I was a Marine stationed on an Air Force base. And trust me, Air Force chicks like Marine guys. I also lived in a town with many willing civilians.
One thing I have learned–you can’t tell how good a chick is until you actually get in the sack with her. Some fat, prudish-looking, librarian types will rock your world, while the hot chick dancing on the bar slamming tequila shots might be a dead fish.
I have to say I agree with Greenman here. You never know, until you know.
There’s definitely a relationship between size and how hard they try.
No, there’s a relationship between her size and how hard we try. (an inverse relationship, that is)
Never in my life.
Wow, this is a retarded thread, lol. Therefore, my 2 cents belong here…
I think you guys (or Greenman) is understating the value that the person that can pass the CFA is probably sharper and more capleble of doing exceptional work. Even though, I don’t have a CFP, I give better financial planning advice than the CFP’s at my work, I’ve seen them recommend some retarded things. It has nothing to do with the fact that the exams that I took were harder, and everything to do with the fact that Im smarter =]
I guess I don’t understand.
A CFA gives a person a risk tolerance questionnaire, puts the answers into a computer program, and out pops a canned asset allocation.
A CFP gives a person a risk tolerance questionnaire, puts the answers into a computer program, and out pops a canned asset allocation.
Is the CFA’s canned asset allocation superior to the CFP’s supposed identical canned asset allocation because the test he took was superior? Does it take a 180+ IQ to enter client-provided data into the bank’s software package?
No but he’s has better attention to detail, less likely to omit material information, and trouble shoot the client’s needs. IMHO, the CFA exams are very apptitude type questions and require a good amount of critical thinking, especially for time constraint of the exam.
The CFP’s I know seriously have IQ’s under 80… maybe I got a rotten sample but there’s nothing impresive about them.
I have not been particularly impressed with the brilliance of any CFPs that I have met, but for most of their clients, it is way better to go to a CFP than uncle Joe who made a lot of money once on a stock tip. The truth is, most people just need a plan and a sensible asset allocation, some insurance, some tax advice, and maybe some estate planning. And the CFP (as I understand it) is about making sure that their holders know enough about this stuff so as not to make crazy decisions and advise people whether they are on track to meeting their needs or not.
Will they be able to beat the market by 1% on a risk adjusted basis?? Maybe not, but that’s not really what a CFP is for (and we don’t really know if a CFA holder will be able to do that either). A CFP is primarily to make sure that you don’t put everything all on Facebook stock and Greek bonds yielding 10% and tell yourself that you’re conservative because you have both stocks and bonds in your portfolio.
My father could have done with some estate planning, as opposed to leaving everything to my stepmother, who didn’t even finish high school (because of a war), stuck it all in cash, and then ended up giving everything to her own sons anyway.
I agree with you Bchad. The rigor the CFP exam is nowhere near the CFA exam, and probably not near the rigor of the CPA exams. As a result, the people passing it are generally “lesser” folk. However, you hit the nail on the head. The people who are likely to consult a CFP are not the same clientele that would likely walk into US Trust or the JPMorgan Private Bank.
People who say CFA > CFP are similar to those who say the Bughatti Veyron Supersport > Honda Civic. Yeah, one goes 220 mph and the other only goes 90, but what does it matter when the speed limit is 65? One is more impressive and flashier than the other, but doesn’t really offer any real benefit. It just costs a whole lot more.
It’s kinda like the guy in the office who brags that he can bench press 600 lbs. He likes to point out that I can only bench 100. However, the only thing we really have to lift is the 35-lb. box of paper. I’m still not sure how his 600 lb. bench is really much of a benefit to him.
Meh, sure my arguement was purely circumstantial, but there’s undoubtly a reason the CFP exists and why it’s the standard designation for FAs. The world of financial planning is remarkably competitive. I guess I would ask you why, if the CFA is the Harvard of this scenario, why we don’t see more advisors getting it? You don’t think Morgan Stanley is trying to differentiate themselves from Raymond James? If getting the CFA added any sort of value, believe me, they would incentivize their FAs to get it.
Or, put another way, why do financial advising firms that have hundreds of billions of dollars under advisement actually incentivize their FAs to get thier CFPs and not their CFAs?
@ Greenman: Because doing the minimum is a loser way of living your life. It’s ok to strive and work to be better at something, like benching 600lbs or driving a Bugatti or your professional acumen.
@ STL: Another reason I dont think you see FAs w/ CFAs is because of time. You CANT build a book and sell a ton while you are in a library for half the year for multiple years. Purely a guess, but I wold expect that a person w/ CFA is a very sought after person for many wealth management type shops.
And, it’s worth noting, advisors hold CFAs in very high esteem. That’s why people in my position get it to begin with…so we can fool advisors into thinking we know way more than we do. And to guarantee returns, obviously.
I actually hired a CFP to mow my lawn and trim my hedges…#truestory
so they do add value
One does your taxes and the other sells you variable annuities.