The first question you need to answer is: What is your purpose of earning a PhD in finance? Are you interested in being a professor of finance (need top credentials) or working overseas (need good credentials) or going to industry (need good gredentials)? Are you interested in a life long career in basic research (need research level training => top school) or are you interested in trading (any good quant program will do, many are available even some not in finance)?
Depending on your answers to the above, you will take different routes. For academia, your real world experience can be seen as a hindrance by many who feel academic thinking needs to exist in the abstract, away from the daily noise and small details of real life. Academia is looking for the large universal truths. In spite of this view by some in academia, there are many in academia who do not adhere to it. In any case, this is something you cannot change, so you should not worry about it. Only worry about what you can control.
The top people in the world are trying to get into the top 10 USA B-schools. Even for someone with a perfect record, there is a large element of luck involved to get an acceptance. Hundreds of qualified people are applying for each open position at a top PhD finance program. You can apply if you have the money for the application fees… no one can stop you. It does not hurt to apply if you can handle some rejection.
You state you have a 3.9 GPA. However, everyone knows there has been grade inflation over time. A 3.9 in 1984 means a lot more than a 3.9 in 2004. This is unfortunate, but true. There are also some 3.5 GPAs that are superior to many 3.9 GPAs. It depends on the major you chose and the courses you took. A 3.5 GPA in a quantitative field and many advanced masters or PhD courses on their undergraduate transcripts is going to get a lot more attention than a 3.9 GPA in a weak discipline, like business. At this point, only you know what kind of undergraduate degree you earned.
Let’s assume you have a quantitative background and that you did not shy away from taking the hard courses. That is, we are going on the assumption that you got an undergraduate degree that means something and has value.
The most important score on any standardized test is the quantitative score. Your quant score was OK, but definitely not a top 10 school score. You have a chance for a top 50 program. If you can take the GMAT and improve your quant score, that will help your prospects some.
Personally, I think that the GPA and standardized scores get you through the first cut. Personal statements and reference letters that really say something and come across as being non-standardized make the final cut. So it is important for you to write an excellent proposal for research and statement of purpose. It is also important to get referee reports from people who can really say something that makes you stand out. Most people make the mistake of asking the most famous people they know. The problem is here is that these people do not find many other people exceptional and don’t necessarily write the type of report that will get you an acceptance.
Finally, if you do not have a strong background in real analysis, probability, matrix algebra, econometrics, and microeconomics… your chances of being accepted are reduced and if accepted your chances of finishing are reduced. Take some courses and strengthen these vital areas.
In any case, the final scenario is that you have to apply to get in. Nothing anyone says will change the results once the final decisions are made.
Good luck
Steve
steveseoul {at} {yahoo} {dot} {com}