"Your designations or lack of them mean nothing"

This is where I definitely disagree with you anon.  Its not the designation.  Its what you do with the knowledge.  I'll take the knowledge gained by studying from a designation (only a couple mean sh*t, but CFP is one of those) rather than the, um, 'knowledge' one has from only holding a series 7/66.

[quote=anonymous] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 My point is that most people don't give a crap. [/quote]

My point is "most people" may be true, but I don't do business with "most people". "Most people" don't have the assets or the need. Among those with the assets and the need CFP means something.

[quote=anonymous]Do you really think that successful business people think to themselves,  "USA Today says I need a CFP. ....[/quote]

Most that I encounter seem to say to themselves "There seem to be a million people who want to be my "financial advisor", but some seem to have an experience level and a proven expertise in this area. I’ll seek out one of them”.

 [quote=anonymous]

Your designations or lack of them mean nothing. 

[/quote]

If you really believe that you’ll end your ChFC studies tomorrow…

hubbabubba,

My point is that the client doesn't care in this situation.

It doesn't sound like you are disagreeing with me.   I agree that knowledge is of vital importance.  Holding a 7/66 does not mean that one knows enough.  In fact, this simply is the minimum that one must have to start their career.

A CFP is helpful and one certainly has to have a baseline of knowledge in many areas to pass.  Having a CFP is certainly something to be admired, but I'd  take an experienced producer's knowledge over a newly minted CFP any day of the week.  Any knowledge that someone has is good. 

Mikebutler,

You are kidding yourself if people with assets and needs care whether someone is a CFP.  I know 5 $10,000,000 + producers.  None of them have CFPs. 

I have found very infrequently people who care, but they tend to be do it yourself types anyways.

You quoted me without the context with the "designations meaning nothing."  They mean nothing compared to the respect of the person giving the referral. 

Having vs. not having a CFP will not change ones income.  Regardless, one needs the knowledge to do a good job.  One should always be pursuing knowledge.  Both the CFP and the ChFC are worth pursuing.  At the present time, in very few instances does the client give a crap.

you can call me hubba, for short, but that's not my real name

I feel like I'm going back and forth here.  I definitely think the CFP is the more highly regarded designation (compared to CLU/ChFC).  However, I'd rather see someone go for that combo than just have the 7/66.  I do think taking the comprehensive exam is important though.  It shows that you can bring different concepts together. Whichever route one goes, it shows the client, or at least it should, that the rep is taking their business seriously.

As much as I hate to admit agreeing with Newbie, I do think of "insurance guy" when I see CLU.  99.9% of 'insurance guys' (IMHO) are not "investment guys".  I don't want insurance guy touching my portfolio. Period.  Maybe that's just my perception, but I guess that's what we're talking about here. 

I think your distinction between an experienced producer and a new CFP is not accurate.  Most people who obtain the CFP have been in the business for awhile so aren't they experienced?

[quote=anonymous]

Mikebutler,

You are kidding yourself if people with assets and needs care whether someone is a CFP. I know 5 $10,000,000 + producers. None of them have CFPs. [/quote]

And I know 500 $ Kablipptiy-blop producers who are left handed, therefore there aren't any right-handed types who are big producers AND I can tell you going forward this won't change....

Has it ever occurred to you that the marketplace for financial advice has changed since the days your big producer pals established themselves and people growing their career now would be wise to take notice of that fact? Come to think of it, I don’t think I know a single big hitter who isn’t a CPA, CFP or CIMA, or some combination of the above.

I’m not here to tell people just starting out that life will be a bowl of cherries if they only get the CFP, I’m saying get it when you can (and the earliest is three years) because that will be a minimum level of expertise going forward in this industry. Why NOT seek out the credentials of a professional? It’s not as if you have the choice “Gee, should I be a 30 yr in the biz experienced guy, or should I study for the CFP”.

[quote=anonymous]I have found very infrequently people who care, but they tend to be do it yourself types anyways. [/quote]

It's funny how often we hear that, and how it's always someone who isn't a CFP saying it....

[quote=anonymous]You quoted me without the context with the "designations meaning nothing." They mean nothing compared to the respect of the person giving the referral. [/quote]

It's almost as if you think getting that referral source to begin with has nothing to do with the qualifications and experience you presented to that person when you met them.

[quote=anonymous]

Having vs. not having a CFP will not change ones income. [/quote]

Right, because well, clients never cross-shop and there’s never been any mention in the financial press of the value of a CFP or the experience and academic effort required to earn it.

