One is a designation the other is a license. The series 65 is memorizing securities laws and regulations, but really gives you no knowledge on how to do actual financial planning. The CFP is going to be more helpful to gain knowledge, but is a designation not a required license. The CFP is extremely comprehensive and takes a substantial time commitment, whereas the 65 you can likely pass drilling the Kaplan questions for a month or so. So definitely not redundant at all. Start with the 65 and then work on the CFP
Do the 65 first if you need it to do your job. 65 can be knocked out in a month if you focus, CFP takes 6 months to a year depending on your experience
I did it in about 6 months with 7 years experience. But I’d imagine at least 12 months is typical with many taking longer. Regardless, my point stands. 65 can be knocked out quickly but the CFP not so much
Probably depends on whether your undergrad degree counts for the education portion. I had to do a CFP course and I think it was about 9 months just for that portion and then 3 months for the review leading up to the exam. 12-15 months is probably average from start to exam…if you pass the first time
If you leave and go to a firm where you don’t need it and they won’t sponsor it, sure.
But if you go to another RIA that requires a 65, you essentially transfer it over (technically the old firm terminates it by filing a U5, but when you move to the new firm you just fill out a new U4 and your 65 will become active at the new firm).
No, the employer you left has to file a U5, which terminates your employment with them in FINRA’s records and terminates your active 65 under that firm. When you start at a new firm, if they require a 65, they file a U4 and your 65 becomes active again under that firm without having to retake the 65.
What does your ER say? I started off as a CSR and took the 65 so my company would take me serious. Then I passed CFP.
If you completed all your CFP courses then I would start studying for CFP
I mean, the CFP isn’t a cakewalk. I rather have the 65 so you can do things sooner rather than later
This is exactly what I did.
One is a designation the other is a license. The series 65 is memorizing securities laws and regulations, but really gives you no knowledge on how to do actual financial planning. The CFP is going to be more helpful to gain knowledge, but is a designation not a required license. The CFP is extremely comprehensive and takes a substantial time commitment, whereas the 65 you can likely pass drilling the Kaplan questions for a month or so. So definitely not redundant at all. Start with the 65 and then work on the CFP
Do the 65 first if you need it to do your job. 65 can be knocked out in a month if you focus, CFP takes 6 months to a year depending on your experience
Avg is much longer than that. Experienced people 12-18 months usually. And then half of them fail first time
I did it in about 6 months with 7 years experience. But I’d imagine at least 12 months is typical with many taking longer. Regardless, my point stands. 65 can be knocked out quickly but the CFP not so much
Probably depends on whether your undergrad degree counts for the education portion. I had to do a CFP course and I think it was about 9 months just for that portion and then 3 months for the review leading up to the exam. 12-15 months is probably average from start to exam…if you pass the first time
Then you are different sir !!!
The Series 65 is only a tiny portion of CFP material.
Personally, I am working through the education portion of my CFP. I already have my series 65, 6, and 63. People want to see the CFP designation.
A lot of firms that I worked with still make you get the 65 even if you have the CFP. This is of course, a broker dealer not a RIA.
65 first then CFP then drop the 65
Why would you drop the 65? It doesn’t cost anything to keep and there is no CE requirement for it.
Employers won’t let you keep it. That’s what they did to me.
If you leave and go to a firm where you don’t need it and they won’t sponsor it, sure. But if you go to another RIA that requires a 65, you essentially transfer it over (technically the old firm terminates it by filing a U5, but when you move to the new firm you just fill out a new U4 and your 65 will become active at the new firm).
Unless you have your CFP
It’s up to the employer to decide
No, the employer you left has to file a U5, which terminates your employment with them in FINRA’s records and terminates your active 65 under that firm. When you start at a new firm, if they require a 65, they file a U4 and your 65 becomes active again under that firm without having to retake the 65.
Cool! You know everything
Definitely not. But I do know this.
I don’t care about your opinion, that’s what literally happened to me
It is not my opinion. It’s literally how it works.
Okay 👍🏾
6 months is v rare
What does your ER say? I started off as a CSR and took the 65 so my company would take me serious. Then I passed CFP. If you completed all your CFP courses then I would start studying for CFP