Bank Broker Advise

[quote=kobekee]

Hi, I’m leaving a very successful career in
the car business after 20yrs. in Sales, F&I, and Sales Management.
The only other passion for work I  have is for Financial
Sales.(Wish I would have taken the leap 10 yrs. ago) I am 45 yrs. old
with no degree and we will be moving to a small metro area where we
know no one. (Wifes transfer)

Questions:

1-Is it possible to get hired by a bank with no degree? Do banks train brokers from scratch? I would like to go the Bank route other than wirehouse because of the Banks existing client base and I will have no network of influence when I get there.

2-Am I just too damned old to start from scratch in this business? I know in the car business I see new guys come in and I think, man I would hate to have to start over again from zero with all I've learned and how that business has changed in the past 20yrs. It seems like a daunting task to try to compete for business with the veterans.

Comments or advise appreciated.

I do know the difference.

Thanks, Put.

"It may just be me, but if I were to become aware that my registered rep did not know the difference between "advice" and "advise" I would close my account immediately."

For some reason or another, I always get a kick out of that. 

My .02, this business isn't like the car business.  You don't have to claw over the other brokers in the office to get an "up", like you would on a car lot. 

Clients do not find you (as they would on a car lot), you are responsible for finding them.  Unless you live in a really tiny town, working for the only firm in the town, chances are you can find a market of your own.

A very close friend of mine has been in the car business for 8 years.  He makes $200K+ a year, selling 30-40 cars a month.  He hates his job, but each time he tries something new he fails.  In his words "He has been tainted by the car business."  That's probably not true of everyone, but I believe it won't be the easiest transition.

Thanks for the reply. If your friend is making $200k a year and he’s selling and not management then he is also working off of referrals and cold calling. If you just catch the lot you’ll starve. You must market yourself and the dealership.

[quote=kobekee]Thanks for the reply. If your friend is making $200k a year and he's selling and not management then he is also working off of referrals and cold calling. If you just catch the lot you'll starve. You must market yourself and the dealership.[/quote]

Wrong.  He never cold calls and never gets referrals.... ever.

It's all from lot traffic.

He's B.S.ing you.

But hey!! He's a car salesman and it's your forum.

Put Off,

Get off your high horse!! This is a message board where we type fast and furious. We're not writing a thesis assh@le! BTW I have a masters degree in business which is probably more education then you have.

[quote=ezmoney]

Put Off,

Get off your high horse!! This is a message board where we type fast and furious. We're not writing a thesis assh@le! BTW I have a masters degree in business which is probably more education then you have.

[quote=kobekee]

He’s B.S.ing you.

But hey!! He's a car salesman and it's your forum.

" First you're not too old to start out--as is one of my themes this is a business where age is an asset in spite of what all the kids who prowl this forum sneer."

The fact is, we realize that being older in this business is an advantage. Your posts, however, take the tone that ALL younger people starting in this business are destined to fail. They take on a negative tone ( you say realistic) instead of attempting to encourage younger reps to be confident and try to succeed. As I have posted before, I agree that having life experience is an advantage to some reps. Again, if this was the stance you took, I would agree. Instead, you make broad geneeralizations that contribute nothing to this forum ( although you will say that you have'achieved the pinnacle of both education and experience in this field, and everyone should adopt my views'. Youre a joke. )

"One side of me wishes I had never stumbled on this forum."

So you think that way too??? Thats great, welcome to the club of 20-25 of us who wholeheartedly agree with you. 

20-25… No, those are just the members who have I have personally traded PM’s back and forth with… If we post a topic and more than 50 people request that you lose this website address, CAN YOU GO AWAY ???

[quote=blarmston]20-25… No, those are just the members who have I
have personally traded PM’s back and forth with… If we post a topic
and more than 50 people request that you lose this website address, CAN
YOU GO AWAY ???[/quote]



So the little man wants to kill the messenger because he can’t deal with the message?



Sorry kid, but I’ll be around long after you’ve moved on to a forum for
used car salesmen or wherever you land as a forty year old Wall Street
cast off.

200 posts in a little over a month.  Poser.

[quote=es four] [quote=kobekee]

He's B.S.ing you.

But hey!! He's a car salesman and it's your forum.

[/quote]

You need a reality check.  I wouldn't be so arrogant when you walk into a bank trying to get a job.  Stick to the car business, based on your personality it seems like you fit in there.

I used to work with him, as a salesman.  I worked with him for over 9 months.  I would watch him do it month after month.  He would NEVER cold call, and he would NEVER get even a single referral. 

Just because YOU can't do it, doesn't mean others can't.
[/quote]

Arrogant? I guess producers in any field are a little arrogant.

Reality check? Reality starts for you now my friend as I see you just passed your 7. Now pick up the phone!

" I would WATCH him do it month after month".

Better stop WATCHING Junior and start doing. You have to sell or your going to be back at the car dealership begging your buddy( Who will make more than you this year.) to put in a good word for you in the detail dept.

No need to reply es four as I will not be posting. Not my forum.

I'm sure in less than 90 you will hear those dreaded words "You're Fired"

"Seacrest Out"

By the way Put tells it like it is.

[quote=blarmston]

" First you’re not too old to start out–as
is one of my themes this is a business where age is an asset in spite
of what all the kids who prowl this forum sneer."

The fact is, we realize that being older in this business is an advantage. Your posts, however, take the tone that ALL younger people starting in this business are destined to fail. They take on a negative tone ( you say realistic) instead of attempting to encourage younger reps to be confident and try to succeed. As I have posted before, I agree that having life experience is an advantage to some reps. Again, if this was the stance you took, I would agree. Instead, you make broad geneeralizations that contribute nothing to this forum ( although you will say that you have'achieved the pinnacle of both education and experience in this field, and everyone should adopt my views'. Youre a joke. )

"You may have heard that the stock market is cyclical.  Some cycles are long, others are short.  We have been in a bull phase since August, 1982--I know, I know there have been down markets for a month or two, but the trend has been higher for more than twenty years."

Were you in some Geritol-induced coma from 2000 to 2003?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=5y&l=on&amp ;z=l&q=l&c=

If my broker made such a freakin' bone-headed statement of fact like that, he'd be fired and I'd kick his Depends-swaddled a$$ out the door.

Pompous old fart.

Once again, Put, outwitted. 

[quote=Put Sucks]Once again, Put, outwitted.  [/quote]



Wow, I am pissing the kiddos off so much that they’re getting around to inventing names–Put Rules!



Again, boys and girls–seemingly two or three young boys with anger
management issues–what would your parents do with their stock market
based investments in the event they lost 80% of their value?



The idea that a 26 year old kid is going to convince a 50 year old of anything is specious.



Go to the Dow chart for the last five years.  Yes it dropped from
mid 2001 to early 2003, and yes from year to year the Dow was lower in
both 2001 and 2002.  However, there were plenty of bounces in
there–as I said the Dow did not go down for more than a few months
without a rally.



Go to the chart again and click the maximum link.  Take a look at
the period from 1965 to 1982–sideways, year after year after year of
sideways.



How many of you numbnuts think you could have made it in those days?



