Georgia Financial Advisor

I will be graduating from a 4 year university with a major in Finance this upcoming spring. I don't have any work experience or previous internships. I have thought about going to grad school to get my MBA but many people have said it is not as valuable until one gets work experience. So, with this being said, I am somewhat clueless as to what entry-level positions I should consider after graduation.

My ultimate goal is to become a financial advisor, which I know will take many year. After at least 3 years of valid work experience, I would like to attempt to get my CFP also. This being said, I am not sure what the best first step would be as an entry-level job if these are my goals. Also, I live in the midwest now and plan to move to the south after graduating. So, I would be looking for jobs in the carolinas, georgia, or florida...if that matters at all. I know I have asked/said a lot, but I would really like to know what steps to make after graduating. Thank you.

I would suggest to apply at a large institution/bank like Citibank, Chase, HSBC as a Personal Banker. Gain experience by recommending/advising customers of financial needs. Once you understand that concept and basics of banking and selling, you'll be able to apply internally as a Financial Advisor.....or even something different since that position will open up many more doors!

2007-07-27 12:46:34 by Kellen K

www.BestAtlantaWealthManagemen t.com Marietta Financial Advisor offers a FREE Financial Review. Get an A Team of Financial Advisors. It never hurts ...

I will be graduating from a 4 year university next summer. I would like to go to graduate school to get my MBA. I'd like to do this before I get caught up in a job and not be interested in going back to school. As far as my studies go.... I am a finance major and am looking to become a financial advisor. I would like to have a finance concentration with my MBA. I know that many graduate schools recommend or require that applicants have prior work experience, but I do not have any.
I am planning on moving to the south as i live in the midwest now. I thought the best idea would be to get my MBA down there and maybe get an internship while doing so.
The schools i am considering are Georgia Tech, UNC-Charlotte, Winthrop, Florida State. I thought Georgia's program looked good, but they seem to be strict in requiring work experience.
Does anyone have any advice regarding what step i should take after undergrad or suggestions on possible grad schools? Thank you.

Get some work experience first. You'll be a much stronger candidate, you'll have more saved up for tuition (if you choose your company carefully, they might even pay for your degree), and you'll have a better idea of the exact courses and focus you'll need to advance in your chosen field.

2007-07-27 12:37:37 by Kellen K

The neat thing about a presidential race between two Senators is that voters can make direct comparisons between the candidates that otherwise are not possible. This year, the comparisons work in John McCain's favor.
McCain pushed for the "surge" in Iraq. Obama opposed it, saying it wouldn't work. When it worked, Obama said he knew it would work, but defended his vote anyway.
Two years ago, McCain warned that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were in serious need of reform and he so-sponsored legislation to reform it. Obama did not support this legislation, which the Democrats blocked. Obama was near the top of the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and two executives from these outfits were among his campaign advisors.
McCain also had the right line on the Russian invasion of Georgia (though this was not a legislative issue). As Rudy Giuliani recounted at the Republican Convention, Obama waffled for a while and eventually adopted McCain's view. McCain led; Obama followed
Most recently, McCain figured out that he needed to get back to Washington to engage, and if possible provide leadership in, the momentous issue of the financial sector bailout. While McCain opted to help make something happen, Obama said he could be reached by phone if anything did happen.
Obama's position was untenable, so he eventually followed McCain back to Washington.
Hoping to cover for their "follower" of a presidential candidate, Democrats are claiming that McCain has done more harm than good in the legislative debate. Although this is always a possibility with McCain (and, indeed, just about anyone who is willing to lead), the Democrats' case is absurd.
Their argument is that Congress was on the verge of a deal until McCain entered the picture and caused Republican House members to block it. The problems with this script are several. First, there is no evidence that House Republicans were ever on board with any deal. Second, the support of House Republicans is not needed to pass bailout legislation. The Democrats control the House.
The Democrats counter the second point by saying that a majority of House Dems won't support a deal unless House Republicans provide "cover." But this argument raises more problems than it addresses. First, it is a serious condemnation of House Dems (too gutless to do what they think is right, even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Second it is a serious condemnation of Nancy Pelosi (too ineffective to whip her troops into line even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Third, it casts serious doubt on the wisdom of the deal that McCain is falsely accused of scuttling. If the deal made sense, House Dems wouldn't believe they need "cover" from House Republicans.
Fourth, the "cover" argument shows what a non-factor Obama is in all of this. The Dems complain (preposterously) that McCain has riled up House Republicans or failed to bring them around. Meanwhile, no one seems to be asking why Obama hasn't helped the House leadership obtain sufficient support from House Dems.
There's a reason why this question isn't being asked. Obama is lightweight from whom leadership is not, and should not, be expected.

Well any one who thinks McCain is looking better than Obama can not be very bright or even own a TV or read newspapers.

2008-09-26 11:20:46 by Liberty