May 10, 2006 7:51 pm

I, and every one else, in the northwest training region training program got canned today. Yes, that included those with production on track equal to the level that was promised to earn them salery, grid, and bonus. I would think that this is nationwide. Good luck to the under $400k producers! Tough racket!

May 10, 2006 7:54 pm

I better call all my MS prospects to make sure they still have their advisors....... I love it.......

May 10, 2006 8:18 pm

You can't make this stuff up.

Where are you heading? Don't get discouraged, the same thing happened to me after the stock crash in 87'. I came back and did well.

You don't come to wall street for management insights on personal or professional behavior. You come to do your own work or niche. Generally management is just the excuse class for price gouging down the pyramid.

May 10, 2006 8:59 pm

Why did you get canned? Sounds like a crappy company to work for.

May 10, 2006 9:05 pm

[quote=Farmboy]

You can't make this stuff up.[/quote]

Oh, sure you can

May 10, 2006 9:07 pm

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Farmboy]

You can't make this stuff up.[/quote]

Oh, sure you can

[/quote]

True I took it at face value.

May 10, 2006 9:10 pm

[quote=Farmboy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Farmboy]

You can't make this stuff up.[/quote]

Oh, sure you can

[/quote]

True I took it at face value.

[/quote]

The announcement from Gorman said they let 500 current trainees go, that they were people "not tracking for long term success". I can't define that last bit for you.....

May 10, 2006 9:12 pm

Let me add, the same announcement said they weren’t “making any reductions among Financial Advisors” and remain committed to growing the sales force.

May 10, 2006 9:13 pm

[quote=justaguy]I, and every one else, in the northwest training region training program got canned today. Yes, that included those with production on track equal to the level that was promised to earn them salery, grid, and bonus. I would think that this is nationwide. Good luck to the under $400k producers! Tough racket! [/quote]

I doubt it was "everyone", but that doesn't matter to you personally. Don't take it too hard. If you were doing well, get a position elsewhere. Sorry it happend to you and best of luck.

May 10, 2006 9:47 pm

I always like when they settle on nice round numbers in layoffs, 500

Often it isn't audit proof. They count dead people or those arrested but it makes a memo. Let's pretend it's accurate and imagine how number 499 or 501 are taking it.

Say what you want, it's a poorly run business and company specifically. Another poor statement for the industry as a whole. Do you think the shark tank culture makes any client feel better, worse or more trusting when this gets distributed?

May 10, 2006 10:08 pm

Mike Butler...If someone told you an asteroid was coming on May 22 and you better hide under your bed....would you believe it?

On second thought I am surprised you didn't go on the spaceship that was following the "hail bob comet" a few years ago.

May 10, 2006 11:49 pm

I would bet that a third of those trainees had to see it coming though. If you’re 8 months in the business with 10 clients and $500,000 in assets, you’re screwed anyway.

May 10, 2006 11:54 pm

I think MS made some mistakes on this one. Trainees meeting their numbers were fired. Junior FA’s on at least one large team were fired as well. This has many senior FA’s very upset - they were not consulted prior to the announcement. I’m happy with many of the changes over the last six months, however, this move does not seem well thought out. What does this say to other FA’s that are meeting their numbers? Watch your back.

May 11, 2006 12:25 am

Is Morgan/Dean Witter positioning themselves to sell off the retail brokerage

arm?

May 11, 2006 1:28 am

[quote=Farmboy]

Say what you want, it's a poorly run business and company specifically. Another poor statement for the industry as a whole.

[/quote]

Nice broad statement, but what supports your claim?

[quote=Farmboy]

Do you think the shark tank culture makes any client feel better, worse or more trusting when this gets distributed?

[/quote]

"Sharktank"???? BTW, what accounts? These were trainees.

May 11, 2006 1:29 am

[quote=The Truth]Is Morgan/Dean Witter positioning themselves to sell off the retail brokerage
arm?[/quote]

There is no Dean Witter and no, MS won't be selling the retail arm.

May 11, 2006 1:31 am

[quote=fritz]

Mike Butler...If someone told you an asteroid was coming on May 22 and you better hide under your bed....would you believe it?

On second thought I am surprised you didn't go on the spaceship that was following the "hail bob comet" a few years ago.

[/quote]

Still selling the "everyone below $400k will be cut by..." theory?

