which licenses are considered STANDARD for a FP?

thanks to everyone that replied to my previous posts (1mo, price, etc.). i am pretty close to a decision, and i think i will end up with MM.

anyways, i wanted to ask if there are any STANDARD licenses you think FP should have? i know to work for any big company like, NW, MM, NYL, the first thing that is demanded of you is to get your Life/Health license. so besides that, how do you think it breaks down with all FP's? maybe 95% have life license, 50% have a series 7, etc.?

any thoughts?

one other question i had was how they determine your 3 years of work experience to get a CFP license? will they only consider work SPECIFICALLY as a FP?

i cant help you with the percentages - but then your question is more about YOU and what YOU will need than what others have. i would submit that what you need as a foundation is your:

1. state's insurance license for health and life: this will allow you to address issues which the VAST majority of American's need. obviously disability and life products and the occasional annuity.

a quick story: when i first started in this business i told clients and prospective clients i was a "investment advisor" then as i became more educated i 'expanded' that to "financial advisor and financial couselor". when i started out i minimized the insurance aspect of what i did and maximized the investment aspect as i thought it more "sexy". transitioning from investments to finances came as i realized the power of insurance in the financial planning process. finally, though i didnt advertise this to my clients because they would not understand based on media stereotyping, i am proud to say i am in the insurance business!!! the ability to leverage insurance products can provide some of the most amazing success of a properly prepared portfolio and or financial plan. don't misunderstand, investments still make up the lion's share of the work i do for clients, but a client who ignores insurance advice is virtually destined for failure.

2. you need your series 6 and 63 allowing you to sell registered products that include mutual funds and variable products exclusive of direct stocks and bonds.

3. what else you need is not a license or certification per se, but simple old fashioned knowledge and experience. at first you can supplement this with joint work with other advisors, an excellent trainer (you should have one assigned to you), a mentor (probably a manager who does NOT sell to his or her own clients), and a stable of outside consultants (paid for by the company - not by you in commission or fee splitting).

4. what you DON'T need, in my opinion, at least right off the bat is a series 65, 66, or 7. these will be fine later but if you have #3 above you are good to go and getting these other licenses are superfluous for the vast majority of financial service professionals in their first few years.

please not that failure to have a series 65 will probably not allow you to ethically call yourself a financial planner. again, you can still do everything you need to do for 90% of your likely clients, you just shouldnt use the moniker. you can still help develop and implement financial strategies for clients. you just can't charge for and develop and implement a "plan" for them. in fairness, you wont know jack for a while and charging them for something just cause you can wouldnt be quite ethical.

i would also focus on a couple of designations and affiliations in your first couple of years. NAIFA and MDRT would be a couple of great starts. both have the ethics standards and are voluntary affiliations (though MDRT is eligible for those who meet fairly high production standards (which implies you have a certain level of experience). so with these, you get the ethical side of the CFP without the additional "training or education" component of the CFP.

over the next couple of years, i would work first on CLU and ChFC in preparation for the CFP. these two designations SUPPORT preparation and knowledge for the CFP exam. hopefully, your company will reimburse you or pay for these certifications.

don't be too focused on getting CFP certified too quickly. frankly, i have met some very inexperienced CFP'ers who are ignorant of financial planning. it is a great designation and should be pursued by all in our field, but you don't drive a car before you can ride a bike.

that said, if you choose to ignore this little bit of advice, you need not be in the financial planning field for three years to have this "certification" (it is not a license). you may receive credit for many different types of financially related counseling. you can get more complete information on what will, may, and won't qualify as experience on their website.

finally: we really want to know WHY you are selecting MM and not NWM or NYL. not just who you select, but WHY.

drop a note!

1MO

I'll answer your question about CFP(R) certification:

The three-year experience component is as follows:

At least three years of qualifying full-time work experience are required for certification. Qualifying experience includes work that can be categorized into one of the six primary elements of the personal financial planning process. Experience can be gained in a number of ways including:

the delivery of all, or of any portion, of the personal financial planning process to a client.
the direct support or supervision of individuals who deliver all, or any portion, of the personal financial planning process to a client.
teaching all, or any portion, of the personal financial planning process.


One year equates to 2000 hours of work experience in the activity, and you are limited to "earning" one year of experience per calendar year. In other words, you couldn't work 3000 hours in a year and consider your experience as 1 and a half years. At the same time, many CFP(R) Certificants take much longer than three years to gain that experience component.

With regard to the other certs and licenses, strictly addressing your original question from the other thread, which was:
I am thinking of becoming a financial planner
... in order to be a "financial planner", none of those certifications or licenses are required. But if you're going to work for an insurance company, which it appears you have chosen, then you will likely be required to pick up the licenses that 1MO has mentioned above. What I'm getting at is that the licenses are not required to perform financial planning - they are required to sell insurance, which is what you're going to be doing.

