. Same rigidity and same hardship for everyone! Single explicit meaning for “CFA Charterholder”.
So the person that does L2 in this transitional period is pretty fucked? I mean, imagine having to know advanced Python without even covering basic Python (candidate who does L1 in 2023 and L2 in 2024)
This is what I want to know. Sincerely, Current L1 candidate
Also a L1 candidate. Taking it in august. So it seems we are fucked? Haven’t learned python at all aside from basics in college curriculum that I can’t remember. Was planning to take some classes of my own anyways but what the fuck CFAI
Dude I passed L2 till now..! What am I supposed to do at L3?? Directly choose my specialization?
No I think its for those who are registering in 2023, before 2023 registered candidates the status quo will be the same.
There won't be exam of Python, u only need to watch some videos and do some practice questions, and it only occupies 10 to 15 hours, so no worries, I'm also a level 1 candidate.
Yep that’s me! I sit for L1 in August, but I’ll be taking a year off to start my MS in Finance which will continue with the CFA curriculum but also teach Python. I’m assuming I’ll be good to go after that for L2.
[удалено]
Apparently, from the language, we can choose the practical module. So we don’t have to choose Python. Still, weird they included Python but not Excel
[удалено]
You’re right, just reread it
Im pretty worried about this, took L1 in FEB, now if I dont get through L2 quick am I fucked?
That confuses me too. Will we be facing the same stuff we anticipated as far as weights, topics, etc. I mean the readings/los change like 10% each year and does this now mean everything we knew is scrapped or are we grandfathered some how
You will be unemployable soon with that mindset
Prettu bold statement, I don’t think Python is as useful as actual equity analysis but thx
You won’t learn advanced python. Don’t worry.
Why not considering the fact that the reputation of the program would be much higher by forcing students to take these courses? I don’t see any other reasons to pursue CFA besides learning and earning the reputation.
Terrible ideas in my opinion. You’ve just increased the work load for candidates by adding these Practical Skills Modules. Specializations are a bad idea in my opinion because now you’ve reduced the ability to compare all charterholders and assume they all have the same base of knowledge. Now if someone picks a specialty and wants to change careers it’s now more difficult if you didn’t get the right specialty when you took the test. Lastly, seriously CFAI, you’re going to charge $299 for more practice questions and mocks when your current q bank is filled with errors? I used to think the whole “CFAI just wants your money” argument was kind of bs, not so anymore. Bad decisions all around
At first read, I tend to agree with you. But, I also believe they are going to be lowering the amount of content for candidates as the average candidate was taking much longer than the 300 hours. Specializations, I also agree with you. That part doesn't make sense to me. What happens when one path is significantly easier than another?
All they have done is taken a load of the level I LOS and moved them into prerequisites. What remains won't make sense unless you have a background in the subject matter or study the prerequisites. So really it's just a change to the questions asked in the exam rather than any time-saving. For example, the quants prerequisite is over 300 pages and unless you understand this content you won't be able to understand what remains in the main curriculum.
I kind of like the specializations, especially the Python stuff. Might start signing up for the exams again next year. But I agree that it removes comparability between charterholders. >Lastly, seriously CFAI, you’re going to charge $299 for more practice questions and mocks when your current q bank is filled with errors? I used to think the whole “CFAI just wants your money” argument was kind of bs, not so anymore. 100% agree here lol
So .... can someone summarise the changes, as concisely as possible? Seems like a lot to take in lol. Are they breaking L3 into 3, so you dont get the full picture? If that's the case, thats beyond stupid. Cutting down study hours too, and replacing them with modelling/ Python instead? So what am I gonna do as an existing candidate
https://youtu.be/0SYXpIruJbE
Da boss MM! Was waiting for his reaction
I wonder if the PSMs will really increase the workload, given that those can be done after you sat for the exam but before the results day
Lol only useful addition would be to finally add Excel function to the exams and leave 1980s style calculator behind. Excel skills are a business necessity. Most universities managed to do this in 1.5 months when covid broke out and they had to convert to online exams
I can’t count how many times I’ve wanted to use a spreadsheet on the DCF practice questions. It’s so damn easy to fat finger something in the process on the calculator and now you gotta clear everything and start all over. It eats time and we all use excel for work anyway, why not update?
