I’ve gotten refused for 2 sell-side analyst positions now because I don’t have my licenses. After being interviewed, both hiring managers told me I’m well qualified for the position (5 years as analyst on buyside), but they want someone with licenses who can talk to clients immediately (both managers assumed before the interview that I have my licenses). My questions: 1) Does this seem like a legit reason, or just a b.s. excuse (i.e., they didn’t like me in the interview and didn’t want to say that)? I ask because, from what I’ve read on this forum, the Series 7 & 63 aren’t all that demanding and I could study for and pass them in a matter of weeks. Just doesn’t seem like a great reason not to hire… 2) Can I solve this problem before future interviews? My understanding is I have to be sponsored, which my current employer will not do because licenses are completely unnecessary for my job. Any solution?
I think you’re going the wrong way (most guys trying to jump from sell to buy). I also think you can take the 66 w/o sponsorship (it’s the combination of 63/65) - then you’ve got one out of the way - I’m not 100% on that though.
Yeah I realize most go from sell to buy, but pay at my current gig isn’t great. I’ve been applying to both buy&sell and happen to have gotten my first two interviews with sell-side firms.
No, it’s not BS. I know of many firms that require the licenses before they’ll hire you. If you look at it from their perspective, they have to go through the hiring process, wait a few weeks for you to study, pay for it, then hope you pass. If you fail you’re busy another couple weeks…No, it’s a legit reason not to hire someone. Especially in times like these. There are enough prospective employees that have their licenses. The only way you’re going to get sponsored is to find an employer that will do it for you. Most people make a brief stop at some financial advisor firm that’ll hire anyone, say Ameriprise, and get their licenses then move on. Sounds pretty risky for someone in your position though. I’d look for other buy side positions.
That’s pretty lame as anyone with half a brain and limited/no experience can knock those exams out in a month. If you are on the buy side, I would go ahead and see if your firm will let you knock out the 66 now. At least then you have half the battle and can take the 7 if/when you land a new gig.
jcole21 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you’re going the wrong way (most guys > trying to jump from sell to buy). > > I also think you can take the 66 w/o sponsorship > (it’s the combination of 63/65) - then you’ve got > one out of the way - I’m not 100% on that though. As someone who used to work as a FA for a large wirehouse, the 66 does in fact cover both the 63 and 65.
Thanks for your input. I guess you’re right Sweep, not a b.s. excuse when employers can afford to be very picky/choosy. But I agree HighYielder still an annoying reason. Although my firm might let me do 66 now, that’d be such an obvious signal that I’m looking to leave so I couldn’t do that. People have told me the sell-side is crazy hours and more about selling than analysis. But the money a few years in is definitely appealing.
ABC, I can’t speak to the sell side hiring process for research analyst because I’ve never worked as a research analyst for the sell side. However you may want to also learn more about whether the Series 86/87 is required beforehand as well by sell side firms you are interviewing with.
AlwaysBeClosing Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for your input. I guess you’re right > Sweep, not a b.s. excuse when employers can afford > to be very picky/choosy. But I agree HighYielder > still an annoying reason. Although my firm might > let me do 66 now, that’d be such an obvious signal > that I’m looking to leave so I couldn’t do that. > > People have told me the sell-side is crazy hours > and more about selling than analysis. But the > money a few years in is definitely appealing. You can do the 66 without a sponsor. Just pay it yourself if you’re really passionate about moving to sell-side. http://www.nasaa.org/industry___regulatory_resources/exams/926.cfm#3 Series 7 is pretty easy, especially if you have 5+ years of experience. Problem is you talked to hiring managers instead of employees. Employees would have taken the 7 and have a bit more knowledge about it than a hiring manager would. You could easily study the 7 in two weeks and take it. There would probably be 2 weeks before you even switched firms from the time you accepted the position. Plenty of time to study.
Found this tidbit at the above link as well…just wait? When can I register as an Investment Adviser representative if I haven’t taken the Series 65, or Series 66 in combination with the Series 7? Passing the Series 65 normally is a pre-requisite to getting licensed as an Investment Adviser representative. However, most states will allow an individual to substitute one of the following certifications for passing the exam: CFP - Certified Financial Planner (granted by the CFP Board of Standards); CIC - Chartered Investment Counselor (granted by the Investment Adviser Association); ChFC - Chartered Financial Consultant (granted by the American College); PFS - Personal Financial Specialist (granted by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants); and CFA - Chartered Financial Analyst (granted by the Chartered Financial Analyst Institute).
steve-o Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Found this tidbit at the above link as well…just > wait? > > When can I register as an Investment Adviser > representative if I haven’t taken the Series 65, > or Series 66 in combination with the Series 7? > Passing the Series 65 normally is a pre-requisite > to getting licensed as an Investment Adviser > representative. However, most states will allow an > individual to substitute one of the following > certifications for passing the exam: > > CFP - Certified Financial Planner (granted by the > CFP Board of Standards); > > CIC - Chartered Investment Counselor (granted by > the Investment Adviser Association); > > ChFC - Chartered Financial Consultant (granted by > the American College); > > PFS - Personal Financial Specialist (granted by > the American Institute of Certified Public > Accountants); and > > CFA - Chartered Financial Analyst (granted by the > Chartered Financial Analyst Institute). Yeah I had heard once you pass CFA, you don’t need 63 (or 65, 66? I’m not sure which). But pretty certain you still need to take Series 7, that joke of a test… I gotta believe anyone who’s passed levels 1&2 CFA can pass Series 7 in a couple weeks, as jmh530 said. If I’m in this spot again, I’ll specifically tell the interviewer I’ll study for the damn test in the 2 weeks after you offer me the job and my first day, and pass it the morning I start.
To be an RIA you only need the 65. You only need the 7 if you charge commissions (i.e. you’re a broker) and you work for a BD (they are the ones that sponsor you). Since most RIAs aren’t affiliated with BDs and just charge a fee (hourly and/or % of assets) you only require the 65. And I’m not entirely positive on this, but I think the 65 is still required no matter what other designations you have. After all, the CFA doesn’t cover Blue Sky laws.
it’s bs - got 7/63 in three weeks, but the 86/87 might take another three to get - that’s the issue - you’re dead weight for a month
a month is nothing for a good employee who is going to be there for a while. this seems like a pretty lame excuse to not hire someone, especially if you say in interviews that you’re willing to dive right in and knock them both out in a month or so (not that hard to do). there has to be enough to learn in the 1st month of a job where you could be useful and also get the license. if the sell side firm is that hard up or using it as an excuse, you should be skeptical of them. that’s unbelievably short sighted.
CFA is exempt from the 86; 87 is ethics-based stuff. True story…when tests first came out, many people is the office were failing, said the study material was not relevant. So I decided to go sit the for the exams to get a better idea of what to study…passed both with no studying…not rocket science.