A Sin of Omission

I’m the bragger, Put.  250K+ of proprietary B shares.  New money was being added to B shares.  Had been going on for several years.  Is it worth a go?  There’s some other stuff, too.  But, in the current environment with the scrutiny on mutual fund sales practices, this seems like a lay-up to me.  Thoughts?..

[quote=Soothsayer]I’m the bragger, Put.  250K+ of proprietary B
shares.  New money was being added to B shares.  Had been
going on for several years.  Is it worth a go?  There’s some
other stuff, too.  But, in the current environment with the
scrutiny on mutual fund sales practices, this seems like a lay-up to
me.  Thoughts?..[/quote]





See, this is illustrative of the reality of today’s brokers. 
Things have been so good for so long that you have no sense of
reality.  Selling B shares is a lay-up arbitration case?



Ridiculous.



A lay-up arbitration case would be an 80 year old widow with index
options confirmations–or anybody with a “Fist Full of Forex.”

Stay out of it. You don't know what took place. The client may have insisted on B shares and doesn't have the guts to tell you how stupid he was.

Bottom line is a little more than 20K of lost performance since this started.  Client did not know the difference between A, B, and C shares.  Hmmm, proprietary B shares…sound familiar?  Put, if you don’t think Merrill would cough up that 20K and little bit more with one well written letter from a securities litigation attorney, then you’ve been out of this business longer than I thought.

[quote=Soothsayer]Bottom line is a little more than 20K of lost performance since this started.  Client did not know the difference between A, B, and C shares.  Hmmm, proprietary B shares.......sound familiar?  Put, if you don't think Merrill would cough up that 20K and little bit more with one well written letter from a securities litigation attorney, then you've been out of this business longer than I thought.[/quote]

Clients lie so they don't look stupid. You should know that by now.

[quote=Soothsayer]Bottom line is a little more than 20K of lost
performance since this started.  Client did not know the
difference between A, B, and C shares.  Hmmm, proprietary B
shares…sound familiar?  Put, if you don’t think Merrill
would cough up that 20K and little bit more with one well written
letter from a securities litigation attorney, then you’ve been out of
this business longer than I thought.[/quote]



I have mixed emotions on this one.  On one hand there’s lots of
frivolous arbitration cases out their by clients who got greedy,
thought they had it all figured out, and now that they’ve lost they’re
looking for a ‘partner’ to share their pain! "Oh yes but nobody told me
I could LOSE money in that technology fund…!"



Then again, I hate to see people get screwed, and that’s what the arbitration system is there for!



Just remember, if you encourage them, they get a successful settlement,
and one day you lost them money…you’re now the next target of
opportunity!  My former compliance manager always got nervous when
he heard that a client had recently been involved in a lawsuit or
arbitration!

I always ask people about prior experiences with brokers. Don’t ask if they’ve ever sued anyone. Just ask how it was resolved. If they have a history of suing brokers, I don’t take them.

[quote=annuity guy]I always ask people about prior experiences with
brokers. Don’t ask if they’ve ever sued anyone. Just ask how it was
resolved. If they have a history of suing brokers, I don’t take them.
[/quote]



Gee, as you call yourself “annuity guy”, I can see why!

[quote=inquisitive][quote=annuity guy]I always ask people about prior experiences with brokers. Don't ask if they've ever sued anyone. Just ask how it was resolved. If they have a history of suing brokers, I don't take them. [/quote]

Gee, as you call yourself "annuity guy", I can see why!


[/quote]

Somebody has to make the big bucks. Might as well be me.

Somebody has to make the big bucks. Might as well be me.

[/quote]

Who gives a sh*t about the clients?  It's all about you, right?  LOSER! 

[quote=annuity guy]

[quote=inquisitive][quote=annuity guy]I always
ask people about prior experiences with brokers. Don’t ask if they’ve
ever sued anyone. Just ask how it was resolved. If they have a history
of suing brokers, I don’t take them. [/quote]

Gee, as you call yourself “annuity guy”, I can see why!


[/quote]

Somebody has to make the big bucks. Might as well be me.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=annuity guy]

[quote=inquisitive][quote=annuity guy]I always ask people about prior experiences with brokers. Don't ask if they've ever sued anyone. Just ask how it was resolved. If they have a history of suing brokers, I don't take them. [/quote]

Gee, as you call yourself "annuity guy", I can see why!


[/quote]

Somebody has to make the big bucks. Might as well be me.

[/quote]

Has anybody ever heard of an annuity sale that was not sold?  By that I mean it is my conclusion that nobody, but nobody, reviews all the products that are available and decides that what they really want is an annuity.

Instead they are sold in the sense that the round peg customer is hammered through the square hole annuity by a salesman who has no other products to sell and is damned well going to sell something.
[/quote]

What did you do with the money that you were supposed to use for smartening school?

[quote=annuity guy]I always ask people about prior experiences with brokers. Don't ask if they've ever sued anyone. Just ask how it was resolved. If they have a history of suing brokers, I don't take them. [/quote]

You don't want a client that has a history of suing brokers.

[quote=Soothsayer]Bottom line is a little more than 20K of lost performance since this started.  Client did not know the difference between A, B, and C shares.  Hmmm, proprietary B shares.......sound familiar?  Put, if you don't think Merrill would cough up that 20K and little bit more with one well written letter from a securities litigation attorney, then you've been out of this business longer than I thought.[/quote]

$20k of "lost performance" isn't in and of itself grounds for a suit, neither is the fact the funds were proprietary. $250k in B shares, depending on how they got them (one lump sum, small amounts over time) may be, but perhaps someone from ML can tell us what their sales policy has been over the past few years. If it's like most every other wirehouse it's evolved to smaller and smaller max B share sales.

As far as the client not knowing the diff between the various classes of shares, it could be true, it could be smoke. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if ML has a form on file with the client's signature on it saying they were informed of the differences.

Client did not know the difference between share classes.  He was too busy building a business.  Client did not sign any letter.  Ever. Period.  End of story.  I always say that your clients will find out the truth–sooner or later.  Don’t do anything so shortsighted, selfish, and stupid that a good, trained eye can’t pick it up in a 30-second cold-eyes review.  The broker was all of the above.  My trained eye caught it.  The client felt betrayed, then got pissed and moved his account.  For the record, the client has not mentioned sueing Merrill, nor have I suggested it.  However, I have a client on my book as of this moment who sued Morgan for the exact same thing on a 100K purchase.  He won a rather sizeable chunk in arbitration.  That is an absolute fact.  I am not making it up. 

[quote=Soothsayer]Client did not sign any letter.  Ever. Period.  End of story.   [/quote]



Plaintiff’s attorny stores are filled with, "…than damn if they didn’t produce a document where my client acknowledged…"



Unless you have entered the discovery phase of an arbitrtion or
litigation case you have no idea what a client did and did not sign.



Why do you suppose brokerage houses are so williing to settle
arbitration?  Let’s say with B share issues–what do you think
Morgan Stanley was afraid of that they settled for a “big chunk” with
your client?

[quote=Put Trader]


Plaintiff’s attorny stores are filled with, “…than damn if they didn’t produce a document where my client acknowledged…”



[/quote]



I wonder if using a wireless keyboard will cause crazy typos if the
batteries are weak?  I think I’ll change batteries, and stop
watching the news at the same time my fingers are flying across the
keys.

[quote=Soothsayer]Client did not know the difference between share classes.  He was too busy building a business.  Client did not sign any letter.  Ever. Period.  End of story.  I always say that your clients will find out the truth--sooner or later.  Don't do anything so shortsighted, selfish, and stupid that a good, trained eye can't pick it up in a 30-second cold-eyes review.  The broker was all of the above.  My trained eye caught it.  The client felt betrayed, then got pissed and moved his account.  For the record, the client has not mentioned sueing Merrill, nor have I suggested it.  However, I have a client on my book as of this moment who sued Morgan for the exact same thing on a 100K purchase.  He won a rather sizeable chunk in arbitration.  That is an absolute fact.  I am not making it up.  [/quote]

The client was probably some idiot who thought that he was too cool to pay a commission and that he would beat the system by buying B shares.

I think you're mad because you want to churn him out of his funds and he doesn't want to pay the CDSC.

Your $100,000 guy is lying. Best case, he won the CDSC, which is not a "sizable chunk."

[quote=Soothsayer]

Somebody has to make the big bucks. Might as well be me.

[/quote]

Who gives a sh*t about the clients?  It's all about you, right?  LOSER! 

[/quote]

Thank you for your kind words.

[quote=Soothsayer]Client did not know the difference between share classes.  He was too busy building a business.  Client did not sign any letter.  Ever. Period.  End of story.  [/quote] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You don't know that's true unless you've seen his entire file from ML. Believe it or not, clients are always completely candid.

Every firm, or at least every wirehouse, has gone through the B shares sales review drill. At one time at least one wirehouse I knew of had a $500k limit on total B share sales in an account. Those limits have moved down through $250k, $100k and now, I know of a firm that won’t allow more than $25K in B share sales to an entire household in a 6 month period.

I’m not a fan of mutual funds, period and have sold very few B shares in my career, but I’ve had a chance to watch the evolution. Your client’s story has too many missing details to condemn the broker just yet.

[quote=Soothsayer] I always say that your clients will find out the truth--sooner or later.  Don't do anything so shortsighted, selfish, and stupid that a good, trained eye can't pick it up in a 30-second cold-eyes review. [/quote]

Agreed.

[quote=Soothsayer] The broker was all of the above. [/quote]

Not yet established.

[quote=Soothsayer] My trained eye caught it.  The client felt betrayed, then got pissed and moved his account. [/quote]

Well, all I’ve seen proven so far is that you did some counter selling….

[quote=Soothsayer] However, I have a client on my book as of this moment who sued Morgan for the exact same thing on a 100K purchase.  He won a rather sizeable chunk in arbitration.  That is an absolute fact.  I am not making it up. [/quote]

I’d love to see the details on that one. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. I wouldn’t do it, but there are plenty of situations where a client chooses B shares at that level over A shares because he doesn’t want to pay the 3% or 3.5% sales charge and no amount of explaining will change their minds.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Put Trader]
Plaintiff's attorny stores are filled with, "....than damn if they didn't produce a document where my client acknowledged......"

[/quote]

I wonder if using a wireless keyboard will cause crazy typos if the batteries are weak?  I think I'll change batteries, and stop watching the news at the same time my fingers are flying across the keys.
[/quote]

And put down the crackpipe too... 

, but there are plenty of situations where a client chooses B shares at that level over A shares because he doesn’t want to pay the 3% or 3.5% sales charge and no amount of explaining will change their minds.

That is sure the truth.  I have a client who still insisted  that he wanted to buy B shares even after I explained extensively to him that he would get breakpoints, pulled the info off of the NASD fund calculato to show the cost over time, drew diagrams, and practically did a song and dance about it.  I finally made him write in his own handwriting, sign and date, that he was aware of this and decided to have B shares anyway. I also had him sign and date the NASD illustration for his file.   C.Y.O.A.

As to clients being "candid". They may think that they are being so.....but, they only remember what they want to, and what is convenient at the time.  As much as I hate having more paperwork, I have suggested to our compliance department, that we need to have the clients also sign a disclosure regarding bonds and brokered Cds in regards to the possible flucuations etc.   Somehow when they get their statements they conveniently have forgotton that you explained that the value of their CD or bond will vary.

[quote=annuity guy]

[quote=Soothsayer]Client did not know the difference between share classes.  He was too busy building a business.  Client did not sign any letter.  Ever. Period.  End of story.  I always say that your clients will find out the truth--sooner or later.  Don't do anything so shortsighted, selfish, and stupid that a good, trained eye can't pick it up in a 30-second cold-eyes review.  The broker was all of the above.  My trained eye caught it.  The client felt betrayed, then got pissed and moved his account.  For the record, the client has not mentioned sueing Merrill, nor have I suggested it.  However, I have a client on my book as of this moment who sued Morgan for the exact same thing on a 100K purchase.  He won a rather sizeable chunk in arbitration.  That is an absolute fact.  I am not making it up.  [/quote]

The client was probably some idiot who thought that he was too cool to pay a commission and that he would beat the system by buying B shares.

I think you're mad because you want to churn him out of his funds and he doesn't want to pay the CDSC.

Your $100,000 guy is lying. Best case, he won the CDSC, which is not a "sizable chunk."

[/quote]

Soothsayer's seemed pretty reasonable in the past, so I don' want to think the worst of him. OTOH, if I didn't know any of the parties involved, that's exactly what I would have guessed.

Honest, no offense Sooth...

[quote=babbling looney]

, but there are plenty of situations where a client chooses B shares at that level over A shares because he doesn’t want to pay the 3% or 3.5% sales charge and no amount of explaining will change their minds.