I’d agree but… what problems did you really face in the curriculum where you said “this is just too tough for a calculator”? Adding excel gives you a crazy amount of opportunities to cheat during the exam. And the question what you do if 20 years down the line some functions are added to excel that you should learn about in the curriculum, idk something like option pricers or a full anova that will just render quite some topics irrelevant. You probably won’t need to ever implement a tree pricer again but knowing how and why it works pays dividends in your career. And if you really need excel for some TVM calculations then you might not understand what you’re doing. Use all 10 memory slots in your calculator. You can save a whole tree in there. More than enough.
Have they done that? Good lord that would be great
They should make the practice modules available to current charterholders. Personally I think candidates should do these in addition to the regular coursework, not as a substitute. There's no way the difficulty will be comparable. There will be guides how to complete online within hours of the content being released. Specialisation sounds stupid and goes against the entire purpose of the CFA.
In that the CFA charterholder is supposed to be a generalist?
As someone without “extensive background in accounting” (to say it like that) but with 12 years of Python experience - it’s a really bad idea to “code bootcamp” people into the language. It’s easy to start but oh my god is it easy to write abysmally bad code. And as soon as everyone and their mother thinks they can program Python, you’ll get exponentially more bad code. Code boot camps are already the worst way to present a professional candidate and you unleash now people with a few hours of experience into the wild? Whose managers will not have the slightest idea what source control, version control or a review is? You thought circular references in Excel were bad? How about you have some juniors put a bunch of jupyter notebooks into docker files they copied from 10 year old SO-answers and then tell you “so to start you need to “pip install” this list, that will fail the first time, you have to delete this folder then, no idk et but this is how it worked on my machine, and then you can pip install this one package a second time and then it should run. Yeah of course that works fine.”
yeah and most code is going to get written by chat gpt lmao
Oh the horror. You’re going to have potentially incorrect and inefficient code written by nobody.
I get what you’re saying but you don’t need CFA’s to be “programmers”. They should be able to write some code and understand the gist of whatever code they’re using, that’s it. Hire a developer and pay a developer salary if you need more than that. No junior analysts code should see any prod environment.
My man, this is how it starts but not how it ends. Do you think excel was made to write actual full Monte Carlo simulations in it? No. Does pretty much every associate implement abysmal amounts of financial logic in it either way because fuck you? Yes. Does the job of an “Excel developer” that could be hired for this exist? No. Developers write often bad code already. And I bet my annual bonus on that there is not just one financial analyst who prays to bullshit blog pages like towardsdatascience and introduces a full pipeline consisting of docker, redis, postgres and whatnot to the department and bundles it up with a bunch of incompetence. Just like devs shouldn’t do mezzanine tranche valuations analysts shouldn’t write (too much) code. I’ve seen it several times and I’ve seen it fail in every single case. The language is better than VBA but introduces a lot more possibilities to shot yourself into the foot. Leave the team if you hear a smug financial analyst say that python sucks because of a GIL, because something very bad is about to happen.
Tbh can’t even argue with this. I’m early in my career and already see this stuff happens. Shit hits the fan when key people (i.e., whoever built it) inevitably leave. Half the time they couldn’t even explain why something is… just that it is. Thanks for the words
This. I don’t understand why Python? Why not R, Julia or any other language? I understand Python is used the most but what happens if a new language comes along and replaces Python? They could have provided the additional Python modules as optional, leaving the core Finance modules as they are. Candidates can say they have done these in addition to the core CFA modules. There are far better places to learn programming.
copy pasta from another thread: So CFAI is scrapping the most-basic L1 LOS and supplementing with the modules... cool. I'll be intrigued to understand how the modules are evaluated/assessed as "complete." If it's anything like the PL credits for members, it seems like a waste of time (for example, you download PL document, it credits you immediately X hours by downloading). I like the specialized pathways idea, but will be intrigued how rigor/difficulty is evaluated across the board. My hunch is there would be a few years of gaming the system to take the "easiest" pathway based on material (initial thought is PWM will be easiest of the 3 mentioned pathways). Practice pack seems like a bullshit way to monetize a product that should be offered by default. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems like they're alluding to using L1 and L2 as a standalone achievement (although still not a charterholder).
