It's been discussed, so it's definitely thinkable.
And if getting an accredited-institution MBA, for tuition payments of anywhere from $22K to $200K, after about 17 years of other education (K-12, undergrad) isn't enough for someone to protect their own wealth from scams, what's the point of all that credentialing, anyway?
An MBA is not a licensure. There are overlaps between what an MBA and an accountant may have studied, but the CPA is what gives you a license. Lots of MBA students do not pursue financial courses beyond what is requires to pass. They may have interests in marketing, innovation, or other areas. They can be ill-equipped to deal with investments.
The same pattern exists for law and many other professions. There are plenty of people with law degrees who fail, or decide to not pursue the bar exam.
Given the state of student loans in the US I think there could be a fairly compelling argument that an MBA is indicative of a person’s inability to protect their wealth. Not all MBAs are created equal. Most of them aren’t worth the price and the few that are worth it have a lot more to do with the network and connections than the education.
Executive MBAs are accredited, yes. And, although parent exaggerates a bit, their admissions standards are pretty close to "can you pay".
IMO: A real MBA with an emphasis on finance probably should count as sufficient education. An executive MBA definitely should not. Although a program with the same structure as an executive MBA but exclusively focused on finance, accounting, and contracts might be reasonable.
