01-01-2004, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id=quote>quote<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Cheers Guybrush and Sumaaan, for your endeavours in taking time and answering my queries. However, I have now got few questions relating to what has been said in your answers.
Firstly, I took the impression that both of you were quite keen on having done a MBA and/or CFA programme. I appreciate your viewpoints, but the matter of fact is that for MBA, reputed business schools do not take on graduates until unless they have at least 2-5 years of good work experience. Secondly, leading to this point yet again, I think that the MBA should only be required at the Associate level, which is about 2-3 years after the Analyst programme, a graduate entry position for US/UK banks. So, could you please clarify whether MBA is also a pre-requisite for the starting graduate position in Pakistani Investment Banks?
For the case for CFA, I am also quite certain that its uses are only apparent in the later managerial positions, so how come CFA could be classified as a pre-requisite for graduate entry-level positions?
Further more, you would know that CFA programme takes about 3 years to qualify, so what should an individual do in that 3 years? Is it not much more efficient that you study for CFA whilst you are in the investment-banking arena / job, as then may not only the employer subsidise your expenses / tuition fees etc., but you would certainly get the practical experience? Please comment.
As regard to the actuarial qualifications are concerned Sumaaan, I think most investment banks would hire the expertise from the actuarial consultancy rather than employing a qualified actuary within their mergers & acquisition team. This is surely possible because investment banks would not take risk in training an individual for such a long time, with no security at all, that whether such employee would remain with the firm after qualification or not. This is a perfect example of Free Rider Problem in economics. Please comment as well.
Having said this, I highly appreciate your comments and would definitely take into account, before taking any step.
Happy New Year to all!!
AHSAN
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" size=2 id=quote>
By saying Actuaries, I meant fully qualified ones... It's true that investment banks don't take the risk of training an actuary, insurance firms and actuarial consultancy entities do that... But investment banks however do employ Actuaries on a full-time basis, which is not the scenario in Pakistan (Financial Analysts other than actuaries are usually hired).
One also needs three years of work experience for CFA, which can be done before, during or after CFA.
Edited by - sumaaan on Jan 01 2004 42635 PM
Cheers Guybrush and Sumaaan, for your endeavours in taking time and answering my queries. However, I have now got few questions relating to what has been said in your answers.
Firstly, I took the impression that both of you were quite keen on having done a MBA and/or CFA programme. I appreciate your viewpoints, but the matter of fact is that for MBA, reputed business schools do not take on graduates until unless they have at least 2-5 years of good work experience. Secondly, leading to this point yet again, I think that the MBA should only be required at the Associate level, which is about 2-3 years after the Analyst programme, a graduate entry position for US/UK banks. So, could you please clarify whether MBA is also a pre-requisite for the starting graduate position in Pakistani Investment Banks?
For the case for CFA, I am also quite certain that its uses are only apparent in the later managerial positions, so how come CFA could be classified as a pre-requisite for graduate entry-level positions?
Further more, you would know that CFA programme takes about 3 years to qualify, so what should an individual do in that 3 years? Is it not much more efficient that you study for CFA whilst you are in the investment-banking arena / job, as then may not only the employer subsidise your expenses / tuition fees etc., but you would certainly get the practical experience? Please comment.
As regard to the actuarial qualifications are concerned Sumaaan, I think most investment banks would hire the expertise from the actuarial consultancy rather than employing a qualified actuary within their mergers & acquisition team. This is surely possible because investment banks would not take risk in training an individual for such a long time, with no security at all, that whether such employee would remain with the firm after qualification or not. This is a perfect example of Free Rider Problem in economics. Please comment as well.
Having said this, I highly appreciate your comments and would definitely take into account, before taking any step.
Happy New Year to all!!
AHSAN
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" size=2 id=quote>
By saying Actuaries, I meant fully qualified ones... It's true that investment banks don't take the risk of training an actuary, insurance firms and actuarial consultancy entities do that... But investment banks however do employ Actuaries on a full-time basis, which is not the scenario in Pakistan (Financial Analysts other than actuaries are usually hired).
One also needs three years of work experience for CFA, which can be done before, during or after CFA.
Edited by - sumaaan on Jan 01 2004 42635 PM