Youthful exuberance is charming in children–but among adults it’s called inexperience and immaturity.



I suggest that ten years from now the Dow will be within 5% of where it
is now–how many of you uneducated fools are going to be able to
explain to your clients why their retirement is no more likely then
than it is today?

Put head,

Ever heard of asset allocation? You know what they say about opinions? 

[quote=ezmoney]

Put head,

Ever heard of asset allocation? You know what they say about opinions? 

I was addressing you silly scenario. Growth does come from dividends and reinvestment. Ever study the effects of dividends and reinvestment? Where the heck did you go to school? 

No nimrod here old man. I started in 2002 and have done very well ever since.

Oh how old men, having wasted their youth, envy the young. 

Bitter old man. Put probably spent his best years in the back office of some no name B/D making 60k/year for the remainder of his career. Poor guy can’t help his attitude about the biz.

[quote=ezmoney]

I was addressing you silly scenario. Growth does
come from dividends and reinvestment. Ever study the effects
of dividends and reinvestment? Where the heck did you go to
school? 

No nimrod here old man. I started in 2002 and have done very well ever since.

[quote=ezmoney]

I was addressing you silly scenario. Growth does
come from dividends and reinvestment. Ever study the effects
of dividends and reinvestment? Where the heck did you go to
school? 

No nimrod here old man. I started in 2002 and have done very well ever since.

If ignorance is bliss, Put's in heaven.

[quote=Put Sucks]

If ignorance is bliss, Put’s in heaven.

Nothing like proving yourself and idiot everytime you open your mouth.

before you jump on I know its an, not and.  See, it's a post, not a publication.

Plus, I'm just a kid. 

Trying to reach 200 post inside of a month.

[quote=Put Sucks]

before you jump on I know its an, not and.  See, it’s a post, not a publication.

Well genius, let's first assume that your prediction is accurate and we experience a truly flat market as we did from '66 through '82.  To that end let us say that the stock doesn't decline.  The dividends paid and reinvested give you more shares of XYZ stock.  The newly acquired shares also pay dividends.  Now, we have a nice compounding effect.  Obviously, if XYZ instead declines markedly, we have a different story.

Are you serious?  This kind of market is an options trader's wet dream.  In fact, if you're still active, I'm amazed you have time to post!

There's tons of ways to make money in a flat market.  The truth is, I'd rather have this kind of market than one that goes straight up.  At least the clients know that they're not the brains of the operation.  Income clients can be using options for cash.  There's collars and butterflies, and let's not forget that preferreds are still around, although they're not as popular as they once were.  Yessir, this is the kind of market to pick off "buy and hold" clients!

[quote=Starka]

Are you serious?  This kind of market is an
options trader’s wet dream.  In fact, if you’re still active, I’m
amazed you have time to post!

There's tons of ways to make money in a flat market.  The truth is, I'd rather have this kind of market than one that goes straight up.  At least the clients know that they're not the brains of the operation.  Income clients can be using options for cash.  There's collars and butterflies, and let's not forget that preferreds are still around, although they're not as popular as they once were.  Yessir, this is the kind of market to pick off "buy and hold" clients!

Well, as for me, I will do what I have been doing.   I manage several portfolios that are designed for absolute returns.  I short, I long, use foregin and domestic bonds, stops, some options and alt investments "but not often," and I watch the technicals.  I do not just buy and hold.    It is a pain in the a$$ sometimes because of all the work involved but it works and clients like it. 

Actually PT, hypothetically, if a stock didn't go up but you reinvested dividends, you would have a gain.  Do you mean, what would you do if the stocks drop even after dividend reinvestment?   Brokers are trained to "buy good investments 'usually MFDs,' and just hang in there."  I don't think that is appropriate at this point in time.  I think clients and brokers are going to get hurt and I think there will be far fewer of us around as time passes.  I think the tactical technicians will prevail with portfolio management.

As for me, I don't mind it so much when things are bad because that's when what I do shines the most. 

I'm sure there are some misspellings here.  If so, they are not type-Os , they are simply misspellings.  Too bad for me.         &nb sp;

[quote=Put Sucks]

Well genius, let’s first assume that your
prediction is accurate and we experience a truly flat market as we did
from '66 through '82.  To that end let us say that the stock
doesn’t decline.  The dividends paid and reinvested give you more
shares of XYZ stock.  The newly acquired shares also pay
dividends.  Now, we have a nice compounding effect. 
Obviously, if XYZ instead declines markedly, we have a different story.

[quote=Malcolm]

I’m sure there are some misspellings here.  If
so, they are not type-Os , they are simply misspellings.  Too
bad for
me.        &nbs p;&nb sp;

Let's see....ran hypo using Van Kampen Equity and Income...1 million invested on 1/01/68 through 1/01/83...withdrew 5%...+ 3%  increase for inflation every year....withdrew total of over 1 million and acct was still worth 1.3 mill.  1982's income was 77k.  Am I stupid?

Well, since you don’t agree with Put Trader, yes.

[quote=speakeasy]

Let’s see…ran hypo using Van Kampen Equity and
Income…1 million invested on 1/01/68 through 1/01/83…withdrew
5%…+ 3%  increase for inflation every year…withdrew total of
over 1 million and acct was still worth 1.3 mill.  1982’s income
was 77k.  Am I stupid?

[/quote]

Link?

If that is true why are the folks not lining up to privatize Social Security?

[quote=speakeasy]

<>Let’s see…ran hypo using Van Kampen Equity and Income…1 million
invested on 1/01/68 through 1/01/83…withdrew 5%…+ 3%  increase
for inflation every year…withdrew total of over 1 million and acct
was still worth 1.3 mill.  1982’s income was 77k.  Am I
stupid?

[/quote]



From the Van Kampen website:</><span style=“font-weight: bold;” =“sub”>

In 1984, Van Kampen Merritt introduced its first mutual fund, the Van Kampen Merritt U.S. Government Fund. Just two years later, the firm’s mutual fund business topped $3.5 billion.

Let me see if I have this right.  Speakeasy ran some sort of hypo for the 1968 to 1982 period on a fund that was not even in existance?

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Put Sucks]

Well genius, let's first assume that your prediction is accurate and we experience a truly flat market as we did from '66 through '82.  To that end let us say that the stock doesn't decline.  The dividends paid and reinvested give you more shares of XYZ stock.  The newly acquired shares also pay dividends.  Now, we have a nice compounding effect.  Obviously, if XYZ instead declines markedly, we have a different story.

[/quote]

OK, let's see.  I pay $10,000 for 500 shares of ABC at $20.  It pays $1 per share dividend.

At the first payment date I reinvest my $125 dividend in 6.25 shares--I now have 506.25 shares which I could sell for $10,000--don't lose sight of the fact that the stock will be adjusted down for the dividend.

We cold do this mental masturbation for twenty years and what we would get is $10,000 worth of stock.  It's impossible to experience growth in the stock market if stock prices do not advance--even if you reinvest the dividend till the cows come home.
[/quote]

Put,

It's could not cold. Don't you know the difference? Very poor english Put. Now go back to the baked beans you're cooking on your range top in your apartment. Try wearing something other than a robe all day and get out and meet some people.