That is sure the truth.  I have a client who still insisted  that he wanted to buy B shares even after I explained extensively to him that he would get breakpoints, pulled the info off of the NASD fund calculato to show the cost over time, drew diagrams, and practically did a song and dance about it.  I finally made him write in his own handwriting, sign and date, that he was aware of this and decided to have B shares anyway. I also had him sign and date the NASD illustration for his file.   C.Y.O.A.

[/quote]

Some firms require disclosure forms to be  signed just as you did. Others have simply outlawed the selling of B shares above a very low level. They're trying to avoid anything that gives a client a "regulatory put option".

It's sad, but these days you just have to protect yourself.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Soothsayer]Client did not sign any letter.  Ever. Period.  End of story.   [/quote]

Plaintiff's attorny stores are filled with, "....than damn if they didn't produce a document where my client acknowledged......"

Unless you have entered the discovery phase of an arbitrtion or litigation case you have no idea what a client did and did not sign.

Why do you suppose brokerage houses are so williing to settle arbitration?  Let's say with B share issues--what do you think Morgan Stanley was afraid of that they settled for a "big chunk" with your client?
[/quote]

The client did not sign anything.  End of story.  Period.  He is certainly not a sophisticated investor, but he is not a dumb man.  (How else do you think he has a net worth of $6 million +?  Self-made, too.)  He was eager to see and learn the difference in share classes.  I was the first to show him.  There are certain salt-of-the-earth people that you learn to believe at face value.  He insists that he never signed anything.  I believe him.  Unconditionally.  He has not lied, exagerated, or misled me on anything to this point.  He has been an absolute pleasure to work with. 

[quote=annuity guy]

[quote=Soothsayer]Client did not know the difference between share classes.  He was too busy building a business.  Client did not sign any letter.  Ever. Period.  End of story.  I always say that your clients will find out the truth--sooner or later.  Don't do anything so shortsighted, selfish, and stupid that a good, trained eye can't pick it up in a 30-second cold-eyes review.  The broker was all of the above.  My trained eye caught it.  The client felt betrayed, then got pissed and moved his account.  For the record, the client has not mentioned sueing Merrill, nor have I suggested it.  However, I have a client on my book as of this moment who sued Morgan for the exact same thing on a 100K purchase.  He won a rather sizeable chunk in arbitration.  That is an absolute fact.  I am not making it up.  [/quote]

The client was probably some idiot who thought that he was too cool to pay a commission and that he would beat the system by buying B shares.

I think you're mad because you want to churn him out of his funds and he doesn't want to pay the CDSC.

Your $100,000 guy is lying. Best case, he won the CDSC, which is not a "sizable chunk."

[/quote]

The client is a very shrewd multi-millionaire who has not quibbled with a single fee or charge to this point.  He just likes it to be upfront, honest, and put in "simple terms that he can retell to his wife if necessary."

He liquidated his proprietary B shares.  He called from my office on speakerphone and got the CDSC.  I did not encourage the sale.  He was pissed.  His trust had been violated.  He wanted them gone.

The "sizeable chunk" check was deposited to the client's account in my office.  I know the amount to the penny.  I took a copy of the face that is still in the client's file.  CDSC my ass!  It was enough money to buy a Cadillac Escalade (at the GM employee price).

Shrewd and buying B shares can't occupy the same space.

I think you're lying. Let's say, in your favor, that your african American car (that you don't really have) cost $50,000. The client had to put $5,000,000 into MF's with you. I don't believe that your "shrewd" millioinaire did that. If he's stupid enough to buy B shares, he's too stupid to have $5,000,000.

In short, you're a liar with a moron for a client.

Do the mutual fund companies ever get in trouble for inventing B Shares?

I blame them. I never saw the advantage, at least, not ethically, so I never sold them.

I find tons of them around, though.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

Do the mutual fund companies ever get in trouble for inventing B Shares?

I blame them. I never saw the advantage, at least, not ethically, so I never sold them.

I find tons of them around, though.

[/quote]

The advantage of B shares, imho, is limited to those buyers who will never achieve the level of purchase that gives them a break on the upfront loads of A shares. However, if you want to indict mutual fund companies and the brokers that sell B shares, we could expand that discussion to mutual funds and brokers who sell them, period, to investors of sizable means.

[quote=Soothsayer]

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Soothsayer]Client did not sign any letter.  Ever. Period.  End of story.   [/quote]

Plaintiff's attorny stores are filled with, "....than damn if they didn't produce a document where my client acknowledged......"

Unless you have entered the discovery phase of an arbitrtion or litigation case you have no idea what a client did and did not sign.

Why do you suppose brokerage houses are so williing to settle arbitration?  Let's say with B share issues--what do you think Morgan Stanley was afraid of that they settled for a "big chunk" with your client?
[/quote]

The client did not sign anything.  End of story.  Period.  [/quote]

Having been in the business all day now, I wouldn't bet the farm on that unless I had the file in front of me.

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=Soothsayer]

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Soothsayer]Client did not sign any letter.  Ever. Period.  End of story.   [/quote]

Plaintiff's attorny stores are filled with, "....than damn if they didn't produce a document where my client acknowledged......"

Unless you have entered the discovery phase of an arbitrtion or litigation case you have no idea what a client did and did not sign.

Why do you suppose brokerage houses are so williing to settle arbitration?  Let's say with B share issues--what do you think Morgan Stanley was afraid of that they settled for a "big chunk" with your client?
[/quote]

The client did not sign anything.  End of story.  Period.  [/quote]

Having been in the business all day now, I wouldn't bet the farm on that unless I had the file in front of me.

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=Roger Thornhill]

Do the mutual fund companies ever get in trouble for inventing B Shares?

I blame them. I never saw the advantage, at least, not ethically, so I never sold them.

I find tons of them around, though.

[/quote]

The advantage of B shares, imho, is limited to those buyers who will never achieve the level of purchase that gives them a break on the upfront loads of A shares. However, if you want to indict mutual fund companies and the brokers that sell B shares, we could expand that discussion to mutual funds and brokers who sell them, period, to investors of sizable means.

[/quote]

In addition to what Stan said, I think they may be suitable for older clients (75+) or someone in very poor health.  CDSC is waived in the event of death.  The other scenario is in an IRA account where the owner is very close to having RMDs or is already taking RMDs.  CDSC is also waived in this scenario.  I've used B shares in cases like this.  I don't use them when the client has 400K in a single proprietary fund, and each month new money is added to that same pool of B shares.  And, again, I'd bet my house the guy never signed anything.  My client who clipped Morgan didn't.  If he had, it would have come up in arbitration.  It didn't.

[quote=annuity guy]

Shrewd and buying B shares can't occupy the same space.

I think you're lying. Let's say, in your favor, that your african American car (that you don't really have) cost $50,000. The client had to put $5,000,000 into MF's with you. I don't believe that your "shrewd" millioinaire did that. If he's stupid enough to buy B shares, he's too stupid to have $5,000,000.

In short, you're a liar with a moron for a client.

[/quote]

Isn't that what your annuties are?  Over-priced B-shares in drag?  I only used the Escalade example because I knew that you would know the price.  In fact, I figured it to be the vehicle of choice for a slimy, unscrupulous annuity pimp.  Is your life savings hanging around your neck right now?

[quote=Soothsayer][quote=stanwbrown][quote=Roger Thornhill]

Do the mutual fund companies ever get in trouble for inventing B Shares?

I blame them. I never saw the advantage, at least, not ethically, so I never sold them.

I find tons of them around, though.

[/quote]

The advantage of B shares, imho, is limited to those buyers who will never achieve the level of purchase that gives them a break on the upfront loads of A shares. However, if you want to indict mutual fund companies and the brokers that sell B shares, we could expand that discussion to mutual funds and brokers who sell them, period, to investors of sizable means.

[/quote]

 My client who clipped Morgan didn't.  If he had, it would have come up in arbitration.  It didn't.

[/quote]

I'd still like to see the details of this arbitration. It's a matter of public record and with a name we could all read the file.

[quote=stanwbrown][

The advantage of B shares, imho, is limited to those buyers who will never achieve the level of purchase that gives them a break on the upfront loads of A shares. However, if you want to indict mutual fund companies and the brokers that sell B shares, we could expand that discussion to mutual funds and brokers who sell them, period, to investors of sizable means.

[/quote]

When they first came out, there wasn't any numerical advantage to owning them (at least, not where I worked). Most firms created them to copy other firms, but somebody started this "no up front sales charge" madness. The NASD allowed it, then wants to punish people for being human? Those in charge at the time over at the NASD should be shot.

There's nothing wrong with people of means owning mutual funds. Plenty do. There's no sales charge for large purchases, and fee reduced shares for purchases larger than that. Compared to the fees charged by most RIAs, mutual funds are often cheap, so there's no reason to indict them for being available, or for brokers selling them, as long as they use A Shares.

Your analogy is poor.

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=stanwbrown][

The advantage of B shares, imho, is limited to those buyers who will never achieve the level of purchase that gives them a break on the upfront loads of A shares. However, if you want to indict mutual fund companies and the brokers that sell B shares, we could expand that discussion to mutual funds and brokers who sell them, period, to investors of sizable means.

[/quote]

When they first came out, there wasn't any numerical advantage to owning them (at least, not where I worked).

[/quote]

Huh? Small investors paying 5.5% to 8.5% upfront on A shares sure did see an advantge with B shares, and they have since they were first introduced.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

 Most firms created them to copy other firms, but somebody started this "no up front sales charge" madness. The NASD allowed it, then wants to punish people for being human? Those in charge at the time over at the NASD should be shot.

[/quote]

uh, but there IS no upfront sales charge. People who don't qualify for breakpoints with A shares CAN benefit wth B shares. Especially those that convert to As. Like I said, I'm no fan of mutual funds, much less B shares, but let's not pretend there's no advantage to any client.

Clients should be informed of ALL the costs, just as babbling pointed out.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]There's nothing wrong with people of means owning mutual funds. Plenty do. There's no sales charge for large purchases, and fee reduced shares for purchases larger than that.

[/quote]

Please be serious. What tiny fraction of A share sales go at NAV? The vast majority or funds sold to people of means include a sales charge that a SMA would have avoided, NO discount on management fees as an SMA would have provided, NO tax consideration to the individual as an SMA would have provided. But what DO those fund sales have that SMAs don't? A big payday for brokers.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

Compared to the fees charged by most RIAs, mutual funds are often cheap, so there's no reason to indict them for being available, or for brokers selling them, as long as they use A Shares.

[/quote]

Mutual funds can be cheaper than RIAs or SMA fees, but they rarely are for large accounts, and there's that sales charge that the vast majority of fund buyers pay. Toss in tax advandages and funds rarely, if ever, work out cheaper.

Let's not ignore the other sins of funds while focusing on B shares.

[quote=stanwbrown]Huh? Small investors paying 5.5% to 8.5% upfront on A shares sure did see an advantge with B shares, and they have since they were first introduced.[/quote]

They saw the advantage because too many RRs told them "There's no up front sales charge." They were a VERY BAD idea, from the get go.

It's safer to sell contractual plans than a B Share.

[quote=stanwbrown]uh, but there IS no upfront sales charge. People who don't qualify for breakpoints with A shares CAN benefit wth B shares. Especially those that convert to As. Like I said, I'm no fan of mutual funds, much less B shares, but let's not pretend there's no advantage to any client.[/quote]

In some fund families, there is no difference. That's my point. No difference, no reason to sell them, so I never did. This is why I've never had a single client complaint, and I have numerically more clients than most.

[quote=stanwbrown]Clients should be informed of ALL the costs, just as babbling pointed out.[/quote]

And they are, but a prospectus isn't enough, apparently. The NASD is crucifying brokers and B/Ds. The best path is to avoid these timebombs. Or, better yet, cut out the NASD. They are a very expensive middleman.

[quote=stanwbrown]Please be serious. What tiny fraction of A share sales go at NAV? The vast majority or funds sold to people of means include a sales charge that a SMA would have avoided, NO discount on management fees as an SMA would have provided, NO tax consideration to the individual as an SMA would have provided. But what DO those fund sales have that SMAs don't? A big payday for brokers.[/quote]

I'm always serious. I've sold millions at NAV. Back when I was just an RR, and most B/Ds weren't doing fees, I had no choice with large tickets. I took my 70 basis points GDC, and went to my next appointment.

[quote=stanwbrown]Mutual funds can be cheaper than RIAs or SMA fees, but they rarely are for large accounts, and there's that sales charge that the vast majority of fund buyers pay. Toss in tax advandages and funds rarely, if ever, work out cheaper.[/quote]

Since Bessemer Trust charges, on average, 67 basis points (and they are MUCH bigger than you will ever be), and First Northern Trust is in the same ballpark (and they are even bigger), there is no real fee advantage for even the largest of accounts. What some po-dunk RIA advertises, and what the affluent actually pay, are two different things. I don't see my clients with eight figures liquid running down to Schwab or TD Ameritrade, unless there's an advisor in the mix.

