A Rule of thumb is to avoid any book by Fabozzi, unless it's free.

Tuckman and MP2 are much better.

mark clunk is better than fabozi.

稍微像样一点的学校都是tuckman或者mp2，而且还都是mba水平的

你是rutgers的吧，你们自己学校有ms mathematical finance，连这两本都不屑用，直接上brigo&mercurio了

fabozzi的fixed income analysis属于cfa的读物，cfa的fixed income什么水准，连个像样的mba finance都不如，难道说rutgers business school用的这个

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-9-6 13:23:58编辑过]

所以我说像样的mba finance，至少相当于中等的msf的水平

mba和cfa都滥大街了，只不过mba早了若干年，cfa近两年才开始而已

偶就是MBA，咋了，还被看不起？

金融这东西，还是看缘分，能听懂的，不会太难，听不懂的，只能门外转。

CFA的确是基础了点，遇上个模型，算一算，就不行了，但毕竟人家是analyst，不是scentist。另外，CFA的会计水平还是可以的，不能小瞧。去个投行，一上来会计还是要的。

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-9-7 15:18:05编辑过]

pat, pat, take it easy, man

I don't look down on MBA or CFA. I'm just saying there're simply too many of them nowadays, which results from and/or in unselective admission and/or lower education/training quality. The same thing is also happening to MSF, MSCF, MSMF, MSFM, MSFE, MSQF, so on and so forth, even PhD, for example, the one at my lousy school. Those programs are cash cows. Everybody loves money, schools and CFA institute are no exceptions.