[quote=ezmoney]

Put,

It's could not cold. Don't you know the difference? Very poor english Put. Now go back to the baked beans you're cooking on your range top in your apartment. Try wearing something other than a robe all day and get out and meet some people.

Put Trader-



Based on an earlier post of yours, can we assume you do not support
strategic asset allocation and the work of our father Markowitz? 
Are you putting out there that if the “market” is flat or negative for
the next say 10 years, that following Strategic Models cannot make
money? 

[quote=rightway]Put Trader-



Based on an earlier post of yours, can we assume you do not support
strategic asset allocation and the work of our father Markowitz? 
Are you putting out there that if the “market” is flat or negative for
the next say 10 years, that following Strategic Models cannot make
money? 

[/quote]

The Markowitz theory includes capital assets beyond stocks and bonds–real estate, metals, etc.



In the 1970s the stock market went nowhere, however real estate did
very well as did Gold, although both petered out in the early 80s as
the stock market took off.



If the Capital Asset Pricing Model was the answer why are we not all rich?



If the efficiency frontier was what it’s all about why doesn’t every portfolio manager follow it?



If the mutual funds being pushed by the kids on this forum are so great
why do so many of them suck compared to simple index funds?



Why should I pay a Gen X slacker at AG Edwards a commission to put my
money at risk when I can accomplish the same thing with dozens of
no-load funds?

So are you saying following many assets classes, both equity and other, can produce profits in a flat or declining “market”?

[quote=rightway]So are you saying following many assets classes, both
equity and other, can produce profits in a flat or declining “market”?
[/quote]



No, what I’m saying is that there are theories that suggest it can be
done–but as with any theory they work on paper but not necessarily in
real time.



Something like 90% of the registered reps have gotten registered since
1980–a chimpanzee could have succeeded as a stock broker since 1980
yet there is a huge washout rate.



The blood in the street will be even deeper if the stock market goes sideways or down for ten years.



There are hundreds of thousands of aging baby boomers who suffered huge
loses in their retirement accounts in the last several years.



Huge corporations are coming to grips with the fact that their pensions
are underfunded after all, in spite of the run up since 1980.



Real estate is in a bubble–see the cover of this week’s "New Hork"
magazine.  Where are the younger people who can afford to buy
houses that are crazy overvalued?



Mr. and Mrs. Jones were burned by the tech implosion so they fled the
stock market in favor of money markets, treauries and the like. 
They are now realizing that they are not gaining back the losses and
their retirement plans are “on hold.”  A great many of them are
moving into long term bonds because they are offering what appears to
be attractive returns.



I write straddles against long equity positions.  I’ve been doing
it since the CBOE opened and will continue to do it for the rest of my
life.  It was like printing money in the 1970s, it was scary as
hell in the 1980s, by the 1990s I had learned to weight the positions
better so that decade was OK, this decade has been fine and I expect
that the rest of my life will be too.



So sure money can be made in a sideways market.



Gotta go watch The Donald hire one of those girls.  Hasta Manana.

Put,



I like a combintation of strategic allocations using many asset
classes, including those outside of stocks and bonds, and tactical
strategies, including options.  Ther are never all up and never
all down.  I happen to think there are some real good mutual fund
managers out there, both load and no load, that serve investors
well.  I think not everyone out here are “kids” as you
stereotype.  This is just a nice distraction for some of us, a
comedic look at our business.



Playing options strategies on long equities is just another strategy,
one in which is very simple, and may yield results…but not any more
than anything else others are doing…it just works for you and your
process…but that does not propel you above all who post out
here.  After all, we do not know what the future holds, so
planting roots in any one thing is dangerous. 



Finally, like so many other posts out here, I like yours, but if you really believe everything you write I feel bad for you.

[quote=rightway]



Finally, like so many other posts out here, I like yours, but if you really believe everything you write I feel bad for you.
[/quote]



What would be an example of something you think I might believe that is worthy of sorrow?

Put, Jackass, after 357 years in the business like you, wouldn’t you realize that the reason load investors have advisors is that advisors make them hang in there in flat/sideways markets?



Oh, I forgot to mention, ICA averaged 10.7 percent between 1966 and 1982, when the “market” was flat. But that’s ok. I’m sure people who invested in 1966 didn’t sell in 73-74. In fact, they added. Just like those in 2002 stayed invested and instead added to their positions.



Here’s a great investment strategy: stay away from Put!!!

Bubba,



Take it easy on the old guy.



Are you having a bad night or what?



Get some rest, maybe you’ll feel better in the morning.

[quote=Bubba Gump]Put, Jackass, after 357 years in the business like
you, wouldn’t you realize that the reason load investors have advisors
is that advisors make them hang in there in flat/sideways markets?

[/quote]

How?  How does a broker “make” customers open an account, much
less keep one if the customer doesn’t want to?  Is it some sort of
magic potion?



I am as pro full-service-brokering as anybody, and I have spent most of
my working life in Wall Street.  I know it as well as anybody and
I’m here to tell you that you’re whistling past the grave yard if you
think that it is anything other than the toughest job on earth, if you
think that age doesn’t matter, and if you think that education doesn’t
matter.



When clients begin to lose–and it happens because of the cyclical
nature of the market–they seek relief from lawyers.  The
plaintiff’s bar goes straight to the broker’s history and will know
what your educational background is, how long you’ve been in the
business, and what you scored on your Series 7.  How do you put a
happy face on:



"…so in summation I believe that my
client is due relief because Acme Brokerage hired a college drop out
with no experience and a 73% score on their basic qualification exam to
manage the client’s account."



Now, the reality is that the attorney will be speaking to an
arbitration panel most of the time and the panel will not become as
inflamed as a jury would–but the panelists will still hear “no
experience” and “college drop out” and “73 on qualification exams” and
those facts cannot help but color their point of view as they
deliberate.

[QUOTE]
Oh, I forgot to mention, ICA averaged 10.7 percent between
1966 and 1982, when the “market” was flat. But that’s ok. I’m sure
people who invested in 1966 didn’t sell in 73-74. In fact, they added.
Just like those in 2002 stayed invested and instead added to their
positions.


[/quote]

I do not disagree that there are those who add to positions in times of
weakness, but most don’t and the average person certainly does not.



If there was all that buying going on in 2002 why did the market decline?



New brokers tend to think that they’re playing a really sophisticated
form of Monopoly–and that money their client’s lose will, magically,
come back.  That all they have to do is "hang in there."



Are you children really so naive that you do not grasp that people are
funny about their money?  99% of them can call you and tell you
that they want to buy the Smegma Fund then blame you for having
suggested it if it doesn’t work out.



Years ago I told a client something like, “It will work out if we just
hang in there…”  The client snapped back, "We?  It’s my money, not yours that is being lost."



So don’t say “We” say "It will work out if you just hang in there…"
and that same client will look at you and think, "You obnoxious punk,
what do you know about anything?"



As I said, a chimpanzee could have succeeded as a broker since
1982–the test will be how many brokers who got registered since 1980
will actually retire in 2010 and beyond.



Why do you suppose there are not very many brokers older than 60? 
Hint, it’s not because they made so much money that they were able to
quit at age 53 or something.



