Turkish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know a bunch of HNW advisors with CFA, CFP on > the biz card. A couple of them are CAs as well. > > For some reason they list it as follows: CA, CFA, > MBA, CFP > > Impressive, I know? That’s insane. But beyond the CA and CFA I don’t really get impressed per se by an MBA or the CFP. CA is a good des, I won’t compare it to CFA as they are very different beasts, but it’s probably the only one I’d ever consider beyond CFA, but it’s not of much use to me. Some of those insurance salespeople have Alphaghetti after their name…it’s ridiculous
no high net worth individuals know what a CA is, very few know what a CFA is. CFP despite being easier is better known thanks to WSJ and business week who say you should look for a FA with a cfp (rarely do they mention the cfa). if being a FA is your life’s work i suggest not wasting your time. The cfa does open other carreer opportunities for a FA with a decent size book though.
The CFP is just one examination (3 tests on two days?)? Seems fairly easy to get so why wouldn’t everyone get one? Also you do need a college degree for the certification but can take the test and pass while still in college.
Because anyone not doing “financial planning” has no reason for one, I doubt any clients of mine care about disability insurance, they just want their investments dealt with. And if they do care, they can go talk to someone else about it as I have no desire to get involved with that stuff anymore. And as far as the exam, it is just one exam over a time period…meaning no levels that you must get through, just a single score on a single exam. I know it is not a cakewalk, but come on is this gonna turn into one of those “The Series 7 is tough man” type of things?
How would u guys compare Series 7/88/63/66 with CFA? My roommate was studying for those and he said the difficulty is comparable to CFA L1
nice try
I found the 66 to be very challenging because it was mostly legal stuff and I am a numbers guy…but you cannot compare any of the NASD exams to the CFA (or even the CFP)…not in the same ballpark.
All things (level of difficulty, prestige and the feeling of fulfillment…) considered… CFA is like a Carrera; CFP is like a Camry…
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All things (level of difficulty, prestige and the > feeling of fulfillment…) considered… > > CFA is like a Carrera; CFP is like a Camry… I wonder what people on CFP message boards say about the CFA. Is there a CFP message board? I can’t seem to find one.
XSellSide Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AlphaSeeker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > All things (level of difficulty, prestige and > the > > feeling of fulfillment…) considered… > > > > CFA is like a Carrera; CFP is like a Camry… > > I wonder what people on CFP message boards say > about the CFA. Is there a CFP message board? I > can’t seem to find one. They’re too busy selling credit cards and crappy mutual funds to be on a message board! Zing!
wow, i think someone just nailed it. Series 7 and 66 are a joke. I have both, if you have a weekend you are fine. 66 is 100question test, whoopdey doo. C’mon now.
stockbroker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here are some facts… > > CFA is recognized globally. CFP is US centric > CFA requires college degree. CFP does not (I > believe that might have changed last year) > CFA requires at least 2.5 yrs of studying. You can > pass the CFP is less than 1.5 yrs > CFA is 3 days exam, CFP is 1.5 day > > Took the CFP in 04, passed with minimal study. The > whole curriculum was condensed into the size of 1 > book only. Now I am going for my 3rd trial at LII. > Everytime I studied my butt off and I still can’t > make it. it happens…just keep your head down and keep trying.