Care to make it interesting and put your money where your mouth is? And, no, even though the "by date" has passed at least three times on this prediction, I won't be giving you odds.

May 11, 2006 1:32 am

[quote=MWD123]Junior FA's on at least one large team were fired as well. This has many senior FA's very upset - they were not consulted prior to the announcement. QUOTE]

I can understand senior FAs being upset, but then these guys were really Jr FA employed by the seniors, they were trainees employed by MS.

May 11, 2006 1:34 am

It’s true, as I said, 500 were cut. It is not true, as the first post claimed, that

everyone was cut.

May 11, 2006 3:22 am

mikebutler - i think MS has their own flavor of kool-aid and gorman’s holding your bong.

May 11, 2006 3:39 am

Sure at least a third saw it comming. Yes trainees that were tracking got let go. Yeah, senior FAs were not consulted before their juniors got fired. It is what it is, and Morgan Stanleys’ promises to their people are good untill they are not. It’s not personal it’s just business, as the mafia hit men supposedly say. The million dollar producers are safe, untill the promise to not sell the retail arm is no longer valid. You will know that promise is void when you show up in the morning there is a new name on the building. The beat goes on.

May 11, 2006 3:49 am

Mike Butler...Yes...Anyone 350-400 is the range for trouble. From what I understand the exact number is not set.

Late August is still the timeframe. If your over the number then I do not understand why you waste your time here. If you are under then you should get your sh*t together soon.

May 11, 2006 4:43 am

[quote=MWD123]I think MS made some mistakes on this one. Trainees meeting their numbers were fired. Junior FA's on at least one large team were fired as well. This has many senior FA's very upset - they were not consulted prior to the announcement. I'm happy with many of the changes over the last six months, however, this move does not seem well thought out. What does this say to other FA's that are meeting their numbers? Watch your back.[/quote]

I think the numbers are flawed from the start. You're not going to make it in this business if you get $7million. You need to get up to 20+ in two years, especially if you are doing fee based.

May 11, 2006 4:46 am

[quote=mikebutler222]

I can understand senior FAs being upset, but then these guys were really Jr FA employed by the seniors, they were trainees employed by MS.

[/quote]

I do think the Senior FAs should have been consulted because they were probably working the system. They were probably making sure the Jr. FA only generated enough revenue to get by so that the team as a whole could make more money. I do agree however, that the Senior FAs forget that the Jr FAs are paid by MS, not the Senior FA.

May 11, 2006 4:48 am

[quote=Incredible Hulk]mikebutler - i think MS has their own flavor of kool-aid and gorman's holding your bong.[/quote]

Kool-Aid? Do you see MS brokers pushing products like the Jones guys or the insurance salesmen.... No. I would like to know what you are refering to because that statement makes no sense to me.

May 11, 2006 12:49 pm

[quote=iconsult100]I would bet that a third of those trainees had to see it coming though. If you're 8 months in the business with 10 clients and $500,000 in assets, you're screwed anyway.[/quote]

if thats your scenario, you will soon be fired for not meeting goals so it wouldnt make a lot of sense to preemptively cut 500. sucks for people who had a big client or 2 almost on the books though. a lot of successful brokers dont steadily bring in $100k accounts, often a $5mm or $10mm pop is how people get going

May 11, 2006 1:04 pm

[quote=Incredible Hulk]mikebutler - i think MS has their own flavor of kool-aid and gorman's holding your bong.[/quote]

Sure, I'm a kool-aide lover because I won't bite on Fritz' rumor that everyone below $400k is going to be cut. The fact that the deadline for the rumor has passed at least three times already and that such a cut would make no business sense has nothing to do with my view.

Feel better now?

May 11, 2006 1:07 pm

[quote=justaguy]It is what it is, and Morgan Stanleys' promises to their people are good untill they are not. [/quote]

I've said that before and that truth applies to every business in the world, including indy B/d when they make promises to the Reps using their services and even the Reps themselves when they make promises to their employees.

May 11, 2006 1:08 pm

[quote=fritz]

Mike Butler...Yes...Anyone 350-400 is the range for trouble. From what I understand the exact number is not set.

Late August is still the timeframe. If your over the number then I do not understand why you waste your time here. If you are under then you should get your sh*t together soon.

[/quote]

Again, Fritz, let's make it interesting and put your money where your mouth is. BTW, plenty of us here are above that line and simply enjoy this forum. Sorry if that doesn't meet your approval.