Nor is it because they retired because they got to retirement age.



They left the business because the clients left them following years of negative inflation adjusted returns.



It’s a cyclical game.  It would be good to heed the warning that
no tree grows forever and have a plan for an entire career spent in a
Chinese water torture style bear market–one where the indices drop
just a little every day, day after day after day. 



Just about the time you’re ready to dump your holdings and convert to
cash there’s a minor rally–a classic bull trap–then it’s down
again.  The next thing you know you’ve lost half your net
worth–or more.



The Dow is at 10,000—it could be at 3,000 in ten years and still have had a pretty remarkable run since the summer of 1982.

Put wrote: "What is ICA?  To me it means two things--"Investment Company Act" and "Investment Centers of America."  Laws don't have rates of return and Investment Centers of America was not even formed until the mid to late 1980s so it can't be them.  What is it?"

Well, guys after we all finish laughing shall we tell him????

Put, ICA (Investment Company of America) is one of the oldest & largest mutual funds.  Started in 1934 and something over $70 billion in assets.  Part of the American Funds group (ever heard of them, Put??)

Guys, there's an old saying:  "Don't engage in intellectual combat with an un-armed man".  Put is that man.

[quote=Duke#1]

Put wrote: “What is ICA? 
To me it means two things–“Investment Company Act” and “Investment
Centers of America.”  Laws don’t have rates of return and
Investment Centers of America was not even formed until the mid to late
1980s so it can’t be them.  What is it?”

Well, guys after we all finish laughing shall we tell him????

Put, ICA (Investment Company of America) is one of the oldest & largest mutual funds.  Started in 1934 and something over $70 billion in assets.  Part of the American Funds group (ever heard of them, Put??)

Guys, there's an old saying:  "Don't engage in intellectual combat with an un-armed man".  Put is that man.

Oh, and I forgot, Put also wrote: "From the Van Kampen website:</><SPAN style=“FONT-WEIGHT: bold” =“sub”>

In 1984, Van Kampen Merritt introduced its first mutual fund, the Van Kampen Merritt U.S. Government Fund. Just two years later, the firm’s mutual fund business topped $3.5 billion.

Let me see if I have this right.  Speakeasy ran some sort of hypo for the 1968 to 1982 period on a fund that was not even in existance?"

Put, The Van Kampen Growth & Income fund has been around since the mid 40's, I believe.  Put, you just don't know what you're talking about.  I'm not even sure you're in the business and all you're doing is searching web sites.  Try researching the history of Van Kampen and you'll find a big merger that led to this fund being a part of it.  Whatever though, if you've really been in the business you'd know this already.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Duke#1]

Put wrote: "What is ICA?  To me it means two things--"Investment Company Act" and "Investment Centers of America."  Laws don't have rates of return and Investment Centers of America was not even formed until the mid to late 1980s so it can't be them.  What is it?"

Well, guys after we all finish laughing shall we tell him????

Put, ICA (Investment Company of America) is one of the oldest & largest mutual funds.  Started in 1934 and something over $70 billion in assets.  Part of the American Funds group (ever heard of them, Put??)

Guys, there's an old saying:  "Don't engage in intellectual combat with an un-armed man".  Put is that man.

[/quote]
Oh, it's one of about 5,000 mutual funds--so sorry I didn't know it by it's initials.

You, of course, had never heard of the Investment Comany Act or Investment Centers of America, so I win the I use letters to discuss obscure topics.

Tell me, what does OCC mean?
[/quote]

Put, you have no excuse for not knowing ICA regardless of how many funds there are.  Anyone who's been in the business for any period of time would recognize ICA.  It's not an obscure topic. But, maybe you have been in the business for a long time and you've just lost too many brain cells to remember the obvious.

OCC could be a couples things to me anyway.  Could be the Options Clearing Corp. or the Office of the Comptroller of the currency.  What's your reference? 

[quote=Duke#1]

Put, you have no excuse for not knowing ICA
regardless of how many funds there are.  Anyone who’s been in the
business for any period of time would recognize ICA.  It’s not an
obscure topic. But, maybe you have been in the business for a long time
and you’ve just lost too many brain cells to remember the obvious.[/quote]

When there are about 5,000 mutual funds any given one of  them is obscure--especially if one has never sold it.

I apologize to nobody for saying that ICA meant Investment Company Act and/or Investment Centers of America without also including one fund in a second tier fund family.

"When there are about 5,000 mutual funds any given one of  them is obscure--especially if one has never sold it."

POOR SENTENCE STRUCTURE. Should be a comma after the clause that ends with "funds."

Grade: F

[quote=Duke#1]Oh, and I forgot, Put also wrote: "From the Van Kampen website:<span style=“font-weight: bold;” =“sub”>

In 1984, Van Kampen Merritt introduced its first mutual fund, the Van Kampen Merritt U.S. Government Fund. Just two years later, the firm’s mutual fund business topped $3.5 billion.

Let me see if I have this right.  Speakeasy ran some sort of hypo for the 1968 to 1982 period on a fund that was not even in existance?"

Put, The Van Kampen Growth & Income fund has been around since the mid 40's, I believe.  Put, you just don't know what you're talking about.  I'm not even sure you're in the business and all you're doing is searching web sites.  Try researching the history of Van Kampen and you'll find a big merger that led to this fund being a part of it.  Whatever though, if you've really been in the business you'd know this already.

Ah, an English teacher! 

Tell me Cuffy, just how much of your $19,500 annual salary are you saving for retirement?  You should call your local Edward Jones representative.  He/she specializes in unsophisticated customers who have little or no net worth!

Starka, I was illustrating how annoying the elderly Put Trader can be with his school marm condescension. His main gripe has always been “I-can’t-believe-how-you-kids-will-mak e-it-in-this-biz-with-your-(not you’re)-poor-sentence-structure-and-spelling-skills.”

[quote=Cuffy_Meigs]Starka, I was illustrating how annoying the elderly
Put Trader can be with his school marm condescension. His main
gripe has always been “I-can’t-believe-how-you-kids-will-mak
e-it-in-this-biz-with-your-(not
you’re)-poor-sentence-str ucture-and-spelling-skills.” [/quote]

Nah, that’s wrong.  I simply point at the poor spelling as
symptomatic of the basic stupidity that infects our society among those
under age 40.



It’s that stupidity that is your Achilles heel in any career.



Well, until those of us who are not stupid have all died.  When
that happens those of you who know that it’s not a good idea to piss in
the river upstream from where you draw the drinking water will be
considered sages.

Put--poor grammar/spelling is a bit frustrating given that this forum is for "professionals."  I believe you once wrote that your weakness is "its" vs. "it's"....you are correct; you used "it's" instead of "its" a few posts back ("...by it's initials.").  Minor problem.  Another common one--I'm amazed by how many people (general public) use the possessive when they mean the plural...that seems rather basic.