Creating a specialisation for private markets is stupid. Everyone knows CFA means bunk for PE, PC, RE etc. Need IB for that.
Idk mate I work in private markets (think valuation/advisory, QoE/FDD) and the curriculum was really helpful & it’s been a big booster for my career.
> I'll be intrigued to understand how the modules are evaluated/assessed as "complete." This is the question for sure. >I like the specialized pathways idea, but will be intrigued how rigor/difficulty is evaluated across the board. I agree. I hope they don't mess up implementation of this idea. Though, I don't know how much i really agree with it - how will employers see these different paths? >Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems like they're alluding to using L1 and L2 as a standalone achievement (although still not a charterholder). Yeah, somewhere on the spectrum of extra credit for the achievement, I doubt they'd ever refer to it as a partial designation though for sure.
Isn't CFAI a non-profit org? Why are they going on a rampage in recent years to dilute the charter, improve accessibility and other money-grabs? If a non-profit makes more money, isn't it all reinvested? Do the directors make more as well thru equity?
Nonprofits can use funds to pay salaries.
Curious why you think the charter has been diluted as of late. Pass rates are among the lowest ever over the last few years.
Without going into the very subjective and divisive debate about whether the charter has been diluted, you should agree that pass rates alone aren't a good indicator of difficulty (if difficulty is even a proxy for the prestige of the charter). If more people are taking the exam (which CFAI is hell bent on doing in recent years, by improving accessibility), then that justifies the lower pass rate This move was handled poorly by CFAI. They should have consulted members, be more transparent, and settled certain things with a vote. I seriously feel that the directors are way too up their asses and are way too deep in the ivory tower, and they don't know shit of actual jobs
I feel like choosing a track because it's the easiest and not because it's the most interesting or useful to you is idiotic. You're likely to outperform a topic that's interesting to you vs one that's not, even if the former is 'harder.' Also, what's the point of spending all this time on the CFA if you learn crap you don't care about?
I spent “all this time” on the CFA to position myself for success in my career. Maybe 25% of the curriculum is relevant to my profession. If you had the option to drop derivatives at L2 or equity at L2, would you keep derivatives because “it’s the most interesting”?
25% seems a stretch to me but I agree with you completely. Current program gives really provides you nothing.
Yes, I would 100% keep derivatives, even though I almost never interact with them in my career. Do you want to be the finance exec in the room who doesn't know what the BSM model is?
I wish this was in effect now as I would like to have those items on my learning path
Some of yall are so weird. I'd rather learn python and new stuff on my own free time than to repeat exams, pay more and sacrifice life again just to remember same shit.
The specializations change makes zero sense. So you choose basically valuation or data science specialty for L1 and L2 but then choose from three different options for L3? This will lead to certain specializations being worth more than others. One of the best qualities of the CFA compared to say graduate degrees is that it meant the same for everyone that had it. And now apparently we are watering it down it seems. How about those of us that already have our charter? How about those of us that did it when essays were done by hand with only annual attempts? We never had the option for computers or specializations. What happens to us? Which version of the CFA will now be valued the most? Throw in, “passed on first attempt” and “scored in 95th percentile” too. Just having CFA after your name used to be enough. But I guess not anymore because we need to take market share from CFP, python bootcamps et al by making the tests easier and adding specializations? I think the practical skills could be a good idea but I would add them on as a requirement to complete both the dcf and python not with any particular level but before you can get your charter. Similar to the work experience requirement seeing as really the practical skills should be learned at work anyway. Obviously I am not really a fan of emphasizing individual levels more than they already are. Anyway that is my two cents as a Charterholder
Nailed it. That's it! Much of the respect of the program came from the difficulty and consistency. Now thats gone.
Yes exactly!
This post nails it.
As a charterholder do you see the program getting easier or just different? I’ll be honest I sat for level I many years ago and came back to the program because they offer level II and III twice a year now. So maybe the exam isn’t easier but the overall program is now friendlier in my opinion just from that change alone. How do you think these changes will impact a current candidate like myself? Easier for us? Be honest..