May 11, 2006 1:10 pm

a few thoughts on why this is wrong...

lies, lies, lies. how many times have morgan employees been told there would be 'no more cutbacks'? after about the 4th time in < 1yr that it was proved wrong, i jumped ship.

in his memo, gorman draws a line bw trainees and FAs (who are supposedly safe). at least in my office, trainees are FAs after 4 months. there is no distinction. trainees are forced to market themselves as financial advisors, there were 0 teams or partnerships. there was no training program. 'trainees' were given 4 months to get 3 licenses but absolutely no instruction on how to be an FA except for a couple of useless conference calls. no week in nyc, not even a 3 day boot camp in a regional hq. there werent any 'junior fas.' just a few green people (not necessarily younger) aimlessly trying to bring in some $$...

ms says they fired 500 out of 1000, but there were originally 2500 trainees from the '05 classes. wonder where the other 1500 went. most didnt quit bc they were scared of the training repayment contract...

why not just let attrition take its course and start w/ smaller classes going forward? if so few people are being successful, they will be forced out in a couple of months at the most anyways. but oh yes, many would get a bonus for hitting goals. wouldnt want that to happen.

in what has become typical fashion, uncle mo foolishly tries to save a little bit of cash at the expense of bad press. the irony is they may not even save any money w/ severance, unemployment benefits, legal action, etc.

May 11, 2006 1:34 pm

If the employees cannot trust there employer! How can the customers trust the company or the employees?

New employees must have signed contracts? So the company just breaks them! Sounds like a place I would not want to be!

I hope this sends a message to all reps. Stay out of the wire houses!

May 11, 2006 1:46 pm

[quote=Greenbacks]

If the employees cannot trust there employer! How can the customers trust the company or the employees?

New employees must have signed contracts? So the company just breaks them! Sounds like a place I would not want to be!

I hope this sends a message to all reps. Stay out of the wire houses!

[/quote]

they cant and they dont. clients will continue to leave... i wouldnt be suprised to see a class action law suit out of this

May 11, 2006 1:55 pm

May 11, 2006 2:02 pm

Although I feel sorry for the trainees that were let go in my complex, honestly not one of them was worth keeping around. There is no way that they would have been successful advisors in the long term. Absolutely none. The situation was similar around the country. The training program is not what it should be and Gorman will hopefully rectify the inefficiencies. I understand that I am not 100% safe given my level of production, but this business is difficult. If I do not continue to grow my assets and revenues I will be fired. Plain and simple. You have to prove yourself everday, to clients, to prospects, to your family, and to your firm.

Business is tough. Shareholders don’t have feelings.

May 11, 2006 2:07 pm

[quote=xmsbroker]

a few thoughts on why this is wrong...

lies, lies, lies. how many times have morgan employees been told there would be 'no more cutbacks'? after about the 4th time in < 1yr that it was proved wrong, i jumped ship.

in his memo, gorman draws a line bw trainees and FAs (who are supposedly safe). at least in my office, trainees are FAs after 4 months. there is no distinction. trainees are forced to market themselves as financial advisors, there were 0 teams or partnerships. there was no training program. 'trainees' were given 4 months to get 3 licenses but absolutely no instruction on how to be an FA except for a couple of useless conference calls. no week in nyc, not even a 3 day boot camp in a regional hq. there werent any 'junior fas.' just a few green people (not necessarily younger) aimlessly trying to bring in some $$...

ms says they fired 500 out of 1000, but there were originally 2500 trainees from the '05 classes. wonder where the other 1500 went. most didnt quit bc they were scared of the training repayment contract...

why not just let attrition take its course and start w/ smaller classes going forward? if so few people are being successful, they will be forced out in a couple of months at the most anyways. but oh yes, many would get a bonus for hitting goals. wouldnt want that to happen.

in what has become typical fashion, uncle mo foolishly tries to save a little bit of cash at the expense of bad press. the irony is they may not even save any money w/ severance, unemployment benefits, legal action, etc.

QUOTE]

Just a few thoughts on why you're wrong...

Trainees are NOT FAs. I don't know what you've been told in your office, but trainees aren't FAs, period. They’re tracked, accounted for and paid differently than FAs. They’re essentially on probation until the exit their training program.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I also have no idea where you get your impression that the training program was nothing more than a few useless conference calls. They fired 500 of the CURRENT CLASS, not the entire year’s class. I seriously doubt they'll be any "bad press" as a result of firing trainees who weren't making the cut (we heard the same thing about lawsuits from the cuts in August). You can count on cash being saved (your list of costs associated with just doesn't stand up), but in the long run I doubt cash was the real reason. It's more likely that getting on with revamping the training program and getting the new WM deal up and running was the real motivation.