Break..if the market goes nowhere and people are pissed--which I'd say is at least possible, do you (plural, ie everyone out there) think a fee for advice (hourly, yearly, whatever) will become more attractive to us...a commission-based revenue stream sucks when no one trades (as the data suggests is best for the client).  So we switch to fee-based....but then if the market does jack long enough the client says "why the hell am I paying you (eg on 1% of $1m) $10k/yr to tell me to hang in there!?"  Isn't the adviser who charges, say, a $5k flat fee/yr to say and do the same things going to have an advantage eventually?  

[quote=Cowboy93]

Put–poor grammar/spelling is a bit frustrating
given that this forum is for “professionals.”  I believe you once
wrote that your weakness is “its” vs. “it’s”…you are correct; you
used “it’s” instead of “its” a few posts back ("…by it’s
initials.").  Minor problem.  Another common one–I’m amazed
by how many people (general public) use the possessive when
they mean the plural…that seems rather basic.

Break..if the market goes nowhere and people are pissed--which I'd say is at least possible, do you (plural, ie everyone out there) think a fee for advice (hourly, yearly, whatever) will become more attractive to us...a commission-based revenue stream sucks when no one trades (as the data suggests is best for the client).  So we switch to fee-based....but then if the market does jack long enough the client says "why the hell am I paying you (eg on 1% of $1m) $10k/yr to tell me to hang in there!?"  Isn't the adviser who charges, say, a $5k flat fee/yr to say and do the same things going to have an advantage eventually?  

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Duke#1]

Put, you have no excuse for not knowing ICA regardless of how many funds there are.  Anyone who's been in the business for any period of time would recognize ICA.  It's not an obscure topic. But, maybe you have been in the business for a long time and you've just lost too many brain cells to remember the obvious.[/quote]

When there are about 5,000 mutual funds any given one of  them is obscure--especially if one has never sold it.

I apologize to nobody for saying that ICA meant Investment Company Act and/or Investment Centers of America without also including one fund in a second tier fund family.

[/quote]

Put, all reps have not sold lots of things, but if they've been in the business for any period of time that's no excuse for them not having heard about a product when it's something as well-known and long-standing as ICA.  But, using your twisted logic, I guess the only things you know in our business are things you've purportedly sold. Your poor clients (assuming you ever had any) -- applying your logic you'd have never been able to counsel them about investments you hadn't sold before because you wouldn't have known squat about them, even their name! And, do some research and you might learn something -- American Funds is anything but a second tier fund family.

And it's pretty stupid to even guess that ICA is a possible reference to either the Investment Company Act or Investment Centers of Amer, when the subject matter was running hypos on investment performance.  (Duh..., I think I'll run a performance hypo on how the Investment Company Act has performed.  Duh... I wonder what it's beta and alpha are?) It's even funnier when you know of a 2nd tier b/d like Investment Centers, but have not even heard of ICA.

Put, like someone else said before, I think you're just a poser and have never been in this business.  Or, if you have been, you've since had a tragic accident or illness that unfortunately killed a lot of brain cells.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Duke#1]Oh, and I forgot, Put also wrote: "From the Van Kampen website:<SPAN style=“FONT-WEIGHT: bold” =“sub”>

In 1984, Van Kampen Merritt introduced its first mutual fund, the Van Kampen Merritt U.S. Government Fund. Just two years later, the firm’s mutual fund business topped $3.5 billion.

Let me see if I have this right.  Speakeasy ran some sort of hypo for the 1968 to 1982 period on a fund that was not even in existance?"

Put, The Van Kampen Growth & Income fund has been around since the mid 40's, I believe.  Put, you just don't know what you're talking about.  I'm not even sure you're in the business and all you're doing is searching web sites.  Try researching the history of Van Kampen and you'll find a big merger that led to this fund being a part of it.  Whatever though, if you've really been in the business you'd know this already.

[/quote]
Why do you suppose the Van Kampen webiste says that they introduced their first mutual fund in 1984 if there were Van Kampen mutual funds since the 1940s or even earlier?
[/quote]

Like I said before, Put, do some research into the history of VanKampen and you'll find the answer.

Growth and Income

ACGIX

5.75%

08/01/1946

Put Trader,



I have read many of your posts since you have become acquainted with this board, and I am convinced that you are a bitter old man with little else to do than post on this internet message board. The speed at which you reply to posts is indicitive of your lack of activity during the day. Further, your ridiculous bitterness toward today’s young people is quite disconcerting. I started in this business at age 23, worked as a sales assistant for one year, then took a job at Merrill Lynch where I have been ever since. I am not done growing my business by any means, however contrary to your comments, after ten years in the business and a trailing 12 well over $700,000 I am established.



Catch up Put Trader. It is a global economy now. My clients have been making plenty of return. Int’l debt and equity, (via IShares, mutual funds, and SMAs), REITs, commodity futures, hedge products, sector specific indexing, ML specific structured products and option strategies are ALL profitable right now.



Advisors are no longer bound to what the DJIA did for the day. You grew up in the stock jock days of the past where you had very little to offer beyond domestic stock offerings and options. However, I would be remiss to exclude those ridiculous limited partnerships you pushed as well. On the other hand, I can make money somewhere regardless of the S & P, and my income as well as my clients assets are growing subsequently. You are a dinosaur, and anytime you are questioned, you revert to “I’m older than you are, so I am smarter.” That’s just not the case.



When I was 26, I had MANY clients twice my age. Age matters for about 5 minutes. You must do certain things differently when you are young, but it isn’t a deal breaker by any means. Did it help that I had ML behind me? Yes, it helped opened the door. However, opening the ACCOUNT is what matters, and that was all me.



You seem to have a financial background and you are probably a decent human. Unfortunately, your utter disdain for any opinion other than your own and your subsequent personal attacks on those who disagree lend you to being less than admirable. You should reconsider how you approach this forum; not for fear of recourse (which there is none), but for the simple idea of always conducting yourself in a manner reflective of the professional you hold yourself to be.

As is custom with you, I expect a speedy reply.

[quote=MrFA]As is custom with you, I expect a speedy reply.[/quote]



I’m so sorry, I had to go out to Costco.  I am not in trouble am I?

Spelling: A

Grammar: A

Octogenarian-thrashing: A+

[quote=MrFA]


I am not done growing my business by any means, however contrary to
your comments, after ten years in the business and a trailing 12 well
over $700,000 I am established.


[/quote]

Damn, you’re like in your mid thirties–certainly old enough to know it all.



Tell me son, what type of bear market have you experienced?  How
many clients have filed demands for arbitration for no other reason
than their account lost value?



$700,000–why doesn’t that rank you solidly in the lower half of Merrill brokers with ten years experience?

Put,

I believe you would be catagorized as a bear. Also, clients pay us for advice. There is a reason why only 15% of the customer base are do-it-yourselfers, and they do a poor job at that. The average joe  is not able and is not willing to manage their own money. The fee based discreationary managed model solves the above issue and is the only way to go.

Go ahead and bash this also.

[quote=MrFA]

You are a dinosaur, and anytime you are questioned, you revert to “I’m
older than you are, so I am smarter.” That’s just not the case.

[/quote]

I’m 60 and have an IQ of 168, so I am older and smarter than you.



I also fully understand that I would be a dinosaur if I were still in
the biz and was still a stock jock.  But I’m neither so I am
hardly a dinosaur.