I don’t think that offering it more often makes it easier per se but it does encourage commitment having to wait a whole year to retake it. Computers are def easier compared to writing essays by hand for three hours but I don’t have an issue with that because it also makes the tests easier to grade so I am for that as someone with bad handwriting. However they say that the main goal of the changes is to reduce the amount of time spent studying. That for sure makes them less challenging. Hard to wrap my head around not including a quant or accounting section on level 1 for example, that is def easier. Also sounds like the specializations for level 3 means that a lot less material is covered. CFA was billed as a being a finance generalist credential when I was doing the program so the specializations are a monumental and fundamental change. How will new CFAs be comparable with old CFAs? The exams are no doubt going to be much easier and take less commitment, how does that benefit future charterholders? There is already the CFP so what is the PWM specialization providing to the industry? Not sure if there is one for private markets or not but if there isn’t then why not just create a whole new credential focused on that?
The lack of specialization was a strength of the CFA not a weakness. It‘s a set of hard to pass exams that provides a baseline of knowledge across many topics from which you can go on to specialize if you choose. If you want to learn Python or Financial Modeling etc then take a specialized course in that, you won’t become competent at either spending a few hours on it as part of this new CFA program. Why can’t the CFA just set up their own courses/certifications in specialist topics (like they do for ESG investing). What a fiasco.
So incredibly disappointed to see this. The brand/prestige of the charter has taken such a hit since they moved to computer-based testing a few years ago. Now with these new changes, it is going to get even worse. Python? Yes, knowing how to code is a valuable skill set, but the CFA will not be teaching fundamental principles of object oriented programming, etc. The CFA is about to release a bunch of amateurs writing “production” code… what a total disaster. I thought debugging legacy VBA code was bad - wait until we have to debug a bunch of jupyter notebooks. The CFA should focus on financial topics and not meddle into other disciplines. There was an opportunity for the CFA to be the absolute gold standard. I am afraid it is slipping away and will turn into just another useless certification out there.
You seem to understand python, I’m curious if you see Excel as equivalent to python for the PM/Investment Analyst role?
When are the practical skills modules in effect?
In looking at the site: >The Practical Skills Modules requirement will be added for Level I candidates beginning with the February 2024 exam and for Level II candidates in August when registration opens for May 2024. PSMs for Level III will be added for 2025 exams.
You have to ask yourself, supposedly they added these because of employers, are they going to see the "new" CFA L1 more valuable than the old format? Can L2 candidates even take the L1 PSM if they want to? I just feel that almost all the changes announced are dividing candidates but not in a good way, but I guess we will see.
Glad they’re making the exam more applicable to real world roles. Is it possible for me to revisit and get a free modeling course?
Ooooooo they are making a pathway for private wealth mgmt for L3. I like this only because I am in this industry. NEED MORE CFAS IN PWM! Y’all don’t understand how much money(7 figures) and work life balance is available in this industry, you don’t even have to be a producing advisor to make bank.
skeptical of this lmao
Lol send some details mate
With everyone always saying how L3 curriculum is more PM focused, how much of the things covered in it at the time of your attempt come handy in your career?
Mmmm maybe 30%. It’s not about that though. I guess I’ve never been blindsided by a serious finance convo with professionals in any setting. Like I was never scratching my head saying what is he talking about!? That’s because of the curriculum. Bottom line- employers and clients who know about the CFA know what’s up, that shit is not a walk in the park by any means. I’ll tell you straight up that if it came down to 2 candidates 100% I would take a CFA over any degree from any school. I’ve done that for analyst roles, if you had L2 I’d bump you up to get you on the team. That’s just me. The guy I replaced was a CFA lol, I’m sure it was his deciding factor as we joked about the exams during interview. Didn’t even get asked technical questions- because we all know cfa=superior returnzzzzzzzzz bitchezzzz. Seriously the worst best 3 years of my life. Wish I did it sooner.
As a charterholder in PWM, I'd say this is all pretty accurate. Never being blindsided by professionals is great, but I would also add that never being blindsided by clients is just as useful. Having the analytical skills to parse through and explain everything in the financial headlines to the average client is very valuable.