May 11, 2006 2:09 pm

[quote=xmsbroker][quote=Greenbacks]

If the employees cannot trust there employer! How can the customers trust the company or the employees?

New employees must have signed contracts? So the company just breaks them! Sounds like a place I would not want to be!

I hope this sends a message to all reps. Stay out of the wire houses!

[/quote]

they cant and they dont. clients will continue to leave... i wouldnt be suprised to see a class action law suit out of this

[/quote]

ROFLMAO....

May 11, 2006 2:09 pm

[quote=fired?]Although I feel sorry for the trainees that were let go in my complex, honestly not one of them was worth keeping around. There is no way that they would have been successful advisors in the long term. Absolutely none. The situation was similar around the country. The training program is not what it should be and Gorman will hopefully rectify the inefficiencies. I understand that I am not 100% safe given my level of production, but this business is difficult. If I do not continue to grow my assets and revenues I will be fired. Plain and simple. You have to prove yourself everday, to clients, to prospects, to your family, and to your firm.

Business is tough. Shareholders don't have feelings. [/quote]

where were the lines drawn? $2mm?

May 11, 2006 2:10 pm

xmsbroker,

Did you happen to leave last August? Also, what's with the caps problem?

May 11, 2006 2:15 pm

Either you do, or you don’t. I am not trying to make excuses. However there was not much of a training program. No teams formed, in over 6 months only 3 of the one on one weekly development meetings happened, and maybe 4 of the weekly junior FA group meetings occurred, not one single meeting with the branch manager. Hard to believe but true. I ended up dragging my feet on two multimillion dollar accounts because I thought the system was too messed up for me to want to stay. Maybe my thinking is wrong: but I bring someone over because I am going to take care of them, and I just can’t bring them over if I think I won’t be there for them. For myself, I am fine with the cut: I just feel sorry for thoes that continued, and continue, to believe. And the beat goes on, and on…

May 11, 2006 2:23 pm

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker]

a few thoughts on why this is wrong...

lies, lies, lies. how many times have morgan employees been told there would be 'no more cutbacks'? after about the 4th time in < 1yr that it was proved wrong, i jumped ship.

in his memo, gorman draws a line bw trainees and FAs (who are supposedly safe). at least in my office, trainees are FAs after 4 months. there is no distinction. trainees are forced to market themselves as financial advisors, there were 0 teams or partnerships. there was no training program. 'trainees' were given 4 months to get 3 licenses but absolutely no instruction on how to be an FA except for a couple of useless conference calls. no week in nyc, not even a 3 day boot camp in a regional hq. there werent any 'junior fas.' just a few green people (not necessarily younger) aimlessly trying to bring in some $$...

ms says they fired 500 out of 1000, but there were originally 2500 trainees from the '05 classes. wonder where the other 1500 went. most didnt quit bc they were scared of the training repayment contract...

why not just let attrition take its course and start w/ smaller classes going forward? if so few people are being successful, they will be forced out in a couple of months at the most anyways. but oh yes, many would get a bonus for hitting goals. wouldnt want that to happen.

in what has become typical fashion, uncle mo foolishly tries to save a little bit of cash at the expense of bad press. the irony is they may not even save any money w/ severance, unemployment benefits, legal action, etc.

QUOTE]

Just a few thoughts on why you're wrong...

Trainees are NOT FAs. I don't know what you've been told in your office, but trainees aren't FAs, period. They’re tracked, accounted for and paid differently than FAs. They’re essentially on probation until the exit their training program.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I also have no idea where you get your impression that the training program was nothing more than a few useless conference calls. They fired 500 of the CURRENT CLASS, not the entire year’s class. I seriously doubt they'll be any "bad press" as a result of firing trainees who weren't making the cut (we heard the same thing about lawsuits from the cuts in August). You can count on cash being saved (your list of costs associated with just doesn't stand up), but in the long run I doubt cash was the real reason. It's more likely that getting on with revamping the training program and getting the new WM deal up and running was the real motivation.