Lastly, the ethics requirements of NAIFA or MDRT do not equate to the ethics requirements of CFP(R) certification. You can read up on them and make your own judgement:

NAIFA - http://www.naifa.org/about/ethics.cfm
MDRT - http://www.mdrt.org/about/ethics.cfm
CFP(R) - http://www.cfp.net/learn/ethics.asp

you guys are awesome. thanks for the advice, this info is extremely helpful.

i guess i was jumping a little ahead of myself rather than taking it step by step.

as for the company i chose...
i will be askin many question the next time i meet with my POC and manager at MM. i dont know if it was the right thing to do, but i liked the environment and the guy who is supposed to train me so i declined 2nd and 3rd interviews with the other 2 companies. i believe the guy who is supposed to train me is still maintaining a book of business, so i will make sure to ask him about the conflict of interest. it seems he already has people working for him so he can dedicate his time to training. the other reason for choosing MM was because of the salary. they offer a salary + commission for the first 3 years while the other two companies go straight commission. i feel that if they are willing to invest their time AND money in me, they will definitely make a good effort to help me succeed. i had a feeling that the other 2 companies threw their new recruits out into the water too quickly to see if they sink or swim. i also tried to rush into taking my life course and exam, so it didnt leave me a lot of time to get into details with the other companies because i needed sponsorship from MM.

one thing i did get a chance to ask MM in my earlier interview was about the benefits. they said they offer the benefits package after 90 days of employment. i was a little turned off by this, but is this typical for this type of job?

now i will be getting into the juicy details with my company. so as long as they offer good training with a competitive package, i will be working for them.

Jim, i hope you didnt read nor did i imply that the MDRT or NAIFA affiliation were superior to the code of ethics established by the CFP Board. however, they are an organization that will drop members for violation of the established code. this is the point i was trying to make. in that regard they serve their purpose equally well for a new person in financial services. additionally, you can abide by the CFP code of ethics with no affililiation with the CFP organization.

i will disagree with you in a major way about what i read as an implication that "all he would be doing is selling insurance". by the way, these certs are NOT needed to sell insurance. all that is "required" is an insurance license in the state you place business.

i work at an "insurance company" meaning we are most well known for our insurance. that said, we are in the top 5 of all national financial services companies for the # of CFPs we have (i'm vague about where we are as i post anonymously on these boards). further, our investment management services is consistently in the top 2 as rated by outside and independent rating orgs.

one area does not preclude excellence in another. if that were so, companies like Raymond James (for whom i have a ton of respect for what and how they do things) would be great investment advisors but terrible financial planners (since they DONT have a primary insurance affiliation - they arent good at it).

for what it is worth...

1MO

1MO,

You're right, the certs aren't required to sell, but the licenses are. And I didn't intend to imply that selling insurance was the only activity - however, I think you'll agree that selling insurance will likely be a required activity, don't you think?

I meant no ill with my comments - I simply intended to imply to proverbs that there is more to the financial planning industry than insurance companies and their financial services arms. As Jerry Seinfeld says "not that there's anything wrong with that!". I agree wholeheartedly that life and health insurance are critical components of a financial plan, I hold life and a&h licenses in order to provide advice on these products - even though I have no intention to sell.

i spoke to a few old acquaintances this past weekend who were FPs. i found out they both worked for Ameriprise Financial for around 1.5 - 2 years.

there was a similiarity to the "getting started" process that they went through and what i am currently going through, but one thing i noticed that was different was the series exams they took. their job description also match my definition of a FP. but they told me that it was a requirement to get their 66 & 7 license to work for Ameriprise. when i told them im planning to take the 6 & 63, they asked "why?!?!". they went on to tell me that the 66 & 7 was "way better" than the 6 and 63. i asked them if they sold individual stocks or similiar type of investments and they both said no. so i was confused why they had the 66 & 7 license, but the only answer they could really give me was that it was "way better".

im guessing that every company does it differently, but from what ive researched, companies like NYL, MM, and NWM all require the 6 and 63 to be a financial planner. i was also curious on your opinions on Ameriprise?

My experience will skew your results, prov, but I hold no securities licenses at all - since I sell no securities. I'll leave the debate over the benefits of the various series to those that are more schooled in that area.

Regarding Ameriprise, I don't personally know any of their reps, but I have heard folks discussing them and - well, let's just say the depth of your friends' ability to quantify the benefits of their respective licensing seems to fit in line with other comments I've heard about those reps as a group. That's all I've got to say about that.

If I were you I'd find out what your new company requires and/or encourages and take it from there. From what I understand, if you need an additional license, it's not like it's that difficult to pick up another one...

i have to agree with Blank - to just say something is "better" without being able to articulate why, is the hallmark of a financial UN-professional.

the ameriprise structure is designed to allow them (actually FORCE them) to charge a fee for service. you can do this also with a 65 in conjunction to your 6 & 63. however, apparently you don't need it yet so you arent encouraged to get it yet.

for example, my company will pay for our folks to get their CFP(R) cert but ONLY if they complete the credits for CLU then ChFC first (for which the company also pays). our way is just our way. ameriprise's licensing is just their way.

i would rather not provide my opinion on Ameriprise, but i am of the understanding that they have a very high turnover of advisory personnel. that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it would give me pause for concern.

finally, Blank is right again - getting a new license is not all that tough. it is easier if you apply yourself and prepare for the standardized exams.

1MO

p.s. i have right at 100 people working for me in my office. 12 are formerly with Ameriprise. in the last year, we have lost about 9 people too - but they didnt go to new brokers, they went off to do something entirely different. all but two left on a positive note! that implies to me we are doing something right because of our great retention or that we are freaky bad because we scare them out of the industry in toto. i wonder which!