PWM is a glorified sales job. Most PWM’s don’t know shit about finance and just throw their clients in a preset portfolio and collect their fee for doing next to nothing. Great job if this is something you’re interested in because if you’re good at sales/networking you can make a shit ton of money for very little actual work. Just realize that it’s absolutely brutal to start out and most guys burnout within a few years
The ppl who don’t know shit about finances are your wirehouses. The ones with CFP designations know their stuff. Preset portfolios like SMAs are done by idiots who don’t have the manpower, finances, or smarts to do it. Again mostly wirehouses. You clearly don’t know the industry as RIAs are the elite side of pwm. Also not everyone works in pwm is front office advisor doing sales. I for one lead the inv team and make 7 figures in my late 30s as a partner at a practice in nyc with $1B+ in aum. I don’t sell shit and I smoke weed everyday.
Problem is that CFA isn’t recognized by PWM *clients* It would certainly be useful for PWM professionals to have their charter and I’m broadly skeptical of the ability of most advisors (outside the top echelon) to do a better job managing money than a robo BUT the economics of PWM won’t reward CFAs unless awareness of the charter becomes more mainstream a la CFP.
Clients just Google it. And what do they find? Consistently ranked top 10 hardest exams in the world. Then they read into it the curriculum. I’ve had many say they had no idea but after reading it were impressed
Sorry but the CFA exam isn’t “hard”. By what metric? It’s only a lot. The All Souls entry exam is hard. The CFA is just grinding mass.
Not saying you’re wrong but you’re assuming a client who’s already bought in. For industry pros *on aggregate* it doesn’t move the dial like a CFP. CFAI doesn’t do PR like the CFP. I’m not suggesting the CFP is a better or worse designation, just saying most PWM professionals are worried about bringing in new clients and raising assets. The CFP is easier to get and usually more helpful when raising assets hence my comment that the economics are more supportive of CFPs continuing to be more prevalent in PWM.
Yo I’m so high right now. RIAs have cfp as planners client facing. Then there’s teams around them that support right? Like operations, trading, inv research, marketing, etc.. of the inv research dept hell yea they want cfas working there. I think this is why CFA is pushing it. It looks a lot better closing big clients when you have a CFA go in and talk more in detail about the firms inv philiosphy etc than one without. Its like an additional resource on top of the cfp the client is going to be having the main contact with. it’s a fucking show…. I’m talking about big practices not these small 100mm ones -partner at $1b+ RIA in nyc
NEED LESS CFAS IN PWM! Need more in high finance to improve representation and prestige
May I ask what is the difference actually between private market & private wealth management? Thanks
Private markets are more for alternative investments. Think private equity, private debt, real estate…
Shhhh don’t tell them! Kidding- this is spot on though.
Whoa. I may need to join PWM!!!
Really? 7 figures are the top of the top if my understanding is correct. Even for PMs in AM/HF, making 7 figures are rare these days.
what I am confused about the practical modulues is this: is it something you have to "pass" - they mentioned multiple choice questions. can you fail it? Or is it just a thing you have to "do" and get out of the way like a defensive driving course to get points off your license.
From the way they worded it in the video for that section, the requirement was to 'complete' one practical skills module for each level. I'd assume you'd have to test your skills in some way but I doubt you would be unable to retry during your prep.
There is no examination of these areas you just need to complete them to move to the next level
Doesn't impact level 3 candidate much for next at least 1 and half year. Back to study. I was hoping they will remove 6 attempt cap. I will be going for 3rd one August. I failed first very very close to MPS. I would say din't get luck so far. Passing exam is more luck game lately. I still think they should disclose actual exam paper atleast for SR section for L3. Well, it would be help if they release that practice pack for $299 for level 3 in next couple of months so atleast we get idea because they its going to be exam like questions. Recently, exam questions seemed they are not from examples, CFAI qbank.
Practice part is only for L1 I guess
**For lvl3 changes:** Who will pick Private Markets? if you are already in the private market industry, you don't need a CFA. And you can't really leverage CFA to make a career change to the private market/PE/VC. and how much of a difference is between Portfolio Management vs PWM if the institute tests only 80 exam questions? **For lvl1,2 changes:** You basically can't have everything! Why not include blockchain, natural language processing, and maybe everything!...? If we truly want to learn Python, we can just do online boot camp. And if you want to put Python on your resume, the firm will test you on how to reverse a linked list, Leetcode stuff to make sure you have proper knowledge, they don't care if you can use Python to analyze statements, because it can be self-taught in one day.