[quote=anonymous]

Regardless, one needs the knowledge to do a good job. One should always be pursuing knowledge. Both the CFP and the ChFC are worth pursuing. [/quote]

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that basic knowledge aside, getting a ChFC and adding it to a business card is a bad idea for someone trying to be an FA. Those of us in the biz know how much of a joke it is to get past the class exams and too many clients will get the whiff of insurance salesman from it. JMHO, YMMV

[quote=anonymous]

At the present time, in very few instances does the client give a crap.

[/quote]

Again, we’re going to have to agree to disagree, and I’ll disagree after I note how your experience is skewed since anyone seeking a CFP has simply not taken the time to meet with you. I with meet people regularly who said it made a difference in their decision process.

It’s like a 5’11” center prospect saying no team that’s met with him has made an issue of his lack of height. Well, of course, if they saw an issue with it they didn’t take the time to meet with him to point it out.

Most of the public isn’t trained to care to choose or not choose a CFP. The way they will learn is if there is a big marketing push by an organization or B/D that having a CFP gives you an advantage in sophistication. It has worked its way into the psyche of a very small segment of the population and will increase over time.



The people that currently seek out CFPs now are generally “well read, intelligent types” They think they are getting a more sophisticated investor/advisor with a CFP and better advice. They keep up with the wallstreet journal, kiplingers, smart money, etc and pride themselves being smart enough to look for an advisor with a CFP. They “interview” brokers by following that cosmo-like five step list they read in those magazines on how to choose an investor/broker. They are often the same person that likes those managed accounts where the fees are really high, but they interpret they are getting something better than the normal public does on their money. They may brag at cocktail parties that their monies are wrapped up in institutional accounts that most people can’t invest. They also may brag that they don’t pay commissions.    They have decent amounts of money but not tons. But they want others to think they have tons. This .05% of the population can be lucrative clients. They end up paying the highest fees through these managed accounts and wrap accounts which can make for a nice recurring income to the advisor. Suckers.   



Unfortunately, we will run into problems when the rest of the uneducated (stupid) public starts requiring CFP designations for their advisors. They will require it when they don’t even understand what it stands for because they heard it off the radio or saw it on Oprah. It will probably become so darn frustrating to advisors with out it they will just have to get it so they can compete. NASDNewbie is correct in previous post, it is going to be huge in the future. Better start studying…world is a changing.

Ok so I’ll pose an alternative question-

I’m currently studying for the CFP, and will take the test either in November or March.  I simply haven’t decided which test date.

Once I pass the test(thinking confidently), I think I will be able to get the ChFC with just a few more classes.  Is it worth it to go and get the second designation?

Joe, yes it's worth it, but not because of the designation.  If you have the CFP, you don't need the ChFC.   The information is worthwhile.

It would not surprise with the Merrill rule if advisors who have the CFP designation have to stop using it on their cards, etc because it implies "planning" when they are operating as registered reps and not advisors.

[quote=joedabrkr]Once I pass the test(thinking confidently), I *think* I will be able to get the ChFC with just a few more classes.  Is it worth it to go and get the second designation?
[/quote]

As I mentioned before, I took the additional classes from the American College, but as CE credit for the CFP, and I'd never add the designation to my card. YMMV

[quote=anonymous]

It would not surprise with the Merrill rule if advisors who have the CFP designation have to stop using it on their cards, etc because it implies "planning" when they are operating as registered reps and not advisors.

[/quote]

I would surprise me since the vast majority of advisors with CFPs have a series 66 (ore equivalent) under their belt, often act as advisors in the technical sense and can charge for planning services.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Joe,<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I would get the CLU over the ChFC, but like some have said, don't put it on ALL of your cards.  It would be nice if you had it on a separate set of cards that you use for certain professional relationships.  However, I don't think it will EVER help you unless you are doing insurance related business. 

I'll be honest; the ChFC has very little relevance in our market anymore.  The CLU can still carry a little weight when working on the insurance side of things. 

I'm sorry that some of you resent that our clients (our being those who are CFP's) are well read intelligent types.  Personally, I think a lot of them view the CFP as a MINIMUM to be able to work with them.  Sadly, a lot of these well read intelligent types don't need the kind of help a lot of advisor want to give them.  They would do as good of a job on their own.  So the more sophisticated clients seek out an advisor who has a better chance of knowing more than they do.  The odds of finding that person are increased when using the CFP as criteria. 

That doesn't mean that you can't know everything and be better than a CFP, so don't everyone get their panties in a wad.  But statistics would have to prove that the odds of finding a competent advisor would only increase when looking only at CFP's. 

Ribsnwhiskey,

Well said.