[/quote]

im not sure what your hard on for ms is, but these are my impressions from the branch i was at. obviously any given branch could be different w/ a great mgr. on the other hand, im sure some branches were worse than my old one.

my impression of the trng program comes from having 3 trainees sitting outside of my old office. they were given no help. our branch didnt have a sales mgr and the bom was mia most of the time. their training consisted of asking people like me questions. no meetings, no structure and no real accountability either.

i dont claim to know everything about the 500/1000 number, but i do know someone who's year wouldve been up in a month or two so they certainly pulled from a good portion of last years class

trainees are not fas only when its convenient. they are 'real' FAs to the public. they solicit and conduct business as any other FA would. hell, theyd probably be fired if they told a prospect they were a trainee.

the bad press comes from promising these people at least a year to hit the numbers. if people are told to focus on HNW prospects, then 1 client can crush the numbers. its not accurate to say they 'werent on pace' when the tracking goal is $2mm. one good client and your a 'leader'

May 11, 2006 2:25 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

xmsbroker,

Did you happen to leave last August? Also, what's with the caps problem?

[/quote]

i left in february, lucked into a job trading for one guys account. no more greasing the pole of the public or ms for me

May 11, 2006 2:27 pm

Either you do, or you don't. I am not trying to make excuses.

Sure sounds like it...

No teams formed,

No teams formed among trainees? Why would trainees for a team? If you're saying no senior brokers offered to bring you in to their team, wel....

in over 6 months only 3 of the one on one weekly development meetings happened, and maybe 4 of the weekly junior FA group meetings occurred, not one single meeting with the branch manager.

Sounds like your branch guy was DOA...

Hard to believe but true. I ended up dragging my feet on two multimillion dollar accounts because I thought the system was too messed up for me to want to stay.

Sure, and you had Donald Trump's money lined up too, but couldn't decide if you wanted to say or not...

For myself, I am fine with the cut: I just feel sorry for thoes that continued, and continue, to believe. And the beat goes on, and on

I doubt those that made the cut need your pity. Again, sorry you got cut and good luck elsewhere. XMSBROKER seems to have a Jones gig now, maybe you can too

May 11, 2006 2:35 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

Either you do, or you don't. I am not trying to make excuses.

Sure sounds like it...

No teams formed,

No teams formed among trainees? Why would trainees for a team? If you're saying no senior brokers offered to bring you in to their team, wel....

in over 6 months only 3 of the one on one weekly development meetings happened, and maybe 4 of the weekly junior FA group meetings occurred, not one single meeting with the branch manager.

Sounds like your branch guy was DOA...

Hard to believe but true. I ended up dragging my feet on two multimillion dollar accounts because I thought the system was too messed up for me to want to stay.

Sure, and you had Donald Trump's money lined up too, but couldn't decide if you wanted to say or not...

For myself, I am fine with the cut: I just feel sorry for thoes that continued, and continue, to believe. And the beat goes on, and on

I doubt those that made the cut need your pity. Again, sorry you got cut and good luck elsewhere. XMSBROKER seems to have a Jones gig now, maybe you can too

[/quote]

Im not sure why you keep making snide insults/assumptions about me. There are plenty of good things about MS, the training program is not one of them. Strange that youre so hostile towards any criticism of the firm when even Mack publicly bashes the program.

May 11, 2006 2:40 pm

If you are producing over 400K at Morgan you are probably safe, everyone else needs to find another firm, or career.

May 11, 2006 2:40 pm

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker]

QUOTE]

They fired 500 of the CURRENT CLASS, not the entire year’s class. [/quote]

please enlighten me as to what the 'current class' refers to. people who started in '06 arent even in production yet and there were very few hires after August of '05.

May 11, 2006 2:47 pm

"The bad press comes from promising these people at least a year to hit the numbers. if people are told to focus on HNW prospects, then 1 client can crush the numbers. its not accurate to say they 'werent on pace' when the tracking goal is $2mm. one good client and your a 'leader' ".

Tracking goal is 2 mil in first year...... ML wants you to have 2 mil by month 4....

May 11, 2006 2:59 pm

[quote=xmsbroker][quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker]

QUOTE]

They fired 500 of the CURRENT CLASS, not the entire year’s class. [/quote]

please enlighten me as to what the 'current class' refers to. people who started in '06 arent even in production yet and there were very few hires after August of '05.

[/quote]

There are several classes during the year. Not everyone has the same start/hire date.