[quote=stanwbrown]Let's not ignore the other sins of funds while focusing on B shares.[/quote]

It was your idea to segue into this area.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=stanwbrown]Huh? Small investors paying 5.5% to 8.5% upfront on A shares sure did see an advantge with B shares, and they have since they were first introduced.[/quote]

They saw the advantage because too many RRs told them "There's no up front sales charge." They were a VERY BAD idea, from the get go.

[/quote]

Sorry, but repeating an error doesn't make it so. There IS an advantage to people buying in such low dollar amounts that they never qualify for breakpoints in A shares, and their IS no upfront charge. Fees, obviously should be fully explained, but the total cost is often less to clients who are only going to be buying in small amounts.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=stanwbrown]uh, but there IS no upfront sales charge. People who don't qualify for breakpoints with A shares CAN benefit wth B shares. Especially those that convert to As. Like I said, I'm no fan of mutual funds, much less B shares, but let's not pretend there's no advantage to any client.[/quote]

In some fund families, there is no difference. That's my point. No difference, no reason to sell them, so I never did. This is why I've never had a single client complaint, and I have numerically more clients than most.

[/quote]

I'm getting the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm no fan of funds period, and B shares especially, but to say there's "no difference"??????? Of course there's a difference. Money spent on the front load isn't available for growth. If you're not getting any A share breakpoints and are forced to pay full boat on loads, there's a difference that overcomes the 12b-1 cost of B shares.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=stanwbrown]Clients should be informed of ALL the costs, just as babbling pointed out.[/quote]

And they are, but a prospectus isn't enough, apparently. The NASD is crucifying brokers and B/Ds. The best path is to avoid these timebombs. Or, better yet, cut out the NASD. They are a very expensive middleman.

[/quote]

sigh... I never said the prospectus was enough. Babblingloony pointed out the illistration she used. That's a fine and full disclosure of fees. Again, I'm not defending B shares, but your attacks are based on incorrect information.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=stanwbrown]Please be serious. What tiny fraction of A share sales go at NAV? The vast majority or funds sold to people of means include a sales charge that a SMA would have avoided, NO discount on management fees as an SMA would have provided, NO tax consideration to the individual as an SMA would have provided. But what DO those fund sales have that SMAs don't? A big payday for brokers.[/quote]

I'm always serious. I've sold millions at NAV. Back when I was just an RR, and most B/Ds weren't doing fees, I had no choice with large tickets. I took my 70 basis points GDC, and went to my next appointment.

[/quote]

Once again, you miss the point. I'll bet the ranch you sold, as the indurty does, the vast majority of your A shares with a load. NAV sales (usually $1M ticket minimums) are uncommon. Soooooo, you put a sales load on asset management to someone who COULD have recieved better management, less expensively and with tax situation awareness and NO SALES charge with an SMA. I find it hard to listen to somone doing that trying to make the case that they're pure as the driven snow and that the guy selling B shares is evil incarnate.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=stanwbrown]Mutual funds can be cheaper than RIAs or SMA fees, but they rarely are for large accounts, and there's that sales charge that the vast majority of fund buyers pay. Toss in tax advandages and funds rarely, if ever, work out cheaper.[/quote]

Since Bessemer Trust charges, on average, 67 basis points (and they are MUCH bigger than you will ever be), and First Northern Trust is in the same ballpark (and they are even bigger), there is no real fee advantage for even the largest of accounts.

[/quote]

Let's see if we have the details correct here... you sell only at NAV, you sell super inexpensive funds, you don't place any management fee on that in any other form and none of your clients would benefit taxwise from direct ownership of their securities over a pooled situation.

Wow, you're a saint 

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

What some po-dunk RIA advertises, and what the affluent actually pay, are two different things. I don't see my clients with eight figures liquid running down to Schwab or TD Ameritrade, unless there's an advisor in the mix.

[/quote]

Sounds like you have me confused with an RIA (I've been talking about SMAs), and I have no clue what that reference to TD or Shwab was about. It certainly didn't have anything to do with what we've been discussing.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=stanwbrown]Let's not ignore the other sins of funds while focusing on B shares.[/quote]

It was your idea to segue into this area.

[/quote]

Hmmm, to make it clear to you, I see no moral high ground deserved among fund sellers, be they A or B shares...

[quote=stanwbrown]Sorry, but repeating an error doesn't make it so. There IS an advantage to people buying in such low dollar amounts that they never qualify for breakpoints in A shares, and their IS no upfront charge. Fees, obviously should be fully explained, but the total cost is often less to clients who are only going to be buying in small amounts.[/quote]

You must be new to the business. The development you mention is relatively new. When first issued, B Shares had no numerical fee advantage to the A Shares they competed with. It was a concept sale, pure and simple, and I know why they were first created this way (few retail brokers do, including you).

[quote=stanwbrown]I'm getting the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm no fan of funds period, and B shares especially, but to say there's "no difference"??????? Of course there's a difference. Money spent on the front load isn't available for growth. If you're not getting any A share breakpoints and are forced to pay full boat on loads, there's a difference that overcomes the 12b-1 cost of B shares.[/quote]

You must be a liberal. You talk about feelings. I'm talking about facts.

[quote=stanwbrown]sigh... I never said the prospectus was enough. Babblingloony pointed out the illistration she used. That's a fine and full disclosure of fees. Again, I'm not defending B shares, but your attacks are based on incorrect information.[/quote]

I'm not attacking anything. I'm just correcting your errors. I may have to hire help, because you're making so many.

[quote=stanwbrown]Once again, you miss the point. I'll bet the ranch you sold, as the indurty does, the vast majority of your A shares with a load. NAV sales (usually $1M ticket minimums) are uncommon. Soooooo, you put a sales load on asset management to someone who COULD have recieved better management, less expensively and with tax situation awareness and NO SALES charge with an SMA. I find it hard to listen to somone doing that trying to make the case that they're pure as the driven snow and that the guy selling B shares is evil incarnate.[/quote]

I haven't sold my ranch, but I did just buy another section adjacent to my Northern most riverbottom section. $1,200 an acre, with no need to irrigate.

Anyways...You are a newby. While fee-based management predates the mutual fund by, oh, well, infinity (but in modern times, a century, using traditional securitization of business entities and their debt obligations), the reality is that until the computer could be used to fractionalize the appearance of ownership in securities that cannot be fractionalized, an SMA could never compete with a mutual fund on portfolios of less than $500,000.

Today, we do it for $25,000, but that's not the point (did you have one? I didn't see one, just arguments for the sake or arguments, making you a member of the mental midget club).

While there's no sales charge on an SMA, there's a toll to enter. It sounds like you don't discuss this with your clients, making you just as guilty as the B Share peddler that says his fund has no load.

I suspected this, but now you have proven it.

[quote=stanwbrown]Let's see if we have the details correct here... you sell only at NAV, you sell super inexpensive funds, you don't place any management fee on that in any other form and none of your clients would benefit taxwise from direct ownership of their securities over a pooled situation. [/quote]

You are guessing at details that you do not have access to. This makes you a liberal, and a very poor one, at that.

Smart people ask questions. You make assumptions. We all know what that makes you.

[quote=stanwbrown]Wow, you're a saint  [/quote]

16,000+ clients agree. I'm a saint. A multiple of nine figures AUM and counting.

[quote=stanwbrown]Sounds like you have me confused with an RIA (I've been talking about SMAs), and I have no clue what that reference to TD or Shwab was about. It certainly didn't have anything to do with what we've been discussing.[/quote]

I'm not confused about anything, except what your purpose on this board is. I see that you post more than anybody. You must not have many clients.

By the way, who do you think manages an SMA? *snicker*

[quote=stanwbrown]Hmmm, to make it clear to you, I see no moral high ground deserved among fund sellers, be they A or B shares...[/quote]

Then you suffer from myopia.

Anybody that sells an investment that creates wealth is helping the investor. The fee flow of capital -- to where it's rewarded -- is what makes capitalism work better than any other system. Retail brokers facilitate that flow by keeping money in the auction for the better assets. The create demand, which is a function the system suffers without.

Without them, what little you've saved would decrease in value.

You need brokers. You should want brokers. Without them, you'd be sweeping the factory floor.

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

[quote=stanwbrown]Sorry, but repeating an error doesn't make it so. There IS an advantage to people buying in such low dollar amounts that they never qualify for breakpoints in A shares, and their IS no upfront charge. Fees, obviously should be fully explained, but the total cost is often less to clients who are only going to be buying in small amounts.[/quote]

You must be new to the business. The development you mention is relatively new. When first issued, B Shares had no numerical fee advantage to the A Shares they competed with. It was a concept sale, pure and simple, and I know why they were first created this way (few retail brokers do, including you).

[/quote]

Gee, only been in the biz for 15 years. Please do explain how there ever was a time that B shares DIDN'T have the advantage of no upfront load??????? You sound very, very confused.

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=stanwbrown]I'm getting the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm no fan of funds period, and B shares especially, but to say there's "no difference"??????? Of course there's a difference. Money spent on the front load isn't available for growth. If you're not getting any A share breakpoints and are forced to pay full boat on loads, there's a difference that overcomes the 12b-1 cost of B shares.[/quote]

You must be a liberal. You talk about feelings. I'm talking about facts.

[/quote]

LOL, what "fact" was that? What "feeling" did I mention? Sounds like you have no clue about loads, 12b-1s, etc....

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=stanwbrown]sigh... I never said the prospectus was enough. Babblingloony pointed out the illistration she used. That's a fine and full disclosure of fees. Again, I'm not defending B shares, but your attacks are based on incorrect information.[/quote]

I'm not attacking anything. I'm just correcting your errors. I may have to hire help, because you're making so many.

[/quote]

LOL, again, just name that "error" you pointed out. I never mentioned a prospectus, that was you, and it was YOU that claimed they weren't sufficient disclosure, as if I had ever said they were.

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=stanwbrown]Once again, you miss the point. I'll bet the ranch you sold, as the indurty does, the vast majority of your A shares with a load. NAV sales (usually $1M ticket minimums) are uncommon. Soooooo, you put a sales load on asset management to someone who COULD have recieved better management, less expensively and with tax situation awareness and NO SALES charge with an SMA. I find it hard to listen to somone doing that trying to make the case that they're pure as the driven snow and that the guy selling B shares is evil incarnate.[/quote]

Anyways...You are a newby.

[/quote]

You keep repeating errors as if that makes them true. Thus far the only person speaking as if they haven’t a clue about loads, 12b-1s and the roles of brokers is you, pal… perhaps you can try to make a point that’s factually correct….

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

 While fee-based management predates the mutual the reality is that until the computer could be used to fractionalize the appearance of ownership in securities that cannot be fractionalized,………. an SMA could never compete with a mutual fund on portfolios of less than $500,000.

[/quote]

Thanks for the unneeded history lesson. Now that you’ve brought us up to, oh, 18 years ago in the history of SMAs, perhaps we can get you your claim that charging a sales charge on putting well heeled clients into mutual funds isn’t an ethical problem when the same money can go into an SMA with no sales load at all…

[quote=Roger Thornhill][

While there's no sales charge on an SMA, there's a toll to enter. It sounds like you don't discuss this with your clients, making you just as guilty as the B Share peddler that says his fund has no load.

[/quote]

You’re deeply, deeply confused. There’s no toll, or anything remotely like it to enter an SMA. I get the feeling you not only don’t hold a series 7 or 63/65 or 66, you don’t even know what they are…

 Here’s the deal Roger, let’s see you explain just how there’s a “toll” to pay on entry into an SMA, and let’s see you do it without childish, and factually incorrect,  “liberal” and “newbie” asides.

[quote=stanwbrown]Gee, only been in the biz for 15 years. Please do explain how there ever was a time that B shares DIDN'T have the advantage of no upfront load??????? You sound very, very confused.[/quote]

So I have a decade more experience than you do, but that's not really fair, because I've grown with mine. You've repeated your freshman year 15 times. *snicker*

I've already explained the facts. You refuse to accept them, making you guilty of confirmation bias and idiocy. You also have a bad memory.

[quote=stanwbrown]LOL, what "fact" was that? What "feeling" did I mention? Sounds like you have no clue about loads, 12b-1s, etc....[/quote]

You like to say "sounds like" when you exhibit a serious lack of knowledge about the world around you. Are you really a broker? I'm having doubts...

[quote=stanwbrown]LOL, again, just name that "error" you pointed out. I never mentioned a prospectus, that was you, and it was YOU that claimed they weren't sufficient disclosure, as if I had ever said they were.[/quote]

I never said there wasn't sufficient disclosure. That was you. Silly boy. Go stand in the corner.

[quote=stanwbrown]You keep repeating errors as if that makes them true. Thus far the only person speaking as if they haven’t a clue about loads, 12b-1s and the roles of brokers is you, pal… perhaps you can try to make a point that’s factually correct….[/quote]

Here's a factually corrrect point: I know more than you do.

