I keep seeing posts online saying the CFA is only useful for asset management roles or some specialized finance jobs. People claim if you want to work in investment banking, private equity, or VC, you should skip the CFA entirely and do other things instead.
This confuses me because I’m currently studying for it and the material covers way more than just asset management. The curriculum touches on corporate finance, equity research, fixed income, derivatives, and tons of other finance topics. So why do people act like it’s only good for one area?
I decided to pursue the CFA because of how comprehensive the program is. The study path is clear and straightforward, plus there’s definitely some prestige that comes with earning the charter. I know it won’t magically get me any job I want, but it should help with networking and make my resume stand out from other candidates. Isn’t that the main point anyway?
The CFA hate is just gatekeeping from people who think their Ivy League MBA makes them special. Sure, Goldman doesn’t care about your charter when daddy’s golf buddy gets you the interview. But not everyone has those connections or wants to grind 80-hour weeks making PowerPoints. Most finance jobs aren’t at bulge bracket banks, and smaller firms actually respect the CFA. It’s a pain to study for, but you’ll know how to value a company instead of just picking fonts for pitch decks.
Most critics haven’t even done the program. I finished my CFA 3 years ago and you’re absolutely right - it’s way more comprehensive than people realize. Some areas like IB and PE just care more about deal experience and connections than credentials. They’d rather hire someone who worked at Goldman for 2 years than someone who passed Level III. But the knowledge is still valuable! I use stuff from every topic area in my current role. People just expect it to be a golden ticket when it’s really one piece of the puzzle.
Criticism of the CFA designation often stems from concerns about opportunity costs rather than the intrinsic value of the program. Detractors argue that the extensive time required for each level, exceeding 300 hours, could be better allocated to networking or gaining practical experience, which are critical in fields like investment banking or private equity. These employers typically prioritize hands-on experience and connections over academic credentials.
However, the CFA offers a robust foundation in analytical skills and ethical standards that applies broadly across various finance roles, making it particularly beneficial for positions demanding substantial analysis. Ultimately, the value of the CFA hinges on individual career aspirations and the specific preferences of potential employers. The thorough curriculum indeed equips candidates with lasting knowledge that is invaluable throughout their careers.
The hate mostly comes from how different finance sectors hire and what they value. Investment banks and PE firms recruit from target schools and care way more about internships than certifications. They see the CFA as too academic for deal-making work. Plus, most senior people in these areas don’t have CFAs, so there’s no culture that values it. But this view misses how versatile the designation actually is. CFA charterholders work in tons of different roles - corporate development, risk management, consulting, you name it. The analytical skills and ethics framework you’re building through the program work well outside asset management. The criticism is really just industry bias, not actual problems with what you’re learning.
i guess a lot of people expect the CFA to be like their golden ticket, but that’s not the case. lots of times, folks oversell its value online, saying it’ll guarantee big bucks or super easy job offers. when that doesn’t happen, they feel let down and end up bashing the program.
