日历
|
|||||||||
| 日 | 一 | 二 | 三 | 四 | 五 | 六 | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |||
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |||
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
存档
搜索标题
统计信息
- 访问数:7181
- 博客数:14
- 建立时间:2007-06-11
- 更新时间:2008-08-13
最新评论
我的收藏
我的好友
友情链接
最新留言
·۰.。‧:*:在一起听雨的屋檐下.。‧:*:‧。★,。:*:‧☆
简介CFA和CFP
2007-07-03 23:51:24
天气: 晴朗 心情: 高兴
论坛模式查看查看(699)回复(13)好评(0) 差评(0)
加入收藏 编辑 审核
- Robin 发表于 2007-07-03 23:43:09
- 我只听说过CFA. 没想到似乎CFP更适合大多数人. CFP 怎样考啊?
- 雨茜 发表于 2007-07-03 23:47:17
-
QUOTE:原帖由 Robin 于 2007-7-3 23:43 发表
我只听说过CFA. 没想到似乎CFP更适合大多数人. CFP 怎样考啊?
难不成你要考,CFP。
没有必要啦!很贵的,而且CFP需要相应的工作经验之后,才会颁发。
所以只有从事理财规划这个行业内的从业人员,比如我,才有必要考CFP啦。
- Robin 发表于 2007-07-04 00:04:35
-
哦. 明白.
现在已经习惯考试了. 见什么都想考.

- 雨茜 发表于 2007-07-04 00:09:28
-
理解!我也有类似的想法,都一样。
理财规划这个东西就跟行医一样。
拿着职称,拿着执照,如果不干行业内的东西,没用的。
实践出真知~
书本上的知识,毕竟是死的。
- clneosg 发表于 2007-07-04 10:59:28
-
CFP require 2 or 3 yrs, can't remember, of financial industry related experience before they even certify you as CFP. CFP consists of 6 papers. I tried to take CFP 4 yrs ago but never get started as I left the industry after a few months.. haha.. It is not difficult though to understand the concepts and pass the exams.
All my DipLI, ILP, etc etc licences to practice are domant now as I do not practice it, but still have an interest of discussing with interested parties on general wealth planning.
- 雨茜 发表于 2007-07-05 16:10:08
-
QUOTE:原帖由 clneosg 于 2007-7-4 10:59 发表
CFP require 2 or 3 yrs, can't remember, of financial industry related experience before they even certify you as CFP. CFP consists of 6 papers. I tried to take CFP 4 yrs ago but never get started ...
需要三年相关工作经验。
- future2003 发表于 2007-07-10 20:59:25
-
网上找的.
Comparison of CFA and CFP
by David Harper, CFA, FRM
Andy Terry and Ashvin Vibhakar published a comparative analysis of CFA and CFP Designation (pdf). This is a helpful report for career-minded professionals especially because they surveyed 300 people who hold both designations (most of whom earned the CFP before the CFA). Their findings support conventional wisdom: the CFA is perceived as a specialist designation for investment analysis and portfolio management while the CFP is perceived "as a generalist designation [that prepares people] for personal financial planning."
A customer of ours, with genuine 'Wall Street cred' and who has already sat for the FRM, is sitting for the upcoming CFP. To us he characterized the CFP as tending toward the generalist: "this test covers a broad scope of disciplines, particularly in the arenas of income taxes, retirement planning, health care, SSA, estate planning and education programs for children" and he implied the CFP is more conceptual and less mechanical/mathematical. (Thank you, John!)
The other way you could view the difference: CFPs tend to advise individuals and their estates (e.g., high net worth). CFAs tend to advise institutions (e.g., mutual funds, pensions, hedge funds).
Highlights from the Terry Vibhakar research:
According to US Dept. of Labor, the number of personal financial advisors could jump up to 35% over the next five years; the number of financial analysts is expected to increase 10 to 20% (not annually, cumulative five years).
Curriculum overlap includes: time value of money, economics, ethics, and investments & portfolio management
In regard to career preparation, the CFP got the best marks for helping professionals prepare for: advisory to individuals and families, and advisory on insurance, tax, and retirement planning. In regard to the CFA, highest marks for: investment and portfolio advice, corporate financial statements, individual securities, and institutional portfolios.