May 11, 2006 3:08 pm

im not sure what your hard on for ms is, but these are my impressions from the branch i was at.

I simply want criticism to be accurate. You're right, branch impressions are key and they vary a great deal. OTOH, the fact that trainees ARE NOT FAs isn't a branch issue, it's firm policy.

my impression of the trng program comes from having 3 trainees sitting outside of my old office. they were given no help.

Sounds like you didn't go thru the program yourself. The "got no help" thing is a universal throughout the biz. When I hear it I wonder what, exactly, people are asking for. I went thru ML's program, which I hear is the best in the biz, and I still heard "I got no help".

i dont claim to know everything about the 500/1000 number, but i do know someone who's year wouldve been up in a month or two so they certainly pulled from a good portion of last years class

"Who's year wouldve been up in a month or two"?????? LOL

trainees are not fas only when its convenient. they are 'real' FAs to the public.

They aren't real in the firm in tracking or pay, so your "lies, lies, lies" claim is mistaken.

the bad press comes from promising these people at least a year to hit the numbers.

"Bad press" with who? Other potential firms? You figure clinets think we should keep people not making the grade onboard? You think potential hires don't know (or shouldn't be told) that if they fail to make the grade they'll be cut?

its not accurate to say they 'werent on pace' when the tracking goal is $2mm. one good client and your a 'leader'

Didn't you just tell us you didn't know the numbers?

May 11, 2006 3:10 pm

[quote=doneMS]If you are producing over 400K at Morgan you are probably safe, everyone else needs to find another firm, or career.[/quote]

Care to take the wager Fritz keeps declining?

May 11, 2006 3:21 pm

The training program admittedly stinks. Gorman said that yesterday. The kids that were cut in my complex simply weren’t working hard enough to warrant their employment. If those that were let go are serious about the field, call your local merrill office. They are insane about increasing head count these days. I guarantee you will get an interview.

May 11, 2006 3:27 pm

[quote=blarmston]

"The bad press comes from promising these people at least a year to hit the numbers. if people are told to focus on HNW prospects, then 1 client can crush the numbers. its not accurate to say they 'werent on pace' when the tracking goal is $2mm. one good client and your a 'leader' ".

Tracking goal is 2 mil in first year...... ML wants you to have 2 mil by month 4....

[/quote]

I'm not familiar with the tracking goals, but $2MM at the end of year one sounds like a joke.

May 11, 2006 3:38 pm

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker][quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker]

QUOTE]

They fired 500 of the CURRENT CLASS, not the entire year’s class. [/quote]

please enlighten me as to what the 'current class' refers to. people who started in '06 arent even in production yet and there were very few hires after August of '05.

[/quote]

There are several classes during the year. Not everyone has the same start/hire date.

[/quote]

obviously, thats my point. they dont start 1000 people on the same day so what start dates do you think these firings encompassed?

May 11, 2006 3:49 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

sitting outside of my old office. they were given no help.

Sounds like you didn't go thru the program yourself. The "got no help" thing is a universal throughout the biz. When I hear it I wonder what, exactly, people are asking for. I went thru ML's program, which I hear is the best in the biz, and I still heard "I got no help".

true, however, the program promised people a week of boot camp, weekly manager meetings, 3rd party sales trng, none of which once were conducted. these are tangible parts of a program that were promised and not delivered. would they have helped, i have no idea

trainees are not fas only when its convenient. they are 'real' FAs to the public.

They aren't real in the firm in tracking or pay, so your "lies, lies, lies" claim is mistaken.

the lies comment refered to repeated promises by mack, gorman, and middle mgmt that there would be no more firings... in regard to the fa/trainee distinction, what is the difference for a client?

its not accurate to say they 'werent on pace' when the tracking goal is $2mm. one good client and your a 'leader'

Didn't you just tell us you didn't know the numbers?

i dont know where the line was drawn for the recent firings. the $2mm refers to the tracking # trainees had to meet w/in 1 yr of hire (~8 months of production) to stay on salary and get a bonus. $1mm was needed to stay on draw for 3 months. $4mm for 'leaders'

these #s are low, but thats entirely ms fault...

fwiw, i went through trng at ms and it was lacking a couple years ago, but it was a lot better than this 4 month joke.