Your posts are verifiable evidence against you, in support of my factually correct statement. QED

[quote=stanwbrown]Thanks for the unneeded history lesson. Now that you’ve brought us up to, oh, 18 years ago in the history of SMAs, perhaps we can get you your claim that charging a sales charge on putting well heeled clients into mutual funds isn’t an ethical problem when the same money can go into an SMA with no sales load at all…[/quote]

Actually, you DO need a history lesson, sonny, since you're ignorant of history.

There's a growing population of failed planners in this world, and you are clearly among them. Here's why: You lack the ability to overcome your self-created ethical dilemmas, which is why you spend your days on here, rather than out in the field. At least the pubilc is safer, while you're glued to your PC.

[quote=stanwbrown]You’re deeply, deeply confused. There’s no toll, or anything remotely like it to enter an SMA. I get the feeling you not only don’t hold a series 7 or 63/65 or 66, you don’t even know what they are…[/quote]

ROFLMAO. Okay, so you're bad at math, too. That's sad. You must have attended one of those really poor public schools. Want me to list how many of those silly exams I've passed? Let me put it this way. I stopped with the Series 8 (although not numerically, since that would be the Series 65 -- there was no Series 66 when I was taking them).

[quote=stanwbrown] Here’s the deal Roger, let’s see you explain just how there’s a “toll” to pay on entry into an SMA, and let’s see you do it without childish, and factually incorrect,  “liberal” and “newbie” asides.[/quote]

Get out your checkbook, if you want remedial education, sonny. I charge $375 per hour, in advance. In your case, we'll have to verify funds before I'll let you enroll.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

ROFLMAO.

Okay, so you’re bad at math, too. That’s sad. You must have attended

one of those really poor public schools. Want me to list how many of

those silly exams I’ve passed? Let me put it this way. I stopped with

the Series 8 (although not numerically, since that would be the Series

65 – there was no Series 66 when I was taking them).

Then there’s the children who read this forum.



Most will be selling something else in five years so there’s no reason to consider them at this point.

Considering that you're not selling anything now (and probably never did sell anything), they rank above you, ClerkBoy.

Don't you ever tire of being bitch-slapped?  I must confess that I'm getting bored with besting you.  There's just no challenge to it.

[quote=Starka]

Considering that you’re not selling anything now (and probably never did sell anything), they rank above you, ClerkBoy.

Don't you ever tire of being bitch-slapped?  I must confess that I'm getting bored with besting you.  There's just no challenge to it.

Quite right…by besting you, ClerkBoy, I’m besting no one.

[quote=Put Trader] Isn't it nice how anybody can be anything here in the wonderful world of cyberspace.[/quote]

It doesn't matter whether it' hear, or somewhere else, you're still a failed planner. How does it feel?[quote=Put Trader] I suggest that what happened with this Roger character is this. Mojo was getting his butt kicked with logic and common sense so he ran and got Roger to come over to this forum.[/quote]

Mojo never invited me here. Heck, I was here long before you arrived.

[quote=Put Trader] Both of them, Roger and Mojo, are those insurance types who take pride in the fact that they don't have securities licenses. They will tell you it's because they don't need the tickets because they're making money hand over fist selling insurance.[/quote]

What part of Series 8 did you not get? How can you breath with an IQ so low?[quote=Put Trader] I've met hundreds of their ilk. Hale fellows well met that have a decent, even very good, insurance practice. Yet always haunting them is the fact that they feel oddly inferior to the man or woman who can not only sell a client an array of securities products, but can also capture their insurance business as well.[/quote]

You need to stop smoking crack, Put boy.[quote=Put Trader] The country is filled--absolutely filled--with State Farm agents. They're everywhere, like Kudzu down south. What percentage of them do you suppose has a Series 7?[/quote]

Who cares?[quote=Put Trader] Many, perhaps most, have a Series 6 yet they steer clear of mutual funds and annuities unless the client begs to buy one.[/quote]

So what?[quote=Put Trader] We all have our comfort zones--I'll admit to having passed my insurance exams but never feeling comfortable with the differences between variable universal life and whole life.[/quote]

I bet you're not comfortable with anything, other than posting your lies on this forum. Your crack habit is going to be the death of you.[quote=Put Trader] But the difference is a "real" financial professional such as those found at places like Merrill and Smith Barney wake up everyday licensed to handle whatever a client throws at them. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women out there who can get their client whatever the client wants as long as it's life insurance, or a mutual fund, or an annuity.[/quote]

You really are addicted to crack![quote=Put Trader] Stan Brown, Joedabrkr and Looney wake up every day with a full arsenal--while Roger, Mojo, and Rightway all face the rising sun as second rate warriors.[/quote]

You can wish, but that won't make what you wish for come true. I was selling securities - general securties - long, LONG before you were, Feygele.[quote=Put Trader] I suspect that Starka and Blarstrom are also fully licensed--but they're not bright enough to grasp everything they can do so they too are second rate, or lower.[/quote]

Crack addicts are the lowest, right there with the liberals that defend them.

Were you a crack baby?

[quote=Put Trader] 

Both of them, Roger and Mojo, are those insurance types who take pride
in the fact that they don’t have securities licenses.  They will
tell you it’s because they don’t need the tickets because they’re
making money hand over fist selling insurance.



I’ve met hundreds of their ilk.  Hale fellows well met that have a
decent, even very good, insurance practice.  Yet always haunting
them is the fact that they feel oddly inferior to the man or woman who
can not only sell a client an array of securities products, but can
also capture their insurance business as well.


 



Many, perhaps most, have a Series 6 yet they steer clear of mutual funds and annuities unless the client begs to buy one.



We all have our comfort zones–I’ll admit to having passed my insurance
exams but never feeling comfortable with the differences between
variable universal life and whole life.



But the difference is a “real” financial professional such as those
found at places like Merrill and Smith Barney wake up everyday licensed
to handle whatever a client throws at them.  There are hundreds of
thousands of men and women out there who can get their client whatever
the client wants as long as it’s life insurance, or a mutual fund, or
an annuity.
 

[/quote]



You must be ballooning the meds today…another few years and the med
sups will kick-in, meantime, there’s always the maple-leaf connection
(a geriatric French Connection Redux). I wonder if there’s a market for
catching a sexagenarian on tape moshing alone in his “office” after he
hits the post reply?



I unabashedly write a large amount of premium dollars, Putsy. Most of
it is straight commish insurance (more transparency then a CFD ticket
fee).



On the other hand, one of the products I use my licenses for is called
Corporate Owned Life Insurance (COLI). Privately held companies
especially like the benefits of leveraging phantom stock plans for key
executives. The funding includes general account (fixed
income-oriented) and seperate account (equity-oriented) COLI products.
Call one of your wholesalers and have him transfer you to a specialist
who will sigh when you tell him you’d like a 50K foot look at the
opportunities (mental picture of helmeted Put, HALO’ing while he
performs his personal one-man mosh…I wonder what happens to a used
Depends as it is subject only to the earth’s gravitational field
~Free-Fall~ you know Put…like a rapid uncontrolled decline - maybe if
you place a call on  July 11, we can memoralize it as “Brown
Monday.”)



On our next mission (I may up the missions Major Major), let’s not pull
the rip-cord without an “up-tick rule” on why a SERP (especially
ref  settlement landing in/out of a corp GAAP financial statement)

You're really taking them to task with questions about COLI. As soon as they read that, they'll be doing Google searches trying to figure out what you're talking about.

Personally, I've made a bundle on COLI, but the last few years, BOLI is, well, like robbing a bank. Figuratively and literally.

Some changes in policy at the OCC back in 2000-2001 created a ton of opportunity for those who knew how to get in to see the owners of small to medium sized banks. *Ahem*

Can you imagine a broker from a NY firm asking a banker why they paid a seven figure, or even an eight figure, single life premium?

"Because it's a good investment!" they'd say.

AL Williams would croak, but that would be a good thing.

You guys crack me up. I love it .

I have been working at this profession for 25 years. So that would mean I remember Clark Bartis/COLI/BOLI oh and the 2 billion dollar COLI Walmart issue.

I actually prefer a rather new twist and no it's not 419af6 or 412i or 357 or well I 'm rambling,

3s & 7s it's been nice modulating with ya

You continue to amaze me, ClerkBoy!

I don't think I've ever come across anyone who's as consistently wrong on such a variety of subjects.  Perhaps it's YOU who protests too much!

I just enjoy pointing out your numerous errors.

Oh, and I'm a cracker. My family freed their slaves in 1858, after they completed the construction of the last family plantation home. It's still in the family, and there's a huge iron gate at the entrance. The gate says "Built by slave labor, 1858."

My great-great-grandfather had done the math and realized that field hands on a large cotton operation needed an incentive to work harder than the field hands in the next county, so he freed them, gave each family 40 acres, and a mule, and began sharecropping before the war of Northern Aggression even began.

Now, I know this is tough medicine to take, but your crack habit will sooth your pain.

OK, Roger, you're run far enough from the facts with your free-association posts. Here are my questions to you in a straight forward manner, let’s see you answer them in the same fashion.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

1)     You say B shares originally came out with  “no numerical fee advantage to the A Shares” in terms of upfront sales loads.

2)      You say “While there's no sales charge on an SMA, there's a toll to enter.” Do explain this “toll”.

[quote=stanwbrown]

OK, Roger, you're run far enough from the facts with your free-association posts. Here are my questions to you in a straight forward manner, let’s see you answer them in the same fashion.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

1)     You say B shares originally came out with  “no numerical fee advantage to the A Shares” in terms of upfront sales loads.

2)      You say “While there's no sales charge on an SMA, there's a toll to enter.” Do explain this “toll”.

I’ll be very interested in see you explain yourself out of both of those fictional claims….[/quote]

I threw away all those prospectuses from the 1980s. I remember doing the math, discussing it with the other managers, and thinking the boys in Mecca were not any smarter than....well....someone like you. Well all had a good laugh, and we never sold any B Shares.

Since then, every fund family has monkeyed around with distribution, so even a piker like you can find an exception to just about anything. By that time, the NASD was already belching and bellyaching. 

Maybe you have some old prospectuses stored up in your file cabinets. It's not like you have so many clients that your file cabinets are overflowing like the rest of us. Go do you own research, ya lazy piker.

I've been gathering assets from many sources for a long time. In the last decade, some of those assets have flowed into various separate accounts. Unlike you, who begs for tiny IRA Rollovers, many of my transactions have sources that require a sale to be made, be it a stock or bond portfolio, real property, or a business entity. There's almost always toll involved, and the tolls are often significant. This should be obvious, but you're not smart enough to see the forrest, because all those trees are in your way. You can't imagine anything outside your extremely limited experience, because you aren't worthy of the trust and confidence of whales.

Did anyone ever explain to you what a whale is? *snicker*

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

Did anyone ever explain to you what a whale is? snicker

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=stanwbrown]

OK, Roger, you're run far enough from the facts with your free-association posts. Here are my questions to you in a straight forward manner, let’s see you answer them in the same fashion.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

1)     You say B shares originally came out with  “no numerical fee advantage to the A Shares” in terms of upfront sales loads.

2)      You say “While there's no sales charge on an SMA, there's a toll to enter.” Do explain this “toll”.

I’ll be very interested in see you explain yourself out of both of those fictional claims….[/quote]

I threw away all those prospectuses from the 1980s. I remember doing the math, discussing it with the other managers, ......Go do you own research, ya lazy piker.

[/Quote]

As I suspected, you haven't a clue what you're babbling about. B shares never had a the A share front load...

Next issue

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

I've been gathering assets from many sources for a long time....... many of my transactions have sources that require a sale to be made, be it a stock or bond portfolio, real property, or a business entity. ...[/quote]

[stupidity snipped]

Again, as suspected, you haven't a clue what you're babbling about. There's no "toll" on SMAs. An existing stock or bond portfolio is liquidated w/o cost as a part of the management fee the client's already paying. It doesn't matter if they hand you a current portfolio or cash, there's simply no "toll", no cost difference.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Now, given the fact that you’ve embarrassed yourself and every other wearer of loud plaid twice in rapid succession, isn’t it time you run along and buttonhole some poor soul on the street corner about the value of whole life insurance?

[quote=Put Trader]  
Commonly known as “Pauper Insurance” these are the policies that
employer take out on their employees–often without the employee’s
knowledge much less their permission.



All an employer needs is an “insurable interest” in the insured–and they have it, the insured is an employee.



The policy is normally a one-time single premium policy which is
deducted by the employer–tax advantage one.  Then sometime
later–days, weeks, months, years–the employee dies and the employer
receives the death benefit.  It doesn’t even matter if the
individual who dies still works for the company.  In other words,
if you’ve ever had a job there is a chance that your former employer(s)
will receive a check when you die.



As with most–if not all–insurance proceeds the check will be tax free income to the employer.

[/quote]



Putsy, make the call to your wholesaler, I’ll front you the scratch for the Depends.



When you call (google) try “phantom stock funding”  of selective
executive benefits with using a g-e-n-e-r-a-l account (fixed
income-oriented) and a s-e-p-e-r-a-t-e account (equity income-oriented)
COLI products. Bartleby-man, the “pauper insurance” you’re talking
about is a tired strategy…you figure when over 90% of Fortune 500
co’s have some on their books, it’s time to move on.