What do you think the odds are that your biggest account will be with you in five years?

Time to stop responding to this clown.  He is clearly not in the business, and further, posts for the singular purpose of getting a rise out of folks. 

[quote=ezmoney]

Put,

I believe you would be catagorized as a bear. Also, clients pay us for advice. There is a reason why only 15% of the customer base are do-it-yourselfers, and they do a poor job at that. The average joe  is not able and is not willing to manage their own money. The fee based discreationary managed model solves the above issue and is the only way to go.

Go ahead and bash this also.

So it all comes down to this: Put Trader is trolling the forum for a free stock tip.

Listen, Methusula, I don't know about the other advisors on this board, but $200,000 ain't jack to me. If there isn't $2 million plus on the other end, I don't pick up the phone.

Go get a stock tip from the Costco greeter, you crotchety old fossil.

1. Manage Expectations

2. Educate Clients on their situation

3. Constant interaction with client

4. Help clients understand the goals they are working towards, and not to become obsessed with what the Street did that day.

These are a few things that help to minimize the potential for a client ripping an account away due to a poor quarter or 6 months.  If we sell purely on performance then we set ourselves up for losing accounts and valuable clients..

[quote=Cuffy_Meigs]

So it all comes down to this: Put Trader is trolling the forum for a free stock tip.

Listen, Methusula, I don't know about the other advisors on this board, but $200,000 ain't jack to me. If there isn't $2 million plus on the other end, I don't pick up the phone.

Go get a stock tip from the Costco greeter, you crotchety old fossil.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Put Sucks]

Well genius, let's first assume that your prediction is accurate and we experience a truly flat market as we did from '66 through '82.  To that end let us say that the stock doesn't decline.  The dividends paid and reinvested give you more shares of XYZ stock.  The newly acquired shares also pay dividends.  Now, we have a nice compounding effect.  Obviously, if XYZ instead declines markedly, we have a different story.

[/quote]

OK, let's see.  I pay $10,000 for 500 shares of ABC at $20.  It pays $1 per share dividend.

At the first payment date I reinvest my $125 dividend in 6.25 shares--I now have 506.25 shares which I could sell for $10,000--don't lose sight of the fact that the stock will be adjusted down for the dividend.

We cold do this mental masturbation for twenty years and what we would get is $10,000 worth of stock.  It's impossible to experience growth in the stock market if stock prices do not advance--even if you reinvest the dividend till the cows come home.
[/quote]

Wow... how could someone be in the business that long and still be ignorant of the effects of dividend reinvestment???????

Put,



I never said I knew it ALL. I simply dispute the fact that YOU do, and moreover that you know substantially more than me.



I have never had a client file arbitration for ANY reason. My clients realize they have risk, and they appreciate all that I do to minimize it while adding alpha (I assume, reluctantly, that you understand the concept of alpha and beta). I have experienced the same markets everyone else have. What you cannot grasp is that this are more than one market out there. There are many markets to participate in that ARE making money. So if you’d like for me to assume the day of armaggedon when EVERY market and EVERY investment loses money, then yes, that will be a tough day for brokers and investors. But that isn’t reality, now is it?



Do you dispute the fact that those investments I previously mentioned are profitable? Of course you won’t. You can’t.



Then you attack my income. Laughable. Just keep watching the mailbox for that social security check to come so you can continue your trips to Costco.

"You're right the average Joe is not equipped to manage his own finances--but he will leave you in a heartbeat if you send him a statement showing that he has less than he did the last time a statement dropped."

Were this true "Joe" would have been leaving a great many of us since March of 2000.....

[quote=blarmston]

1. Manage Expectations

2. Educate Clients on their situation

3. Constant interaction with client

4. Help clients understand the goals they are working towards, and not to become obsessed with what the Street did that day.

These are a few things that help to minimize the potential for a client ripping an account away due to a poor quarter or 6 months.  If we sell purely on performance then we set ourselves up for losing accounts and valuable clients..

Put Trader said: "Insipid responses such as “buy more, average down” are going to go nowhere. Do you actually believe the rules have changed, that gravity has been neutralized and the market will never go down again?"





Who has said this on this thread??? You are trying to create your own material to argue against. You must really be lonely.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Cuffy_Meigs]

So it all comes down to this: Put Trader is trolling the forum for a free stock tip.

Listen, Methusula, I don't know about the other advisors on this board, but $200,000 ain't jack to me. If there isn't $2 million plus on the other end, I don't pick up the phone.

Go get a stock tip from the Costco greeter, you crotchety old fossil.

[/quote]

I need advice from the likes of you like I need a dose of clap.

What I was doing was seeing what you nimrods can come up with for a bear--and your idea was exactly what I expected.  Nothing.
[/quote]

OK, I'll bite: if you're truly a bear, put your $200k in AAA-rated short term muni certificates. 4.5% tax-equivalent yield, resets every 30 days. Rates are rising. Your Treasuries will get crushed. Short munis ride the yield curve.

Now go upgrade your Costco membership to Executive level with that free morsel I just gave you.

[quote=Put Trader]

Why do you suppose there are not very many brokers older than 60?  Hint, it's not because they made so much money that they were able to quit at age 53 or something.

Nor is it because they retired because they got to retirement age.

They left the business because the clients left them following years of negative inflation adjusted returns.

[/quote]

Then our man of meager brains goes on to tell us that he is age 60, and OUT OF THE BUSINESS (see page 8).  Don't we all know enough about this guy now?

[quote=stanwbrown]

“You’re right the average Joe is not equipped to
manage his own finances–but he will leave you in a heartbeat if you
send him a statement showing that he has less than he did the last time
a statement dropped.”

Were this true "Joe" would have been leaving a great many of us since March of 2000.....[/quote]

Nope, you've been blessed with two extenuating factors.

1.  Everybody knows the tech bubble was a bubble and those who lost are not blaming their brokers.

2.  September 11th has steeled the citizenry with a willingness to make sacrifices--and among those sacrifies is a malaise in the stock market.

However, as the days stretch into months and the months into years people begin to get agitated and anxious that their retirement funds are not coming back.

At best what you can hope for is what was in play when I broke in--accounts moving from one broker to another because any new voice was better than the one they had.  So I got your best account, but you got mine and at the end of the day we were even.

But there are other factors in play too--the siren song of places like Schwab, Ameritade, Waterhouse and the rest of the damn near full service firms that empower educated men and women to take control of their own account.

A day can't go by without me hearing that I should put my money into a Vanguard Index fund--no load and guaranteed to not underperform the market.  Why not?

Put, you are an old fool. Why not in Vanguard? Because the market is flat, by your own admission. So put your money in that Vanguard fund and creep out 5% (maybe) over the next five years…really exciting.



OR



Let me show you, Mr. Prospect, how to make real returns.

[quote=Cuffy_Meigs]

OK, I’ll bite: if you’re truly a bear, put your
$200k in AAA-rated short term muni certificates. 4.5% tax-equivalent
yield, resets every 30 days. Rates are rising. Your Treasuries will get
crushed. Short munis ride the yield curve.

Now go upgrade your Costco membership to Executive level with that free morsel I just gave you.