[/quote]

May 11, 2006 3:51 pm

[quote=xmsbroker][quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker][quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker]

QUOTE]

They fired 500 of the CURRENT CLASS, not the entire year’s class. [/quote]

please enlighten me as to what the 'current class' refers to. people who started in '06 arent even in production yet and there were very few hires after August of '05.

[/quote]

There are several classes during the year. Not everyone has the same start/hire date.

[/quote]

obviously, thats my point. they dont start 1000 people on the same day so what start dates do you think these firings encompassed?

[/quote]

Since your earlier comment was "ms says they fired 500 out of 1000, but there were originally 2500 trainees from the '05 classes. wonder where the other 1500 went. " I thought your "point" was pretty clear, where at the other 1500. My anwser was to explain that all 2500 are not in the same class, thus the "500 of 1000" referred to specific classes. I couldn't tell you which ones or what start dates are involved.

May 11, 2006 3:58 pm

sitting outside of my old office. they were given no help.

Sounds like you didn't go thru the program yourself. The "got no help" thing is a universal throughout the biz. When I hear it I wonder what, exactly, people are asking for. I went thru ML's program, which I hear is the best in the biz, and I still heard "I got no help".

true, however, the program promised people a week of boot camp, weekly manager meetings, 3rd party sales trng, none of which once were conducted. these are tangible parts of a program that were promised and not delivered. would they have helped, i have no idea

I don't know how, since you weren't part of the group, what was promised and what was or wasn't done. Again, I don't know of any complaint industry-wide that's as common as "I got no help", and I have no idea what "help" people are asiking for. This job requires a self-starter, you're given the tools, not the accounts.

trainees are not fas only when its convenient. they are 'real' FAs to the public.

They aren't real in the firm in tracking or pay, so your "lies, lies, lies" claim is mistaken.

the lies comment refered to repeated promises by mack, gorman, and middle mgmt that there would be no more firings... in regard to the fa/trainee distinction, what is the difference for a client?

Please be serious. Gorman and Mack made a promise that was clear to every employee. Trying to change the nature of it, and/or trying to claim that clients would be unhappy when people not making the grade are cut is just silly. I've yet to hear, for example, a client complain about the August cut. They understand standards.

its not accurate to say they 'werent on pace' when the tracking goal is $2mm. one good client and your a 'leader'

Didn't you just tell us you didn't know the numbers?

i dont know where the line was drawn for the recent firings.

If you don't know the numbers for the line, why comment on them?

fwiw, i went through trng at ms and it was lacking a couple years ago, but it was a lot better than this 4 month joke.

The training may still be a "joke" for all know, but it isn't 4 months and never has been.

BTW, ever consider using that Caps key and making your posts easier to read?

May 11, 2006 4:08 pm

I know what the trainees told me. Naturally I asked what the program was like as theyve changed it every year I was there... It obviously requires a self-starter, but its foolish (and dangerous) to think a self starter is capable of properly managing millions of wealth w/out some instruction or prior experience.

Youve never heard a client complain about the August cuts? You should have had some of the accounts that were transferred to me. MS pissed some people off.

How is the training not 4 months? They were given 4 months to get licensed and then went into production. No oversight at all.

May 11, 2006 4:15 pm

"If you don't know the numbers for the line, why comment on them?"

bc things happen fast in that business. some of the most successful people at one point were not considered on track and then landed a big client or two. youre better off having 1 $1mm account and 10 great prospects then having 40 $40k accounts

May 11, 2006 4:27 pm

I know what the trainees told me.

There's your first problem. People new to the biz aren't usually the folks to ask what it takes to train someone for a biz they know nothing about...

It obviously requires a self-starter, but its foolish (and dangerous) to think a self starter is capable of properly managing millions of wealth w/out some instruction or prior experience.

They get plenty of what-to-do-with-it help. That's not where people who aren't bringing in accounts have a problem.

Youve never heard a client complain about the August cuts? You should have had some of the accounts that were transferred to me. MS pissed some people off.

Not a one. Now I know you're joking, or you left in August People usderstand standards. Most people don't have much use for an organization that keeps people around who are failing to meet some pretty minimal standards.

How is the training not 4 months? They were given 4 months to get licensed and then went into production. No oversight at all.

That's got to be a joke as well. They get four months to pass the exams and they get (even if your manager is brain-dead) plenty of oversight. What they don't get (anywhere) is accounts. Clearly the program is lacking, but it sure isn't what you've made it out to be.