What you seem to have trouble understanding (googling) is the thread
that will explain how this strategy is used today, right now, to
compensate senior execs at privately held companies. Imagine an ESOP
like vehicle for a private corp doing 5 billion a year in annual sales.
How do you think you could compensate the SVP with 30 years experience
in a NQ environment. I am going to have to break out the fingerpaints
and bean counting sticks. And the babywipes. Ooops, I think I crapped
my pants.

[quote=Put Trader] Roger and Mojo are both proud peddlers of something called COLI or it's equally questionable BOLI cousin.[/quote]

There's nothing questionable about informal funding of nonqualified benefits. Now, you can go look that up, but you won't be able to come back knowing what they are, because this last post of yours was the final nail that sealed your coffin as irrefutable and overwhelming evidence that you are totally out of your depth.

You have drowned in your own wilfull ignroance, crack boy.

[quote=Put Trader] Commonly known as "Pauper Insurance" these are the policies that employer take out on their employees--often without the employee's knowledge much less their permission.[/quote]

Incorrect. The majority of cases require employee permission, and they grant it willingly, because the plans are for their benefit.

The relatively small number of cases that fit your poor description had a bona fide legitimate purpose -- cost recovery of post-retirement health insurance. Companies like IBM and GM have done this over a generation. FYI - We still do it, we just have more paperwork, because of some bozo with an IQ at the same low level as you.

[quote=Put Trader] All an employer needs is an "insurable interest" in the insured--and they have it, the insured is an employee.[/quote]

That does't meet the definition of insurable interest. There's a few more steps involved. These are steps you have never taken, because you are trying to dance on a floor where you have only one left foot.

[quote=Put Trader] The policy is normally a one-time single premium policy which is deducted by the employer--tax advantage one.  Then sometime later--days, weeks, months, years--the employee dies and the employer receives the death benefit.  It doesn't even matter if the individual who dies still works for the company.  In other words, if you've ever had a job there is a chance that your former employer(s) will receive a check when you die.[/quote]

Incorrect. The majority of informal funding of nonqualified benefits is with recurring premium products. There's one exception, which you probably cannot name, and if you could, you still would not know why.

Life insurance is not generally deductible. There are a few exceptions, but this isn't one of them. Can you name those exceptions? Can you name them without having to look? I can.

[quote=Put Trader] As with most--if not all--insurance proceeds the check will be tax free income to the employer.[/quote]

Poor crack boy Put doesn't know much about corporate taxes. Ever hear of AMT? Oh, wait. You don't make enough to know about that. *snicker*

[quote=Put Trader] What this means is that they--the employer--has an investment vehicle that is as secure as the insurance company that wrote the policy.  Often the policies pay a modest income, but one thing is for certain you will die and when you do your former employer(s) make out like bandits.[/quote]

Again, you failed the math test. Did you actually graduate from high school?

Nobody is making out like bandits in the cost recover area. They are merely hedging their risk using a known solution. This is all beyond your grasp.

[quote=Put Trader] If you find this morally offensive, join the club.  Does it surprise you that fools like Mojo and Roger would be deeply involved in something that is morally offensive?[/quote]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a company transferring the risk of loss to an insurance company. That's all that happens.

If you were a key person at your employer, they'd want to insure you. The fact that you find it offensive means that you're NOT a key employee (READ: expendable, very easily replaceble, not a factor in profitability). Now we all know the truth. You are just another drone.

[quote=Put Trader] However, the fact is that they are legal--at least currently.  The IRS has real issues with them and is continually attempting to shut them down--too many tax benefits, in addition to the sense that it's just wrong to bet on the death of your employees.[/quote]

The Service has been fighting the informal funding of nonqualified plans since the first split dollar cases (do you know when that was?).

Some of the rulings and notices were poorly thought out, but since talent goes where it's best rewarded, the end result remains that the informal funding of nonqualified benefits remains dominated by the life insurance industry, because we have solutions that cannot be had anywhere else.

[quote=Put Trader] There is another odd dynamic.  You and I would shop for life insurance seeking the lowest premium for the largest benefit.  Unless you're shopping for COLI, in which case you try to get the highest premium for the lowest benefit.[/quote]

The counter-intuitive approach actually works for both individuals as well as corporations. Why? Simple TVM. You know what TVM is, right?

You shop for the lowest bidder because you cannot afford anything else. People with money generally adopt the counter-intuitive approach, because once the truth is spelled out, it's no longer counter-intuitive, but intuitive.

[quote=Put Trader] I understand that those who specialize in exotic forms of insurance can do very well financially.  Both Mojo and Roger pretend that they are doing very well in this field.[/quote]

You pretend to be in this business, but your posts prove that you cannot be anything other than a rank amateur.

[quote=Put Trader] Personally I doubt it--from where I sit nobody who posts on this message board, including me, has a full plate.  In my case I've spent my life working hard and am finally at a point where I can coast a bit--a reward for countless Sunday night flights and Friday evenings sitting in airports waiting for weather to clear back home.[/quote]

Still waiting in airports, eh? I just cruise over to the nearby FBO and get on board. No waiting. No cattle pens.

[quote=Put Trader] In any case, in my world one is not measured by how much money they make so I couldn't care less about some yo-yo who sells something that the IRS is probably going to shut down--resulting in auidts, charge backs for taxes, penalities and interest and a host of other difficulities.[/quote]

One of the common denominators of failed planners is they always seek for another measure of success, because they don't measure up using the common measure: Money.

[quote=Put Trader] COLI and BOLI seem to be far out there in the "Let the Buyer Beware" world--and from where I sit only slezeballs sell stuff that is that questionable.[/quote]

ROFLMAO. There's nothing questionable about COLI or BOLI. Even the OCC specifically recognizes the uses of BOLI, so it's not just the bankers that recognize appeal of using life insurance as a risk management tool.

All you've proven with your post, in addition to your wilfull ignorance, is that you do not work with:

1. The Top Hat Group
2. Business owners who earn more than $160,000
3. Controlling shareholders of corporations, both public and private
4. Bankers

I know that Mojo works with people way up the ladder like this. So do I.

Apparently, all you do is post on here, and try to use a search engine as a substitute for education, experience and wisdom -- which is why you're just another failed planner.

[quote=Roger The Pretender]
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a company transferring the risk of loss to an insurance company. That's all that happens.

If you were a key person at your employer, they’d want to insure
you. The fact that you find it offensive means that you’re NOT a key
employee (READ: expendable, very easily replaceble, not a factor in
profitability). Now we all know the truth. You are just another drone.

[/quote]



Perhaps you can tell me how having a life insurance policy on an
executive replaces the skills and talents brought to the table by the
executive?



I completely understand the idea of key man insurance when used to
provide a surviving partner with sufficient capital to buy the deceased
partner’s share of the business so as to avoid having a widow assume a
role, or worse sell a role to a third party in order to “cash out” her
share of the business.



I know that my employer has a policy on me, we were asked to
acknowledge that several years ago.  What I cannot buy into is the
idea that getting a check for $2,000,000 if I die is going to replace
what I brought to the table.



Oh I know, I know, it’s used to fund the benefits program and it does make sense from a business point of view.



There’s lots of things that make sense from a business point of view–I
can go on vacation in Europe and get the company to pay for the plane
ticket by stopping into the branch into a branch and visiting with the
branch manager.



That is not right, and neither is insuring my life with a policy that names my employer as the beneficiary.



Even more offensive is the idea that when I leave the employment
situation the insurance remains in effect–whether I retire, get fired
or quit for greener pastures.



Senior people being insured is one thing–but it would be fun to read
how insuring the lowest level employees for hundreds of thousands of
dollars is anything other than using our common tendency to die sooner
or later to fund our employers obligations.



As I said, it’s legal–just like me expensing my plane ride to Europe is legal–but that does not make it right.

There’s lots of things that make sense from a business point of view–I
can go on vacation in Europe and get the company to pay for the plane
ticket by stopping into the branch into a branch and visiting with the
branch manager.<<<Putnam Trader





Just as I was typing that Joyce, my beloved assistant, came in and asked a question.



Joyce is older than I am and was never “hot.”  I’ve never found it
necessary to stoop to choosing my associates because they’re hot–I
much prefer pleasant and loyal.

[quote=Put Trader]

Perhaps you can tell me how having a life insurance policy on an
executive replaces the skills and talents brought to the table by the
executive?
 

[/quote]



Putsy, it’s only your fault that you enjoy arguing with emotional munchkins…you arrive under your own duress.



 If you really want to learn why corporations (private or public)
of all sizes increasingly engage nonqualified benefits, including
nonqualified deferred-compensation (NQDC) plans using COLI as a way to
restore benefits limited by legislation - then all you have to do is
ask.



Your statements in this thread imply that you want to argue about
succession issues while the “insurance guys” are talking about “top
hat” exemption offered to corporations by the DOL.



 Do you want to know the break points that allow the “employee” to
own a policy where the employer may recieve a current tax deduction if
the compensation does not violate IRC restrictions? These vehicles
allow the corp to mirror 401 (k) benefits where the exec can achieve
pretax compensation into investment alternatives similar to the ones
enjoyed by the lower compensated individuals. The numbers start to
seperate at about $165K/yr.



OR - Do you want to know the reasons why an individual would purchase
life insurance on a Key employee or partner…if that’s the case, you
should call your State Farm Agent. He lives where you live.

Whatever.



I acknowledge that COLI is–at least currently–legal.



My quesiton is philosophical.  Why does my employer have any more
of an “insurable interest” in me than they would in any other person?



Why not buy insurance on our customers too?  IF Mr. Johnson is
generating $25,000 per year in commissions and has an expected life
span of twenty years why is he not worth buying a declining benefit
policy?



What is the justification of owning a $250,000 death benefit for the gu
who changes the oil in the trucks we use to deliver stuff from the
warehouse?  Is he so skilled at what he does that we could not
possibly replace him?

[quote=stanwbrown]As I suspected, you haven't a clue what you're babbling about. B shares never had a the A share front load...[/quote]

Who said a B Share had a front end load? I only see stanwbrowneye!

[quote=stanwbrown]Again, as suspected, you haven't a clue what you're babbling about. There's no "toll" on SMAs. An existing stock or bond portfolio is liquidated w/o cost as a part of the management fee the client's already paying. It doesn't matter if they hand you a current portfolio or cash, there's simply no "toll", no cost difference.[/quote]

You're just plain ignorant.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=stanwbrown]Now, given the fact that you’ve embarrassed yourself and every other wearer of loud plaid twice in rapid succession, isn’t it time you run along and buttonhole some poor soul on the street corner about the value of whole life insurance?[/quote]

The above paragraph is neurotic projection.

[quote=Put Trader]Perhaps you can tell me how having a life insurance policy on an executive replaces the skills and talents brought to the table by the executive?[/quote]

Go enroll in the CLU program at The American College. After you pass, if you pass, get the ChFC, the AEP, and the MSFS. Then you'll be prepared to listen to my lecture, crack boy.

[quote=Put Trader]I completely understand the idea of key man insurance when used to provide a surviving partner with sufficient capital to buy the deceased partner's share of the business so as to avoid having a widow assume a role, or worse sell a role to a third party in order to "cash out" her share of the business.[/quote]

Then why did you ask your first question? Crack is killing the only brain cell you have left.

[quote=Put Trader]I know that my employer has a policy on me, we were asked to acknowledge that several years ago.  What I cannot buy into is the idea that getting a check for $2,000,000 if I die is going to replace what I brought to the table.[/quote]

I think you're a liar. You're not worth $2.

[quote=Put Trader]Oh I know, I know, it's used to fund the benefits program and it does make sense from a business point of view.[/quote]

Then why do you make stupid statements and ask dumb questions? It that what crack does you to, boy?

[quote=Put Trader]There's lots of things that make sense from a business point of view--I can go on vacation in Europe and get the company to pay for the plane ticket by stopping into the branch into a branch and visiting with the branch manager.[/quote]

If only you could afford to take a trip.

[quote=Put Trader]That is not right, and neither is insuring my life with a policy that names my employer as the beneficiary.[/quote]

Your analogy is poor, in the extreme. You are guilty of judgemental heuristics and confirmation bias.

[quote=Put Trader]Even more offensive is the idea that when I leave the employment situation the insurance remains in effect--whether I retire, get fired or quit for greener pastures.[/quote]

I suspect you'll get fired. That makes the most business sense in your situation.

[quote=Put Trader]Senior people being insured is one thing--but it would be fun to read how insuring the lowest level employees for hundreds of thousands of dollars is anything other than using our common tendency to die sooner or later to fund our employers obligations.[/quote]

Cost recovery via DBO plans. QED

[quote=Put Trader]As I said, it's legal--just like me expensing my plane ride to Europe is legal--but that does not make it right.
[/quote]

Incorrect. You must wear pink panties, my wee little crack boy. Your straw man is now aflame.