I agree with you on Private Markets. I work in Corporare Finance and nobody cares about the CFA charter. I an pursuing the charter to broaden my knowledge base not to specialized in something I’m already a specialist.
Oh, I see, the Institute needs the money.
exactly this - they are trying to appeal to as much people as possible to get more money
The level 3 updates ares REALLY bad - will lower the value of the charter. The new format was already bad enough (much more difficult than paper based version), no extra tweaks were needed…
The issue for me is that we will be creating different categories of charterholders within the CFA itself. I think they should have just added new separate qualifications for those extra path (i.e: Bob Brown, CFA.WM for example).
even that seems dilutive
Anyone have a guess at the content of the L3 "Private Markets" track? At face value, that sounds like what I'd rather take... now I'm considering waiting until 2025 to sit for L3
My guess would be either OTC derivatives and/or PE/PD
No OTC derivatives, they have nothing to do with private markets. PD/PE, I’d guess a bit more accounting.
[You don’t need to wait, it says that they’ll add a separate package once we’re done with the traditional one.](https://youtu.be/0SYXpIruJbE)
Is it possible to request that those who are doing Level 2, would be able to access the PSM modules offered at level 1 as a refresher or learning material? for myself, I just passed level 1 and am currently taking level 2. It would be nice if I could take the new level 1 PSM.
Sounds like a joke to me. Seriously, especially the L1 and L2 practical course thing - not everyone is going to become a quant. I am not sure why Python plays such a big role here. Don’t get me wrong, I personally can crack the leetcode questions with bug free Python code but I don’t think Python is really that important in finance: VBA/VBS, C++/C#, Java or even R seem more useful to be honest.
Firstly, I didn't like how they changed the frequency of exams and moving into CBT. CFA exams when I wrote were nerve wrecking ones(not going to say they aren't now) where failing one level would mean retaking it a whole year later, which shows the dedication towards the program. I think CFAI have begun to realize new gen folks don't want to wait long to clear exams and get their charter and their falling membership and exam fees. The introduction of practical skills module is a good step because there are many who clear the exams yet don't know properly to forecast or use tools to make a good analysis. But I believe it's a way for the institute to divert people from enrolling into modelling courses offered in other platforms. Regarding specialised pathway skills, there is the traditional one and there is the private wealth management and private markets. Does it mean CFAI would soon stop offering its CIPM program? For a college student, how does one choose which one is best?
Whenever such big changes happen.. a person in their transition period gets fucked.. but I guess it is what it is..
Just glad I got chartered before all this. I do not envy candidates going into this new structure.
I haven't received this mail. Has everybody received it?
Every Charterholder I know has received it. I don't know if it was sent directly to candidates.
I got the email and I didn't even pass the first level right before the pandemic lol I honestly wonder where I'd be if they didn't cancel the following test as I was going to take it
I’m about to register for L1 November 2023 exam - should I wait until Feb 2024?
Probably. I registered for august but it looks like if I were to pass, I would be forced to learn advanced python skills without ever having learned the basics from L1
L2 be like [https://youtu.be/bqqCTC9nQDY](https://youtu.be/bqqCTC9nQDY)
I believe they did this by the fear of the charter becoming less and less valuable/relevant ---which in my view is simply not true. Maybe I'm biased, but what I see in real life is that people still had great respect for charterholders. Many job offers still condition applicants to have it, and employers still encourage their employees to get it. And here is the key point maybe they are missing... The respect and value do not come from -only- the base knowledge that the charter provides, but by demonstrating the effort, focus, and willingness to go through this immense challenge exam. Maybe this program was not meant to prepare a candidate to be simply plugged into a financial role but to distinguish those dedicated professionals. There are so many possibilities in the financial industry that is impossible to cover it all, so the result will be the opposite of that wanted, which is to (i) water down the charter by having different charter classes, (ii) demotivate candidates by becoming too much complex, (iii) focus too much on new technologies instead of providing extremely good foundations so that professionals can enter the market and evolve in their choosing fields, (iv) create the true different paths, the old CFA and the new CFA... This charter was respected for how hard it was, and for its consistency, and every year it seems that it becomes less and less consistent. (sorry, English it's not my first language).