Don’t answer this guy. He should take his money to TD Waterhouse…they’ll give him all the advice he needs.

[quote=Put Sucks]

Then our man of meager brains goes on to tell us that he is age 60, and OUT OF THE BUSINESS (see page 8).  Don’t we all know enough about this guy now?

[quote=Put Sucks]

[quote=Put Trader]

Why do you suppose there are not very many brokers older than 60?  Hint, it's not because they made so much money that they were able to quit at age 53 or something.

Nor is it because they retired because they got to retirement age.

They left the business because the clients left them following years of negative inflation adjusted returns.

[/quote]

Then our man of meager brains goes on to tell us that he is age 60, and OUT OF THE BUSINESS (see page 8).  Don't we all know enough about this guy now?

[/quote]

I love it.

Dearlord...

Who would have guessed that MensaBroker would change the assumptions in order shoot down a bulletproof bear market idea?

1. As I already stated: I don't work with poor clients. If TEY is not important to you, you are not important to me. All my clients are in the highest bracket.

2. A 30 day muni is nearly as safe and provides much higher return than your 90 day bill. In a rising rate environment, shorter duration wins. ALWAYS. 30<90, Einstein.

So, add some new assumptions like AMT (no that's not one of those 5,000 mutual funds you bitch about being ignorant of) and let's play pattycake some more.

On second though, nevermind.

Cuffy_Meigs, you’d fit in well in my office.

Oh Put,

I'm not attacking your age.  I don't have an age bias, unlike yourself.  I just find it funny that you essentially state, in your typically rigid fashion that brokers who don't stay in the biz past age 60 quit because they failed (clients left them).  Then we find out that you're one of them.  Humorous, that's all.

“OK, most people are way, way, behind the eight ball when it comes to retirement planning.  What is the average net worth of a fifty year old American couple?”<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

People of average net worth are not my clients…..

”How do you manage their expectations and educate them on their situation?  Tell them that if all goes well they should be able to retire when they're 100?”

Explain that the returns of the 1990s were an aberration. Explain the term, “regression to the mean”. Explain that it isn’t wise to chase the hot dot or attempt to move everything in to what you hope will be “hot next”….

”Constant interaction with the client?  Ever seen the TD Waterhouse ad with the theme of, "My broker call me?  Sure when he wants to sell me something."  How do you avoid appearing to be interested in me as a source of commmissions?”

Two ways; if you’re commissioned based, call even when you’re not selling OR go fee based.

Please be serious. Quoting an ad for a discounter is childish. They aren’t taking my clients, I’m taking theirs.

”What you kids don't get is that we've been on a gravy train for more than twenty years--there are virtually no clients who are asking the tough questions.”

You must have left the business before the double hits of March, 2000 and 9/11.

”Insipid responses such as "buy more, average down" are going to go nowhere.  Do you actually believe the rules have changed, that gravity has been neutralized and the market will never go down again?”

Yawn, markets go down. You seem to believe they never go up….

“1.  Everybody knows the tech bubble was a bubble and those who lost are not blaming their brokers.”

ROFLMAO, you’re delusional……. The Nas is, five years later, at 40% off it’s peak value. Plently of people are steamed at their brokers. Others are steamed at the market as a whole.

“2.  September 11th has steeled the citizenry with a willingness to make sacrifices--and among those sacrifies is a malaise in the stock market.”

Again, you’re either out of your mind or retired long, long ago. Many people simply left the market. Some have moved to "can't miss" things like real estate or commodities.

Have you even been following trading volume or profit rates at the brokerages?

“However, as the days stretch into months and the months into years people begin to get agitated and anxious that their retirement funds are not coming back.”

It’s been five years that those of us that ARE in the business have been dealing with it. Thanks for the heads up.

“But there are other factors in play too--the siren song of places like Schwab, Ameritade, Waterhouse and the rest of the damn near full service firms that empower educated men and women to take control of their own account.”

The saving thing for those of us in the business is that individuals have done even worse in the market in the past few years. I have MANY clients who now deal with a pro because they feel the market ISN’T the easy place it was in the 1990s AND/OR they blew themselves up and are seeking help.

“A day can't go by without me hearing that I should put my money into a Vanguard Index fund--no load and guaranteed to not underperform the market.  Why not?”

The how poorly indexing has done (especially simply holding just the S&P 500) versus managed accounts in the past five years, I consider a prospect that say that to me to be a lay-up. I show them the numbers and they sign.

Seriously Put, this “you don’t know how tough it can be” stuff was fine in the go-go 90’s, and granted we haven’t seen a version of the slow-death of the 1980s, but the past few years have been damned tough for those of us still in the business. Those of you who haven’t been working during that period would be better off silent.

"Constant interaction with the client?  Ever seen the TD Waterhouse ad with the theme of, "My broker call me?  Sure when he wants to sell me something."  How do you avoid appearing to be interested in me as a source of commmissions?"

Put, I was hoping that you, in your infinite wisdom and experience, would educate all us 'kiddies' about how to do just that. One can still communicate with a client without trying to sell them something. For instance, I have a Client Management system where I contact my clients every 4-6 weeks. Even if its a 15 minute phone call or a message left on their machine, it goes a long way to establishing the relationship- one that MORE LIKELY wont be terminated due to a bad quarter.. Most of the time it is simply to touch base, convey to them that I care, and to subtly drop in the referral pitch. Of course, my clients also get the phone call when I am trying to "sell them something". I feel it is the only way to differentiate myself from other reps who fit the more traditional, publicly perceived role ( the TD ad for instance, which pisses me off because it calls out Mother. But oh well, the ad is effective..)

For all out there, what are some ways that you perform these duties...........

[quote=Put Sucks]

Oh Put,

I'm not attacking your age.  I don't have an age bias, unlike yourself.  I just find it funny that you essentially state, in your typically rigid fashion that brokers who don't stay in the biz past age 60 quit because they failed (clients left them).  Then we find out that you're one of them.  Humorous, that's all.

[quote=stanwbrown]<p =“Msonormal” style=“margin: 0in 0in 0pt;”><o:p></o:p> 

Seriously Put, this “you don’t know how tough it can be” stuff was fine in the go-go 90’s, and granted we haven’t seen a version of the slow-death of the 1980s, but the past few years have been damned tough for those of us still in the business. Those of you who haven’t been working during that period would be better off silent.

Put, I'm sorry your Alzheimers is kicking in, but I posted this Dow chart yesterday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=5y&l=off&am p;z=l&q=l&c=

Your uberchimp would have been flinging feces during 2000-2003.

How many times do we have to remind you: the Bull Market of 1982 ENDED in March 2000. Then there was this thing called a BEAR market for a couple of years. You remember bear markets, right? You keep reminding us of your horrible 73-74 experience, so here's an idea to jog your memory: whip out your John Denver LPs, crank up the lava lamp, tack up your Eliot Gould poster and gaze at the 2000-2003 chart above. Flashbacks will surely ensue.

Cuffy, that was a great post to end my week.  Thanks for the laugh!!

[quote=Cuffy_Meigs]

Put, I’m sorry your Alzheimers is kicking in, but I posted this Dow chart yesterday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=5y&l=off&am p;am p;z=l&q=l&c=

Your uberchimp would have been flinging feces during 2000-2003.