[quote=Put Trader] Joyce is older than I am and was never "hot."  I've never found it necessary to stoop to choosing my associates because they're hot--I much prefer pleasant and loyal.
[/quote]

I prefer my girls to be intelligent, savvy, witty, catalytic, empathic, persuasive. Being pleasing to the eye goes with being pleasant; the combination is vastly superior to just merely being pleasant.

The fact that you mention loyalty means you've been burned before. I never have. My girls all love me.

And they are all HOT.

[quote=Put Trader]Whatever.[/quote]

The last gasp of an overblown windbag as their dingy sinks beneath them.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Put Trader] Joyce is older than I am and was never "hot."  I've never found it necessary to stoop to choosing my associates because they're hot--I much prefer pleasant and loyal.
[/quote]

I prefer my girls to be intelligent, savvy, witty, catalytic, empathic, persuasive. Being pleasing to the eye goes with being pleasant; the combination is vastly superior to just merely being pleasant.

The fact that you mention loyalty means you've been burned before. I never have. My girls all love me.

And they are all HOT.

[/quote]

I like my girls a little on the nasty side.

[quote=annuity guy]I like my girls a little on the nasty side. [/quote]

I've always got one or two college interns working here, and they do a little dance almost every day.

When I heard them singing Nitty's "Nasty Girl" I got turned on, I must admit.

I just LOVE this business.

Behold the BOLI guy in a cluster phuck with the Annuity guy.  Collective IQ somewhere near 100.

[quote=Put Trader] Collective IQ somewhere near 100. [/quote]

The only Charlie Foxtrot here is YOU, crack boy.

The first time I took an IQ test, it was 158. Since then, I've taken some others, scoring 164 and 172.

I'd sell you some of my extra, if you could afford them.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Put Trader] Collective IQ somewhere near 100. [/quote]

The only Charlie Foxtrot here is YOU, crack boy.

The first time I took an IQ test, it was 158. Since then, I've taken some others, scoring 164 and 172.

I'd sell you some of my extra, if you could afford them.

[quote=Put Trader] Right, and armed with that IQ you decided to not pursue science, or even a profession of any sort.  No law for Roger, not even banking or stock brokering.[/quote]

I had a science scholarship, but I didn't renew it after the first year. I found the classes boring. I prefer to be around people.

I had three appointments to the naval academy, too. The AAs all called on Christmas Day, which was the first day they could extend the offer, but I decided to go somewhere else.

[quote=Put Trader] Roger decided to be--now get this--and inshwance agent, just like every other loser any of us ever met.[/quote]

I followed the money. I remember seeing the agent year end statements all lined up on the dining room table. $300,000+ was what the top 5 were doing, and that was nigh on three decades ago. One had a Ph.D., two had masters degrees, but one of them was an viet nam vet (Navy SEAL) who had never attended college.

That's when I shelved the idea of going to law school or dental school.

[quote=Put Trader] Go to a high school or college reunion--how many of the "most likely to succeed" or the "Brainiest" ended up as inshawance agents?[/quote]

There are two guys that do as well as I do, in my class. One is an attorney (he's second generation, like I am), the other produces TV shows out in Hollywood.

[quote=Put Trader] Inshawance agents are the epitome of the idea of lowering your expectations until you can finally land a job.[/quote]

I just love the fact that I made more money before I was 25, than you have in any year of your life.

[quote=Put Trader] How many of you would advise your son or daughter, "My child, if you really apply yourself you might be able to become an insurance agent?"[/quote]

The first thing humanity should do is insist that you do not procreate. Your end of the gene pool is shallow enough already.

Snappy.



I am the son of a flag grade USAF officer and I received an appointment
to the USAF–but turned it down for the same reason that I did not go
to Aggieland.  My father was most pissed, but was also privately
anti-war so he did not object too strenously as long as it was
understood that each of his three sons would wear a uniform for at
least two years.



He also told his three sons, "Whatever you do be more than an insurance agent."



It defies credibility for somebody to write the drivel you wrote. 
Three appointments to the Naval Academy–both Sentors and your
Congressman I suppose.



By definition a smart kid would know the importance of finishing
school–only morons who are destined to be inshawance agents drop
out.  You are a drop out–a failure at the game of life,
regardless of the fact that you now sell inshawance.  Anybody can
get a job selling inshawance, just anybody.



Let’s add another reality to the picture.  Anybody–even a drop
out who became an inshwance agent–can be taught how to discuss
something like Corporate Owned Life Insurance.  Hell there are
guys out here who could pursuade a Medal of Honor winner that they were
in the same foxhole–they spend their entire life researching what they
wish they were, they go buy uniforms at surplus stores and learn to
react to sudden noises as if they were flashing back to a fire fight
long ago.



It is singularly unimpressive that you reel off inshawance
terminology.  It is just as meaningless to me as it would be if
you were telling us you were a brain surgeon and peppered your
simpleton writings with medical terminology.



Tell me, how did a guy with a high IQ not know that finishing school was going to open a lot more doors?

[quote=Put Trader]I am the son of a flag grade USAF officer and I received an appointment to the USAF--but turned it down for the same reason that I did not go to Aggieland.  My father was most pissed, but was also privately anti-war so he did not object too strenously as long as it was understood that each of his three sons would wear a uniform for at least two years.[/quote]

Uh huh. Sure you are. *cough*

Wing wipers promote anybody, if they can kiss enough arse.

[quote=Put Trader]He also told his three sons, "Whatever you do be more than an insurance agent."[/quote]

You're lying again.

[quote=Put Trader]It defies credibility for somebody to write the drivel you wrote.  Three appointments to the Naval Academy--both Sentors and your Congressman I suppose.[/quote]

I'm surprised you can spell credibility, since you've never had any. Oh, wait, you must have used the spell check feature.

[quote=Put Trader]By definition a smart kid would know the importance of finishing school--only morons who are destined to be inshawance agents drop out.  You are a drop out--a failure at the game of life, regardless of the fact that you now sell inshawance.  Anybody can get a job selling inshawance, just anybody.[/quote]

I've never dropped out of anything, crack boy. If earning more than 99.5% of everyone else is failure, then how do you define success? I bet you're good at that, crack boy.

Anybody can get a job selling insurance, just like anybody can get a job peddling stock. It takes an exceptional person to achieve exceptional success. I'm not going to apologize for the fact that I made more in January that you'll earn all year long.

[quote=Put Trader]Let's add another reality to the picture.  Anybody--even a drop out who became an inshwance agent--can be taught how to discuss something like Corporate Owned Life Insurance.  Hell there are guys out here who could pursuade a Medal of Honor winner that they were in the same foxhole--they spend their entire life researching what they wish they were, they go buy uniforms at surplus stores and learn to react to sudden noises as if they were flashing back to a fire fight long ago.[/quote]

Then how come you can't learn how to at least talk about COLI? All you've done is prove that you don't know jack, crack boy.

[quote=Put Trader]It is singularly unimpressive that you reel off inshawance terminology.  It is just as meaningless to me as it would be if you were telling us you were a brain surgeon and peppered your simpleton writings with medical terminology.[/quote]

I find it amusing that you can't spell insurance, since I've had a Series 7 longer than you've been in the business, crack boy.

[quote=Put Trader]Tell me, how did a guy with a high IQ not know that finishing school was going to open a lot more doors?[/quote]

When one is already in the right room, they don't need doors opened for them. The mentally handicapped like yourself are the ones that need help. You're boring everyone to tears.

Everyone take you seats…class today will be on Qualified Benefit Plans as viewed by an "Insurance Guy."



Defined-contribution plans, such as 401 (k) plans, contain annual
contribution limits which tend to discriminate against highly
compensated executives. The 2K4 contribution limit of $13K would
represent 26 percent of the before-tax compensation of an employee
earning $50K per year, but just 2.6 percent of an executive grossing
$500K. Easy numbers. They help illustrate the considerable chasm that
exists for higher paid employees when left to use the doubledecker bus
approach of filling seats. What add’s insult to injury is that the
maximum salary cap for any qualified plan in 2K4 was $205K. Following
the allowable maximum contribution by an employer of $41K - the results
is a maximum benefit that can be derived from a defined-benefit plan
was about $165K - with the excess amount liable to a 15 percent excise
tax.



Following the above limitations, an individual, aged 45, earning $50K
per year, with an average annual increase of 5%, would have a final
salary of about $126K per year, at age 65. (Assuming a qualified
benefit plan with 60% replacement salary, without a Social Security
offset, the employee would receive about $75K in retirement income.)



The executive, making $250K at the same age with the same 5% annual
increase (and for the actuarily motivated, assuming that the IRS limit
increases 3% yearly) would have a final salary of about $630K at age
65, but would receive just about $215K in retirement income, or roughly
34 percent of her final salary(buttering up a shoe loon). There is the
problem and the opportunity in a nutshell. The more the exec makes the
more she relies on retirement income from savings and sources other
then qualified plans.



Enter the nonqualified deferred-compensation (NDQC) plans. In this way,
the corporation can provide incentives that help recruit and retain
senior level employees. 



We can feature a portfolio of cash value investments offering equity
and fixed-income yields  (this  vehicle is evolving rapidly
and is out of style with the more sophisticated client).



This looks alien to some but is really yesterday’s offer. The funding
vehicle we most often use today is a funding vehicle which provides
more ways to structure loads to better fit the plans they are
informally funding. (Translated: You can’t look under the hood without
a certain memo and questionaire on file)



COLI is still used over half of the time but is rapidly sunsetting as
demand grows for more sophisticated and obviously aggressive designs.



Put, this really answers your question. The COLI product you are
philosophically pondering is not even worthy of a song. The product you
could be talking about is now frequently used by the employer for a
legitimate reason as a way to provide a bonus arrangement for an
additional benefit to the employee, often as a life insurance policy
with cash values. You want to debate dead peasants and dead janitors
insurance policies…not my cup of joe. The premise of that kind of
insurance is risky for the insurer and the corporation. It’s a win-lose
game.



The risk pools I dangle are boring, overeducated and healthy lifestyle
snobs like yourself, not the slobs which keep you so fascinated and
interested. Kind of like the displaced corner butcher fixating on how
much of the offal and not the vital stuff  to snip at to improve
his margins, instead of thinking about what the grocery store with the
meat counter is gonna mean when it goes in down the road.

[quote=Mojo]Everyone take you seats...class today will be on Qualified Benefit Plans as viewed by an "Insurance Guy."

Defined-contribution plans, such as 401 (k) plans, contain annual contribution limits which tend to discriminate against highly compensated executives. The 2K4 contribution limit of $13K would represent 26 percent of the before-tax compensation of an employee earning $50K per year, but just 2.6 percent of an executive grossing $500K. Easy numbers. They help illustrate the considerable chasm that exists for higher paid employees when left to use the doubledecker bus approach of filling seats. What add's insult to injury is that the maximum salary cap for any qualified plan in 2K4 was $205K. Following the allowable maximum contribution by an employer of $41K - the results is a maximum benefit that can be derived from a defined-benefit plan was about $165K - with the excess amount liable to a 15 percent excise tax.

Following the above limitations, an individual, aged 45, earning $50K per year, with an average annual increase of 5%, would have a final salary of about $126K per year, at age 65. (Assuming a qualified benefit plan with 60% replacement salary, without a Social Security offset, the employee would receive about $75K in retirement income.)

The executive, making $250K at the same age with the same 5% annual increase (and for the actuarily motivated, assuming that the IRS limit increases 3% yearly) would have a final salary of about $630K at age 65, but would receive just about $215K in retirement income, or roughly 34 percent of her final salary(buttering up a shoe loon). There is the problem and the opportunity in a nutshell. The more the exec makes the more she relies on retirement income from savings and sources other then qualified plans.

Enter the nonqualified deferred-compensation (NDQC) plans. In this way, the corporation can provide incentives that help recruit and retain senior level employees. 

We can feature a portfolio of cash value investments offering equity and fixed-income yields  (this  vehicle is evolving rapidly and is out of style with the more sophisticated client).

This looks alien to some but is really yesterday's offer. The funding vehicle we most often use today is a funding vehicle which provides more ways to structure loads to better fit the plans they are informally funding. (Translated: You can't look under the hood without a certain memo and questionaire on file)

COLI is still used over half of the time but is rapidly sunsetting as demand grows for more sophisticated and obviously aggressive designs.

Put, this really answers your question. The COLI product you are philosophically pondering is not even worthy of a song. The product you could be talking about is now frequently used by the employer for a legitimate reason as a way to provide a bonus arrangement for an additional benefit to the employee, often as a life insurance policy with cash values. You want to debate dead peasants and dead janitors insurance policies...not my cup of joe. The premise of that kind of insurance is risky for the insurer and the corporation. It's a win-lose game.