oskigo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > no high net worth individuals know what a CA is, > very few know what a CFA is. CFP despite being > easier is better known thanks to WSJ and business > week who say you should look for a FA with a cfp > (rarely do they mention the cfa). if being a FA > is your life’s work i suggest not wasting your > time. The cfa does open other carreer > opportunities for a FA with a decent size book > though. no high net worth people know what a CA is? what about all those CFO’s of fortune 500 firms? hali, you almost made me spill my drink…bwahahahahhaha
CFP and CFA are totally different animals. I have my CFP and currently working on L2 for CFA. CFP is more about personal finance and financial planning not analysis of companies and financial statements. I would say CFP is a mixture of level one CFA, some Level 3 PM stuff (very minor) and lots of other material you will not find in CFA (such as Estate, Insurance, and tax planning). As far as the difficulty goes CFA is much more challenging, given the volume of material. As far as usage goes, CFP is more useful in Personal Finance, and CFA is more useful in Corp. Finance. CFA can be applied to more careers vs. CFP. If you can get both, it’s great but if you have to only get one depends on what you want to do long term. hope that helps
SeanC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ough. > > no high net worth people know what a CA is? > > what about all those CFO’s of fortune 500 firms? > > hali, you almost made me spill my > drink…bwahahahahhaha yeah CFO’s of fortune 500 firms are certainly a large percentage of retail brokers clients.
thanks for all the answes. It clears my confusion but still makes me confuse on what I should take. A big chunk of it is my figuring out what I wanna do in the future. A quick question though: If you have a financial advisor, what would you prefer her/his title be: a) John Doe, CFA b) John Doe, CFP Another quick question, those who had taken the CFP exams. Did you regret wasting your time taking it? Or you actually glad as it helps you tremendously. Thanks!!
I guess in a weird way neither. If I saw the CFP I would think to myself that this guy knows a bit about a bit, but I still see it as more of a marketing designation than anything. So I don’t put a lot of faith on seeing it…this may be due to the numerous people I know with it that show no ability over anyone else. And as far as investments, I wouldnt think the CFP knows anything reasonable over anyone else, so why would I put my money with them? If I saw a CFA as an advisor it would make me think they only look at investments, which would make me wonder why I would use an advisor that is supposed to most likely provide advice on a variety of topics, ie estate planning, insurance, etc. So if that is the case why wouldnt I just go to someone who only does investments? I guess in the end I just don’t see the reason for financial advisors, no matter what is after their names…just my opinion.
tvPM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I guess in a weird way neither. > > If I saw the CFP I would think to myself that this > guy knows a bit about a bit, but I still see it as > more of a marketing designation than anything. So > I don’t put a lot of faith on seeing it…this may > be due to the numerous people I know with it that > show no ability over anyone else. And as far as > investments, I wouldnt think the CFP knows > anything reasonable over anyone else, so why would > I put my money with them? > > If I saw a CFA as an advisor it would make me > think they only look at investments, which would > make me wonder why I would use an advisor that is > supposed to most likely provide advice on a > variety of topics, ie estate planning, insurance, > etc. So if that is the case why wouldnt I just go > to someone who only does investments? > > I guess in the end I just don’t see the reason for > financial advisors, no matter what is after their > names…just my opinion. in my experience most very high net worth individuals look for financial advisors primarily for investments and generally have other people who do their estate planning, insurance, etc. particurally if they are over 50.
fossil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thanks for all the answes. It clears my confusion > but still makes me confuse on what I should take. > A big chunk of it is my figuring out what I wanna > do in the future. > > A quick question though: > > If you have a financial advisor, what would you > prefer her/his title be: > > a) John Doe, CFA > b) John Doe, CFP > > Another quick question, those who had taken the > CFP exams. Did you regret wasting your time taking > it? Or you actually glad as it helps you > tremendously. > > Thanks!! i wouldn’t take the CFA if you felt being a FA is your lifes work. but my guess is you don’t already have 100 mil in AUM so taking hte CFA keeps your options open.
tvPM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I guess in the end I just don’t see the reason for > financial advisors, no matter what is after their > names…just my opinion. Bad advice < no advice < good advice. There is absolutely a need for GOOD financial advisors. Most individual investors, from what I’ve witnessed and many studies can support this, make very poor financial and investment decisions on their own. Many people would be better off with an advisor who does nothing more than brings discipline to the person’s investment program. A CFP does not guarantee a better advisor, but does prove some level of commitment to the industry and an understanding of relevant material. I know some terrible CFPs and some incredible non-CFPs.