Priceless! When a mesg board pest is cornered, he always goes running to the “my pal is the webmaster and he says you’re a multi-ID” defense.

OK, Duke#1, let’s post at the same time. Ready? 1…2…3…GO!

Dang. Guess I'm busted. Thanks a ton, Dukie---way to talk to yourself...myself...whatever.

Don't fret, Put. Pop in your Ray Stevens and Mac Davis 8-tracks and all will be well.

[quote=Cuffy_Meigs]

Dang. Guess I’m busted. Thanks a ton, Dukie—way to talk to yourself…myself…whatever.

Don't fret, Put. Pop in your Ray Stevens and Mac Davis 8-tracks and all will be well.

[quote=stanwbrown]

I have MANY clients who now deal with a pro.

[/quote]

I am sorry to hear that, seriously.  Do you miss them now that they have gone?

[quote=jonesnewbie]

[quote=stanwbrown]

I have MANY clients who now deal with a pro.

[/quote]

I am sorry to hear that, seriously.  Do you miss them now that they have gone?

I think it’s time to oust Putrader. He clearly is not currently working in the industry, and therefore should not be entitled to use these boards.

Agreed ezmoney

[quote=ezmoney]I think it’s time to oust Putrader. He clearly is not
currently working in the industry, and therefore should not be entitled
to use these boards. [/quote]



EZ-even when he was ‘working’ he was a ‘travelling branch manager’,
which meant he was hardly working even when he was getting a paycheck…

[quote=joedabrkr][quote=ezmoney]I think it’s time to oust Putrader. He clearly is not
currently working in the industry, and therefore should not be entitled
to use these boards. [/quote]



EZ-even when he was ‘working’ he was a ‘travelling branch manager’,
which meant he was hardly working even when he was getting a paycheck…

[/quote]

It is true that for a few years, about twenty years ago, I did a stint
as a replacement branch manager covering branches when the assigned
manager was on vacation, hospitalized, retired, quit, or was
fired.  What wonderful experience that is if somebody is ambitious.



What a curious phrase, “…not entitled to use these boards.”  Entitled?

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Put Sucks]

Oh Put,

I'm not attacking your age.  I don't have an age bias, unlike yourself.  I just find it funny that you essentially state, in your typically rigid fashion that brokers who don't stay in the biz past age 60 quit because they failed (clients left them).  Then we find out that you're one of them.  Humorous, that's all.

[/quote]
Nah, I left production while in my early thirties--haven't earned a commission in about twenty-five years.

[/quote]

As if we needed a another reason to ignore this fossil...

Put, you're a clueless old man if you think the ride for the last five years has been easy. Everything you're babbling would have had a point IF you were talking between 1994 to 1999, but you aren't. Tell somebody who saw the NAS at 5000+ FIVE LONG YEARS AGO that he hasn’t faced a tough market.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

In fact, you could make the case that the bear market of the 1970s was easier than this setting for a broker because as bad as the market was you had ZERO competition. There were no discounters, there was no Elliot Spitzer, there was no CNBC, there were no do not call lists, etc., etc.,etc.. In fact, during the loudest roaring parts of the Bull market the fad was do-it-yourself, something YOU never faced. You had a captive market with no alternatives. Don’t ask me to cry in my beer because the only game in town crowd faced a tough market.

So, please, do us all a favor and your “I haven’t earned a commission in 25 years” ass outside and get some fresh air. That is, unless you town hasn’t banned you from your towns parks for yelling at the kids….

[quote=jonesnewbie]

[quote=stanwbrown]

I have MANY clients who now deal with a pro.

[/quote]

I am sorry to hear that, seriously.  Do you miss them now that they have gone?

[/quote]

By golly, that's so witty. Alter a quote and then add a zippy reply. Did you come up with that while you were sitting in your car trying to get up your nerve to play the borkerage industry's version of WatchTower salesman door to door?

Don't know what the webmaster has to say to you, Put, but either he/she or you is wrong. But, that's okay, you're apparently delusional anyway, so this fits. But, I"d be proud to have Cuffy as my alter-ego -- he's funny.

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=jonesnewbie]

[quote=stanwbrown]

I have MANY clients who now deal with a pro.

[/quote]

I am sorry to hear that, seriously.  Do you miss them now that they have gone?

[/quote]

By golly, that's so witty. Alter a quote and then add a zippy reply. Did you come up with that while you were sitting in your car trying to get up your nerve to play the borkerage industry's version of WatchTower salesman door to door?

[/quote]

Oh Stanley, some days it is just too easy to get you spinning. 

[quote=jonesnewbie][quote=stanwbrown][quote=jonesnewbie]

[quote=stanwbrown]

I have MANY clients who now deal with a pro.

[/quote]

I am sorry to hear that, seriously.  Do you miss them now that they have gone?

[/quote]

By golly, that's so witty. Alter a quote and then add a zippy reply. Did you come up with that while you were sitting in your car trying to get up your nerve to play the borkerage industry's version of WatchTower salesman door to door?

[/quote]

Oh Stanley, some days it is just too easy to get you spinning. 

[/quote]

Spinning? You must be joking. I simply pointed out your ethics deficit...

[quote=stanwbrown]

Spinning? You must be joking. I simply pointed out your ethics deficit...

[/quote]

ROFLMAO - It took you all of four minutes to find my post and give your response.  Yeah, sure thing stanley, I must be joking. 

[quote=jonesnewbie]

[quote=stanwbrown]

Spinning? You must be joking. I simply pointed out your ethics deficit...

[/quote]

ROFLMAO - It took you all of four minutes to find my post and give your response.  Yeah, sure thing stanley, I must be joking. 

[/quote]

There's a term for people who alter the quotes of others. We call them liars.

[quote=stanwbrown]

There's a term for people who alter the quotes of others. We call them liars.

[/quote]

Good definition to know.  Unfortunately for you, of course, I didn't actually alter your quote. 

What I did do was respond to your quote out of context.  We have a term for those people, too:  Three's Company script writers (e.g. Chrissy overhears a conversation between Jack and Janet, takes it out of context, and hilarity ensues).

And since we are providing definitions, what do we call a person that is an (1) an old gas bag that feels the need to opine on every topic on a message board (no matter how ill informed his opinions might be), and (2) has a sense of self worth that is almost entirely dictated by his status as a broker for "almost Merrill"?  We call them Stanley, but then I think you knew that already.

[quote=jonesnewbie] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=stanwbrown]

There's a term for people who alter the quotes of others. We call them liars. <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

[/quote]

Good definition to know.  Unfortunately for you, of course, I didn't actually alter your quote. 

What I did do was respond to your quote out of context.

[/quote]

Wow, I suspected you had an ethics deficit, but I wouldn't have guessed how deep it actually went.

Here's the real quote;

"I have MANY clients who now deal with a pro because they feel the market ISN’T the easy place it was in the 1990s AND/OR they blew themselves up and are seeking help."

And here's how you edited it;

"I have MANY clients who now deal with a pro."

That's not "context", little fella, that's editing. That's lying.