The risk pools I dangle are boring, overeducated and healthy lifestyle snobs like yourself, not the slobs which keep you so fascinated and interested. Kind of like the displaced corner butcher fixating on how much of the offal and not the vital stuff  to snip at to improve his margins, instead of thinking about what the grocery store with the meat counter is gonna mean when it goes in down the road.
[/quote]

Good post, Mojo.

Insert Put boys's silly response here:

The risk pools I dangle are boring, overeducated and healthy lifestyle snobs like yourself<<Mojo



Note the reference to “overeducted” that is so common among the undereducated.



Tell me Mojo, would you urge your own son or daughter to avoid becoming educated?

We can feature a portfolio of cash value investments offering equity
and fixed-income yields  (this  vehicle is evolving rapidly and is out
of style with the more sophisticated client).<<<Mojo



I am curious–in a seriously curious vein–is this product out of style
with sophisticated clients because they question the legality of it?



It seems such an odd statement–it’s rapidly evolvoing yet out of
style. Those two seem to be contradictory.  Perhaps you mean “Not
yet in style?”

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

[quote=stanwbrown]As I suspected, you haven't a clue what you're babbling about. B shares never had a the A share front load...[/quote]

Who said a B Share had a front end load? I only see stanwbrowneye!

[/quote]

Let’s see, Rogerdodger says B share after no “numerical advantage” over A shares front load at time of sale. When asked how that’s so, Rogerthelame says they USED to not have one and if I were as advanced in age as he, I’d know that. When asked when that was, Rogerthetapdancer says he know longer has the prospectus, but I should research it.

End result, Rogerthepauper caught talking out his fourth point of contact on a subject he knows bumpkis about….

[quote=Roger Thornhill] [quote=stanwbrown]Again, as suspected, you haven't a clue what you're babbling about. There's no "toll" on SMAs. An existing stock or bond portfolio is liquidated w/o cost as a part of the management fee the client's already paying. It doesn't matter if they hand you a current portfolio or cash, there's simply no "toll", no cost difference.[/quote]

You're just plain ignorant.

[/quote]

For those of you keeping track at home, Rogertheplaid claimes there’s a “toll” to get into an SMA (and the typical corollary, that if I were as elderly as he, I’d know that). Anyone with even a passing knowledge on the subject knows that Rogerthegasbag’s claim was the equivalent of someone who knows nothing of baseball making the claim that Joe Namath was the homerun king of the National League.

Bottom line, in his effort to shed the beer gut carrying, pink and green plaid sports coat wearing, not welcome to socialize with the beautiful people, insurance salesman equals turd in the punchbowl persona that helps him sell bucket loads of whole life to the yokels , Rogerthejoke wades in on the subject of security business practices and proves himself to be immediately in over his head….

[quote=stanwbrown]

<o:p></o:p>

Bottom line, in his effort to shed the beer gut carrying, pink and green plaid sports coat wearing, not welcome to socialize with the beautiful people, insurance salesman equals turd in the punchbowl persona that helps him sell bucket loads of whole life to the yokels , Rogerthejoke wades in on the subject of security business practices and proves himself to be immediately in over his head….

Joe Namath was the homerun king of the National League.<<<Stan



No he wasn’t–we all know that John Daley can hit it farther than Broadway Joe.

[quote=Put Trader]The risk pools I dangle are boring, overeducated and healthy lifestyle snobs like yourself<<Mojo



Note the reference to “overeducted” that is so common among the undereducated.



Tell me Mojo, would you urge your own son or daughter to avoid becoming educated?

[/quote]



I urge all children to fill their hearts with love. I fill their
warehouses with virtues and reason while paving the rules of polite
manners as the footsteps to the door. I teach the value of a dollar
earned without knowledge of its worth to be vanity itself. And I
reinforce the act of stillness and the beauty of rewarding others with
gifts.



What would you call risk pools which are more top-heavy then the
departments at most colleges and universities…knowledgable,
efficient, streamlined? When you grab at straw Putsy to stuff your own
shirt you exhibit those needs and urges that draw you towards the
squaller of your perversions that ring of over-loosened and too high
strung chords plucked by idle and careless hands.

[quote=Mojo]

I urge all children to fill their hearts with love. I fill their
warehouses with virtues and reason while paving the rules of polite
manners as the footsteps to the door. I teach the value of a dollar
earned without knowledge of its worth to be vanity itself. And I
reinforce the act of stillness and the beauty of rewarding others with
gifts.



[/quote]



My God, the stupid drivel has turned to mindless pablum.



What, pray tell, does the above have to do with being an grownup, taking care of a family?



Where on the job application does one enter, "I did not go to school in
the traditional sense, but I was taught to go through life with a heart
full of love."



Is that what happened to you–some adult told you one day that if your
heart was filled with love it would not matter that your brain was
empty and you actually believed it?

[quote=Mojo]

We can feature a portfolio of cash value investments offering equity
and fixed-income yields  (this  vehicle is evolving rapidly
and is out of style with the more sophisticated client).
[/quote]



I mixed my metaphors. The COLI funding vehicles do not offer the
sophistication buyers are demanding when looking to mirror plans like a
401 (k) as an example. The newer designed vehicle is becoming the
consistant winner on this track and is not a COLI chasis. My mistake.
COLI once dominated the these select funding vehicles for the last
decade. Today, it’s estimated to be under the hood of less then half
the heaps on the track. (The greatest part of this post so far is that
you still don’t understand the words let alone the pictures they are
illustrating. I get the feelling that you would be more satisfied just
strumming your lip like a motor and pushing your chair around the desk
in your office as you try to capture the checkered flag.)

[quote=Mojo]



I urge all children to fill their hearts with love. I fill their
warehouses with virtues and reason while paving the rules of polite
manners as the footsteps to the door. I teach the value of a dollar
earned without knowledge of its worth to be vanity itself. And I
reinforce the act of stillness and the beauty of rewarding others with
gifts.



[/quote]



Let’s revisit this.  It is child abuse—that leaves no physical
marks–for an adult to fill children’s minds with crap like that.



Kids should be taught the read, write and sum.  If they’re not they’re going to end up peddling life insurance.

It’s the new Republican Mantra, Putsy. I’m a compassionate
conservative. I’m off. I shared my room with a young man last night.
Unlike what your accustomed to, he calls me Daddy. We’re in Detroit for
the week…all work and no play makes sum a dull boy.



(We’ll be wearing Orange all week. I’m going to show my son some of the
dinosours of industry and the heart of soul music for a generation. If
we have time, we might head up to Saginaw and cross a picket line or
two. Wish you were here, I could use you to stand in your 3-piece, or
is it 4-piece, I never asked if you wear a hat, and point at the
monuments of our countries history - I’d even buy you a hot dog, sport.)

[quote=Mojo]



We’re in Detroit for
the week…all work and no play makes sum a dull boy.

[/quote]



Spent many a moon in Detroit–actually Southfield, nine mile or five mile one of those mile streets.



If God ever declares that the earth must be given an enema the tube will be inserted in Detroit–what a horrible place.

[quote=stanwbrown]Let’s see, Rogerdodger says B share after no “numerical advantage” over A shares front load at time of sale. When asked how that’s so, Rogerthelame says they USED to not have one and if I were as advanced in age as he, I’d know that. When asked when that was, Rogerthetapdancer says he know longer has the prospectus, but I should research it.[/quote]

Incorrect. I said "offered" which you tried to change to "offer" so that you'd have a point. This subtle, yet vast, oversight on your part places you squarely in the failed planner box.

[quote=stanwbrown]End result, Rogerthepauper caught talking out his fourth point of contact on a subject he knows bumpkis about….[/quote]

It's really funny that someone accuses me of not knowing bupkis, and misspells that word as "bumpkis." That makes stanwbrowneye a shlemiel.

[quote=stanwbrown]For those of you keeping track at home, Rogertheplaid claimes there’s a “toll” to get into an SMA (and the typical corollary, that if I were as elderly as he, I’d know that). Anyone with even a passing knowledge on the subject knows that Rogerthegasbag’s claim was the equivalent of someone who knows nothing of baseball making the claim that Joe Namath was the homerun king of the National League.[/quote]

From your wilfull ignorance, one can easily see that your own experience with SMAs is very limited, probably just robbing your own book of B Shares because you're not good enough to bring in new money. That's why you think there's no toll -- you're just churning your own book.

[quote=stanwbrown]Bottom line, in his effort to shed the beer gut carrying, pink and green plaid sports coat wearing, not welcome to socialize with the beautiful people, insurance salesman equals turd in the punchbowl persona that helps him sell bucket loads of whole life to the yokels , Rogerthejoke wades in on the subject of security business practices and proves himself to be immediately in over his head….[/quote]

I've never even seen a coat like you describe so intimately. It sounds like you just looked in a mirror before you wrote that, because you paint your own picture so well, beer gut and all.

Incorrect.
I said “offered” which you tried to change to “offer” so that you’d
have a point. This subtle, yet vast, oversight on your part places you
squarely in the failed planner box.<<<Roger



Roger, adults don’t really identify with childish drivel such as “Failed Planner,” “Piker” and "Top Gun Producer."



That entire program was developed by somebody who had losers who dropped out of college in mind.



If you want to insult those of us who are accomplished you cannot do it
by referring to us as a failed anything.  I am a Senior Vice
President at a firm that would toss your resume in the trash–and you
have the temerity to refer to me as a "failed planner."



Do you see the intellectual disconnect?



Stan Brown is able to walk into any of your clients’ offices and offer
them everything you can PLUS dozens and dozens of other things. 
Yet you have the temerity to refer to him as a "failed planner?"



It is to laugh.

[quote=Put Trader] I am a Senior Vice President at a firm that would toss your resume in the trash--and you have the temerity to refer to me as a "failed planner."[/quote]

Is that you in the Dilbert cartoons?

I have to ask:  How do you get your tie to curl up like that? I'd like to wear mine that way for a joke someday.

You must work for Primerica. I hear they promote people to SVP after they sell 3 policies, or recruit 3 for their "downline." You sure do sound like one of those bozos.

Yes, you're a failed planner. There is no doubt about that. If you were any good, you'd be in private practice instead of being a Dilbert.

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

[quote=stanwbrown]Let’s see, Rogerdodger says B share offer no “numerical advantage” over A shares front load at time of sale. When asked how that’s so, Rogerthelame says they USED to not have one and if I were as advanced in age as he, I’d know that. When asked when that was, Rogerthetapdancer says he know longer has the prospectus, but I should research it.[/quote]

Incorrect. I said "offered" which you tried to change to "offer" so that you'd have a point. This subtle, yet vast, oversight on your part places you squarely in the failed planner box.

[/quote]

Bottom line, me, gasbag. When you were corrected about A shares having a front load and therefore having a disadvantage at the time of sale to B shares, you claimed there was a time, back when you were young and carefree, that that wasn’t the case . I asked when that was, you tap danced. You haven’t a clue, insurance boy….

 [quote=Roger Thornhill] [quote=stanwbrown]For those of you keeping track at home, Rogertheplaid claims there’s a “toll” to get into an SMA (and the typical corollary, that if I were as elderly as he, I’d know that). Anyone with even a passing knowledge on the subject knows that Rogerthegasbag’s claim was the equivalent of someone who knows nothing of baseball making the claim that Joe Namath was the homerun king of the National League.[/quote]

From your wilfull ignorance, one can easily see that your own experience with SMAs is very limited, probably just robbing your own book of B Shares because you're not good enough to bring in new money. That's why you think there's no toll -- you're just churning your own book.

[/quote] The word, Rogerthelame, is “willful”. If you’re going to correct my spelling of Yiddish, please have the ability to spell in English. As to your claim, oft repeated but never supported, there is no “toll” to an SMA. It doesn’t matter how many times you claim otherwise or drag out some lame attempt at diversion, there simply is no “toll” and everyone reading this who’s passed the Series 7 and owns 63/65 combination or a 66 knows it. Here's an additional hint, anyone with CIMA and CFP after their name knows it as well.

Repeat after me, Roger my boy, SMAs have no “toll”….

[quote=Roger Thornhill] [quote=stanwbrown]Bottom line, in his effort to shed the beer gut carrying, pink and green plaid sports coat wearing, not welcome to socialize with the beautiful people, insurance salesman equals turd in the punchbowl persona that helps him sell bucket loads of whole life to the yokels , Rogerthejoke wades in on the subject of security business practices and proves himself to be immediately in over his head….[/quote]

I've never even seen a coat like you describe so intimately. [/quote]

Of course you have. You own one. It’s the uniform of “moderators” of “high impact sales training” for insurance types….

[/quote]

Roger, you’re about as obnoxious as PT…and I think you post more…pathetic…

[quote=stanwbrown]Bottom line, me, gasbag. When you were corrected about A shares having a front load and therefore having a disadvantage at the time of sale to B shares, you claimed there was a time, back when you were young and carefree, that that wasn’t the case . I asked when that was, you tap danced. You haven’t a clue, insurance boy….[/quote]

I'd agree that you're a gasbag. 

I haven't been corrected about anything to do with B Shares, that's just a figment of your imagination.