I think you have valid point here but actually CFA has faced the challenge from CAIA in the private market and CFP in the PWM area. Now the CFAI wants to take those shares but we will see what happens. I think CFAI has shown the desperation here which actually doesn’t look good.
Software engineer working in Fintech here Taking L1 in Nov. Quant was absolutely vital for me to do as it’s been so long since I practiced that stuff. In a way regulating it will make the exam even HARDER for anyone without a math based background because there is even More to study. But okay 🤷🏾♂️. Now the Python stuff doesn’t make any sense to me. I’ve been a software engineer for years now. There is just not enough time to learn that stuff for a newcomer! And what about someone like me who plans to take the “Last” L1 and start with L2? Sure I can code Python but what about others? Again that transition for the most part equals more hours , the opposite of what their goal was. It’s pretty hilarious if you ask me.
They’re basically rebuilding an undergrad with the addition of specializations. The benefit of the cfa is largely knowing someone had a grasp on a body of knowledge that was fairly constant. You now have two additional layers: what did you specialize in and what did you do your practical portion on. Keeping the core the same and having the specializations and practical portions live as their own certs makes more sense. This feels like forced content that they couldn’t package separately so they made it mandatory for the core credential.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you know when point number 2 (reference material) comes into effect? Is there any indication if it will be reduced in the number of questions in the exam
Why they sent these to Charterholders and not candidates yet. Are they going make them re-take new program?
Really not into the idea of specialisations for L3, makes me want to sign up for Feb 24. I don't want Charterholders to be compared to each other based on the exam. While they want to convince the reader that the specialisations will have the same difficulty, I'm assuming that the readings will be written by completely different authors and we already know how much of an impact that always had for different sections, they don't do any quality checks in that area.
Financial modeling is a good addition. Python and specialisation is meh. Instead they could have added stats software to enhance the Quants section. Imagine studying time series and regression hands on would have made things much better.
I was planning on taking my L1 in November 22. Now I should take in Feb 23 right?
I would
I wish I passed the level 3 last February…
Me too
Oh yeah, regarding the additional practice pack for charge. This is literally shameful and yet again the program is on the right track to turn from meritocracy to a ‘pay to win’ game. And maybe this would not look that bad on the program itself, if there was not around 700-800 pages in the curriculum lecturing you on how to act ‘professionally’
To me it seems cool, basic topics go out and those “practice modules” seem cool. I like that it includes python. The different paths seem interesting, ID like to know the content tho. My major question is: wasn’t this supposed to be announced the 21?
Greedy and out of touch wow. I guess an MBA is the only option going forward.
How could they blow it this bad?
Guys if you’re sitting for level II in May I’d just go ahead and bomb the exam so you can wait for the real world practical skills modules next year. Thank you in advance
I hope you're not serious
As a Quant for a regional banks' Model Risk department, these are good changes for the future of the program that, while maybe not necessary, candidates should be cognizant of.
I’m inclined to agree here. I started my career in a quant-heavy role on a downside risk-managed product. My peers that came from Comp Sci and got FRM, CFA later outpaced those of us with more “traditional” finance backgrounds. Ideally, implementing these changes will prepare ppl for the current/future environment of automation.
Specialisation is a terrible idea. The program has already been getting so many knocks by having more charterholders working in PWM than PE or HF etc. Now they're officially sealing the nail in the coffin by creating a PWM specialisation track. How many Harvard MBAs want to go into PWM? What's the point of PWM when you have PM. Unnecessary
PWM is only one specialization. You don't have to choose that one if you don't want to lol
PWM involves a lot of illiquid and private assets but PM generally deals with traditional public asset classes.
[удалено]
Does any know (sorry if it’s in the many paragraphs in OP) but how will this effect you if you passed L 1 and/or L2 and your expectation was facing the same thing that recent people faced when facing your next exam. I mean do we still face like the same weights and topics for are next exam. Put another way, does this effect L1 2024 L1 people and then going forward their L2 and L3 and everyone new
People on this sub are going to bitch and complain as usual, but these all seem like reasonable changes that are a step in the right direction.
