Master of Financial Economics - Comparison With Other Qualifications

Comparison With Other Qualifications

There is some overlap with programs in financial engineering, computational finance and mathematical finance - see Master of Quantitative Finance (MQF). These degrees aim to train practitioners and "quants" - i.e. specialists in derivatives, fixed income and risk analysis - as opposed to economists, and their curricula are therefore weighted toward stochastic calculus, numerical methods, simulation techniques and programming, and are quantitative (well) beyond the level of the Financial Economics degree. At the same time, their coverage of financial theory, and of econometrics, while also significant, is (often) secondary Entrance requirements are similarly more mathematical. As mentioned, some Financial Economics degrees are substantially quantitative and differ very little from the MQF.

The overlap with general finance degrees such as the Master of Science in Finance (M.S.F.), or with an M.B.A. in finance, is further limited, particularly where the Financial Economics program is theory oriented. These degrees are focused on financial management, corporate finance and investment management, and are practice oriented with limited exposure to the underlying economic theory. Note though, that since these courses train graduates in the use of the models developed in Financial Economics, the theory is (sometimes) covered in the context of (a high level) understanding of model assumptions. Similar comments apply to professional certifications such as the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation. Note also, that the Master of Finance (M.Fin.) and M.Sc. Finance degrees, as opposed to the M.S.F., have a significant theory component (as well as quantitative component), and are largely identical to the Master's in Financial Economics.

Read more about this topic:  Master Of Financial Economics

Famous quotes containing the words comparison with and/or comparison:

    From top to bottom of the ladder, greed is aroused without knowing where to find ultimate foothold. Nothing can calm it, since its goal is far beyond all it can attain. Reality seems valueless by comparison with the dreams of fevered imaginations; reality is therefore abandoned.
    Emile Durkheim (1858–1917)

    The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.”
    Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)