[quote=stanwbrown]The word, Rogerthelame, is “willful”. If you’re going to correct my spelling of Yiddish, please have the ability to spell in English. As to your claim, oft repeated but never supported, there is no “toll” to an SMA. It doesn’t matter how many times you claim otherwise or drag out some lame attempt at diversion, there simply is no “toll” and everyone reading this who’s passed the Series 7 and owns 63/65 combination or a 66 knows it. Here's an additional hint, anyone with CIMA and CFP after their name knows it as well.[/quote]

And it's also "Wilful" -- a typo isn't as bad as grossly misspelling a word.

If you don't know the tolls involved with the movement of money, you don't do much business.

[quote=stanwbrown]Repeat after me, Roger my boy, SMAs have no “toll”….[/quote]

Repeat after me, stanwbrowneye, "I am a putz."

Did you know there's a song about you?

http://www.lyrics007.com/20%20Fingers%20Lyrics/Short%20Dick% 20Man%20Lyrics.html

[quote=stanwbrown]Of course you have. You own one. It’s the uniform of “moderators” of “high impact sales training” for insurance types….[/quote]

Incorrect. I don't own the same crap you do, and you'd have to be a moron to assert anything to the contrary.

That makes you a....moron!

Wow...I'm blown away by the level of intelligence and maturity you show.

[quote=Indyone]

Wow...I'm blown away by the level of intelligence and maturity you show.

[/quote]

Blown, eh? Is that a quid pro quo activity for you and your partner?

Again, you blow me away…I’m so impressed with your large…IQ…

"If you don't know the tolls involved with the movement of money, you don't do much business."

Here's your big chance Rogertheclueless, name the "toll" in SMAs. No dancing, no singing, no lame attempts at humor, no changing the terms or moving the goalposts, just name the "toll" in SMAs.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I'm betting the ranch you lack the 'nads to simply admit like a man that you were in over your head, said something stupid and were called on it.

[quote=stanwbrown]Here’s your big chance Rogertheclueless, name the “toll” in SMAs. No dancing, no singing, no lame attempts at humor, no changing the terms or moving the goalposts, just name the “toll” in SMAs.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /><O:P></O:P>

I'm betting the ranch you lack the 'nads to simply admit like a man that you were in over your head, said something stupid and were called on it.[/quote]

I already named some obvious ones. If you can't read, I can't help you.

PS - At least I own a ranch. You can't bet what you don't have, so your wager is worth as much as your credibility:  ZERO. 

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

I already named some obvious ones. If you can't read, I can't help you.

PS - At least I own a ranch. You can't bet what you don't have, so your wager is worth as much as your credibility:  ZERO. 

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=stanwbrown]Here’s your big chance Rogertheclueless, name the “toll” in SMAs. No dancing, no singing, no lame attempts at humor, no changing the terms or moving the goalposts, just name the “toll” in SMAs.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /><O:P></O:P>

I'm betting the ranch you lack the 'nads to simply admit like a man that you were in over your head, said something stupid and were called on it.[/quote]

I already named some obvious ones. If you can't read, I can't help you.

PS - At least I own a ranch. You can't bet what you don't have, so your wager is worth as much as your credibility:  ZERO. 

[/quote]

Like I thought, you're 'nad free...

As I was riding to work I thought of anohter moronic lie our very own Prevaricating Roger came up with yesterday.



I mentioned that I have spent a lifetime taking Sunday night flights
and then waiting for the weather to clear back home on Friday evenings.



As his is penchant, Roger picked up on that and added something to the
effect that he didn’t fly commercial–that when he wants to get
somewhere he takes a private plane.



What is curious is that I said that I’ve spent countless Friday
evenings waiting for weather to clear–one wonders how Roger’s private
plane would not also be affected by that weather?



Am I wrong?  If weather back home is keeping people from getting
home on time on commercial jets would it also not affect Roger in his
private plane?



The guy is giving old fashioned pathelogical liars like Hillary Clinton a good name.

[quote=Put Trader]
I read that last night while walking with my wife in Central Park.  Her comment is well taken--she asked, "Are they so stupid that they don't realize that you've been doing this all your life--and that you've been writing about that stuff since before we moved here?"  Then later she added, "I've been thinking about how what you write is so good that it looks like a textbook--where do they think textbooks come from if not from people's minds?"

Then finally as we were riding the elevator she said, "I can't believe I'm still thinking about it, but it pisses me off that people dont' realize how smart you are.......if you had written something like that about a topic you don't know anything about I'd say you plagerized it.  But like Dick told you a couple of years ago, you've taken full advantage of all those different things they had you do."

She then added, with that wise acre grin she does so well, "And because I was with you on a lot of them you came across much better than you really are."
[/quote]

Are you so upset about what someone on an internet forum said that you need moral support from your wife? Don't let this internet thing get the best of you, Put!  Take a few days off if you need to regroup.  Take your wife somewhere and find new things to talk about....we'll wait patiently for your return.

[quote=sienna]

Are you so upset about what someone on an internet forum said that you need moral support from your wife? Don't let this internet thing get the best of you, Put!  Take a few days off if you need to regroup.  Take your wife somewhere and find new things to talk about....we'll wait patiently for your return.

Everytime I wonder if people are as dumb as I think they are somebody

raises their hand and just screams, "Over here, look over here!

See me, I’m as stupid as anybody I know!"



Where is the pride in dumb-ass comments? I guess there are some

people who just can’t stand saying nothing so they muster up their very

best and let it zing.

Put:

You talk about how you annually spend you Thanksgivings watching the Macy's parade from your apartment, yet in previous posts you insist that you always go to Europe from Thanksgiving to Christmas. So which is it?

I know, since you are so intelligent and wealthy, you cloned yourself or you invented a time travel machine. It's probably as real as the rest of the psychotic babble you mutter to yourself.

Oh. and since you post on the internet constantly day and night, how could you possibly be able to go the the Tony awards and broadway shows every night. I know, once again your clone is posting for you while you go to the shows with your imaginary wife.

And Put, we don't have to envy you. We all have vivid imaginations as well. We just don't allow them to evolve into psychotic delusions!

[quote=Coag]

Put:

You talk about how you annually spend you Thanksgivings watching the Macy's parade from your apartment, yet in previous posts you insist that you always go to Europe from Thanksgiving to Christmas. So which is it?

I know, since you are so intelligent and wealthy, you cloned yourself or you invented a time travel machine. It's probably as real as the rest of the psychotic babble you mutter to yourself.

Oh. and since you post on the internet constantly day and night, how could you possibly be able to go the the Tony awards and broadway shows every night. I know, once again your clone is posting for you while you go to the shows with your imaginary wife.

And Put, we don't have to envy you. We all have vivid imaginations as well. We just don't allow them to evolve into psychotic delusions!

 [/quote]

Let it be noted that this fool is obsessed with me, and reads everything I say very carefully and takes it very literally.

A common phrase is, "I'll see you at Thanksgiving" or "Let's get together at Christmas."  You see, among grownups, there is a thing called the holiday season--it extends from Thanksgiving to New Years.

You children think of Thankgiving because your Mommy makes you a really big meal then you get to take a nap, and of course there's Christmas and Santa and everything.

Then, before you know it it's New Years, and you and your babysitter get to bang on some pots and pans, then go to bed.

[/quote]

Your lack of education and refinement (the polar opposite of you avatar of Cary Grant) is showing again. When you can advance beyond your current level of adolescent behavior and answer directly answer the questions posed to you, be sure to raise your hand.

Until then you’ll continue to be the forum’s very own Ned Ryerson, babbling incoherently about the brokerage business between sales of whole life policies to yokels.   <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=stanwbrown]

[/quote]

Your lack of education and refinement (the polar opposite of you avatar of Cary Grant) is showing again. When you can advance beyond your current level of adolescent behavior and answer directly answer the questions posed to you, be sure to raise your hand.

Until then you’ll continue to be the forum’s very own Ned Ryerson, babbling incoherently about the brokerage business between sales of whole life policies to yokels.   <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

It looks like stanwbrowneye needs some help with posting coherent messages.

[quote=Put Trader]  
Why do you think that a guy who is bragging about how smart he is
refuses to answer simple questions like I was asking?  I suggest
it is because there are no answers.



Then there is the odd series of comments following my discussion of the laws written in the early 1930s.



I read that last night while walking with my wife in Central
Park.  Her comment is well taken–she asked, “Are they so stupid
that they don’t realize that you’ve been doing this all your life–and
that you’ve been writing about that stuff since before we moved
here?”  Then later she added, "I’ve been thinking about how what
you write is so good that it looks like a textbook–where do they think
textbooks come from if not from people’s minds?"



Then finally as we were riding the elevator she said, "I can’t believe
I’m still thinking about it, but it pisses me off that people dont’
realize how smart you are…if you had written something like that
about a topic you don’t know anything about I’d say you plagerized
it.  But like Dick told you a couple of years ago, you’ve taken
full advantage of all those different things they had you do.“



She then added, with that wise acre grin she does so well, “And because
I was with you on a lot of them you came across much better than you
really are.”

[/quote]



We need to talk about this offline. The wife can join your corner. The
pooch, well, it may be a deal-breaker…let sleep on it. My main
concern would be any Son of Sam defense tail wagging, no offense
intended. I just wouldn’t want to hear that the dog told you to say
"yes” and you didn’t really have a choice. Know what I mean, Putsy?

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=stanwbrown]

[/quote]

Your lack of education and refinement (the polar opposite of you avatar of Cary Grant) is showing again. When you can advance beyond your current level of adolescent behavior and answer directly answer the questions posed to you, be sure to raise your hand.

Until then you’ll continue to be the forum’s very own Ned Ryerson, babbling incoherently about the brokerage business between sales of whole life policies to yokels.   <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

It looks like stanwbrowneye needs some help with posting coherent messages.

[/quote]

No, what happened is YOUR post, the one I quoted was deleted. Seems the moderator here doesn't think much of you and your postings either. In case it wasn't clear enough for you, here's my post again.

Your lack of education and refinement (the polar opposite of you avatar of Cary Grant) is showing again. When you can advance beyond your current level of adolescent behavior and answer directly answer the questions posed to you, be sure to raise your hand. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Until then you’ll continue to be the forum’s very own Ned Ryerson, babbling incoherently about the brokerage business between sales of whole life policies to yokels

Three cheers for the moderator.

[quote=stanwbrown]No, what happened is YOUR post, the one I quoted was deleted. Seems the moderator here doesn’t think much of you and your postings either. In case it wasn’t clear enough for you, here’s my post again.

Your lack of education and refinement (the polar opposite of you avatar of Cary Grant) is showing again. When you can advance beyond your current level of adolescent behavior and answer directly answer the questions posed to you, be sure to raise your hand. [/QUOTE]

What post are you referring to?

Leach didn’t graduate from high school, so I have 12 years of education on him (much more than you, obviously). The girl waiting on me in my bedroom is better looking than Sophia, and even more well endowed. I’m not jealous of Archibald, as you are of me, I just have respect for his work.

If you raised your head, you’d still be below ground level. I don’t stoop that low, stanwbrowneye.

FYI - stanwbrowneye is so experienced that he needed to ask a truly newby question:

<SPAN =post>“Anybody have a comprehensive client bio sheet (address, bdays, anniversaries, etc) they’d like to share? I’d just as soon not re-invent the wheel and I’d like to see what others include in this kind of sheet to be able to provide the best possible service.”

If he was a veteran, he wouldn’t be asking the questions we get from rank wet-behind-the-ears amateurs!

If he was as successful as he’d like everyone to think, he’d have his staff create one from scratch, but NOOOOOOO…he’s stuck with begging on the net for rudimentary help.

You wanna dance, chiam yankel? I’ll waste you, without breaking a sweat, just like I did with your buddy, puttyndacrack.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

FYI - stanwbrowneye is so experienced that he needed to ask a truly newby question:

<SPAN =“post”>“Anybody have a comprehensive client bio sheet (address, bdays, anniversaries, etc) they’d like to share? I’d just as soon not re-invent the wheel and I’d like to see what others include in this kind of sheet to be able to provide the best possible service.”

If he was a veteran, he wouldn’t be asking the questions we get from rank wet-behind-the-ears amateurs!

If he was as successful as he’d like everyone to think, he’d have his staff create one from scratch, but NOOOOOOO…he’s stuck with begging on the net for rudimentary help.

You wanna dance, chiam yankel? I’ll waste you, without breaking a sweat, just like I did with your buddy, puttyndacrack.

[/quote]

Let me help you here, born-into-the-biz-and-still-can’t-succeed. I was in the process of doing a top to bottom review of my business at the suggestion of a coach I hired. Part of the process was a complete review of 15 years of client documentation and the transference of said data to a new client contact system. To that end I wanted to see what others were using as a one page info sheet. I hope that makes matters clearer for you and meets your approval. You just can’t imagine what your approval means to me…<?:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /><o:p></o:p>

BTW, how’s that “credit fix” scam doing?<o:p></o:p>