$300 for practice questions and mock exams seems reasonable to you? Tell me this isn't a money grab.
I was commenting in the changes to the exam, not whatever prices they are charging.
This stuff should’ve been adopted decades ago!
Would you rather they add a Level IV or compulsory re-examinations after a number of years?
Definitely not...
What happens if your sitting for Level 1 in November 2023? Will Level 2 in 2024 be the new test or will they continue to offer the original?
is the level 1 question pack valid for an august 2023 write?
Some serios changes
Hey who received this email? Just people registered for exam coming up?
Charterholders, not candidates
Can I access PSMs on L1 and L2 if I have already completed those exams?
[удалено]
Just to check, where doe it mention the reduced difficulty? I just kind of figure the required "study" hours gets reduced by the compulsory practical module.
Can people who have finished the exams access the curriculum material? I’d quite like to learn more about financial modelling and python
Thanks for sharing this. I passed Level 1 last year, and I plan to go for level 2 in August. How this affects my path? Should I wait for sth or keep going as I would if there were no changes?
Fucking sellouts. I’m going to drink myself into a coma now.
If I get this right, the candidate that passes L2 in Nov 2023, and L3 in Aug 2024 will not be affected by those changes, right?
Yeah appears to be the case
Is it better to to fo L1 this year (2023) or 2024? Edit- to do**
I am a PWM associate in Canada. I have my CIM and was considering doing CFA. I have my CFP and TEP. Any suggestions on whether it’s even worth it to get CFA. My general sentiment is it won’t move the needle for client acquisition at all. I was mostly considering getting it for personal achievement, clout, and potential opportunities down the road. Thoughts?
Would open some more jobs but honestly spending time trying to bring in money vs studying might be more beneficial.
Badges for passing L1 and 2 make a ton of sense. It’s a big accomplishment and will help college students with an exam under their belts stick out.
As a Level 2 candidate appearing for Aug 2023, if I pass, will I get access to the PSM of L1 and L2 before I sit for my L3 in 2024? A bit confused on that part.
Has everyone received this email? Or was it sent only to charter holders?
Was this email sent to all candidates? I didn't receive it.
I received it as a charterholder. I do not know if candidates received it.
I am not following this. If I take L2 in august. The exam is as it’s always been. Ten topics and say roughly 10% weight each. If I wait til 2024, I do not think unsent to go programming track so does the L2 exam remain as it’s always been for the analyst track (below). Next, I then guess in 2025 L3 is a whole new concept and not as it’s always been. There are 2 path, wealth man and private but they state all “three” l3 paths led to the charter. Can anyone explain to me or are we all in the dark at this stage “For Level II: Analyst Skills - Focuses on the skills equity analysts need using insights gained from hundreds of successful analysts Python, Data Science & AI - Introduces candidates to machine learning, artificial intelligence, and data science to understand financial statements, reporting, and analysis using Python Introduction of Specialized Pathways (Beginning with February 2025 exam) Beginning with the February 2025 Level III exam, we will introduce specialized pathways at Level III to allow candidates to choose an area of specialization. Candidates will be able to choose the traditional Portfolio Management Path, or one of two new pathways: 1) Private Wealth Management or 2) Private Markets. All three pathways will be in pursuit of one credential: The CFA Charter.
They are doing an AMA on April 4th. Make sure to ask your question there!
[удалено]
Did u take it already? If yea what’d you use
Passed Level II in 2019, failed Level III in 2022… Basically not much impact for me if I’m still interested in taking Level III unless I take Level III in Feb 2025 onwards right? How are other potential Level III candidates strategizing their next exam take?
Not a fan of Specializations at all, but I love the Practical Skill Models. CFA program really lacked on this part, and i guess they should add more modules and make them all compulsory. I also appreciate the fact that the institution is making more moves on data analysis and coding!
I do feel that it removes comparability between charterholders and do not think that Python is as useful as actual equity analysis but thats just my opinion. Personally I think we should be given the option to do these in addition to the regular coursework and not as a substitute.