May 11, 2006 4:31 pm

[quote=xmsbroker]

"If you don't know the numbers for the line, why comment on them?"

bc things happen fast in that business. some of the most successful people at one point were not considered on track and then landed a big client or two. youre better off having 1 $1mm account and 10 great prospects then having 40 $40k accounts

[/quote]

So people not making the grade should be kept around even if they're failing to meet minimal standards because one or two of them may land a single large account and catch up? As a shareholder, you'll excuse me if I don't like that approach, OK?

Hey, you say you had a tough experience in your office, which is perfectly possible. I don't doubt that. It also seems you have other issues. If I were a betting man (and I am) I'd say you and the other new poster that's capitalization challenged and talks about working at Jones are the same guy and that you left in August. Call it a hunch.

May 11, 2006 4:33 pm

I will take 40, 40 thousand dollar accounts over a one million dollar account any time. There might be some big rollovers there!

May 11, 2006 4:37 pm

"I will take 40, 40 thousand dollar accounts over a one million dollar account any time. There might be some big rollovers there!"

I will agree with that... Although more ideal would be five 200K accounts...

May 11, 2006 4:42 pm

Blarm,

Wouldn't all those 40K accounts end up at the call center anyway? I got the impression from somewhere(?) that you don't get paid for that size account?

May 11, 2006 4:49 pm

[quote=blarmston]

"I will take 40, 40 thousand dollar accounts over a one million dollar account any time. There might be some big rollovers there!"

I will agree with that... Although more ideal would be five 200K accounts...

[/quote]

Everyone should structure their business as they see fit. Personally I wouldn't be all that happy with either alternative, I'd want the $1MM account (unless the $200K account was part of a larger household). I'd rather have fewer households, and that requires larger accounts within each household (or you'll starve to death). That way I can give the depth of service I want to provide. Too many households and you just (or, at least I ) can't use the "trusted advisor" business model.

May 11, 2006 4:54 pm

I don’t see how they could be cutting just underperformers. I’ve talked with a couple of brokers who say that ALL of the trainees in their branches were cut regardless of performance.

I know that they’re not cutting all trainees, but my partner and I have talked to some very promising candidates this morning. I supspect that most of the brokers will be snatched up by other firms very quickly.

May 11, 2006 4:58 pm

mikebutler...

what's your opinion on cuts for under 500k?

May 11, 2006 5:11 pm

[quote=frumhere]

mikebutler...

what's your opinion on cuts for under 500k?

[/quote]

Won't happen with the current plan. That would cut more (perhaps much more) than 50% of the force.

May 11, 2006 5:12 pm

[quote=JCadieux]I don't see how they could be cutting just underperformers. I've talked with a couple of brokers who say that ALL of the trainees in their branches were cut regardless of performance.

I know that they're not cutting all trainees, but my partner and I have talked to some very promising candidates this morning. I supspect that most of the brokers will be snatched up by other firms very quickly.
[/quote]

The other brokers in the office are in no position to know the details of the production of trainees cut. Best of luck getting the bottom half of a training class placed.

May 11, 2006 5:33 pm

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker]

"If you don't know the numbers for the line, why comment on them?"

bc things happen fast in that business. some of the most successful people at one point were not considered on track and then landed a big client or two. youre better off having 1 $1mm account and 10 great prospects then having 40 $40k accounts

[/quote]

So people not making the grade should be kept around even if they're failing to meet minimal standards because one or two of them may land a single large account and catch up? As a shareholder, you'll excuse me if I don't like that approach, OK?

Hey, you say you had a tough experience in your office, which is perfectly possible. I don't doubt that. It also seems you have other issues. If I were a betting man (and I am) I'd say you and the other new poster that's capitalization challenged and talks about working at Jones are the same guy and that you left in August. Call it a hunch.

[/quote]

nope, sorry. im happy to be out of the retail business but i stayed until '06

May 11, 2006 5:42 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

I know what the trainees told me.

There's your first problem. People new to the biz aren't usually the folks to ask what it takes to train someone for a biz they know nothing about...

It obviously requires a self-starter, but its foolish (and dangerous) to think a self starter is capable of properly managing millions of wealth w/out some instruction or prior experience.

They get plenty of what-to-do-with-it help. That's not where people who aren't bringing in accounts have a problem.

Youve never heard a client complain about the August cuts? You should have had some of the accounts that were transferred to me. MS pissed some people off.

Not a one. Now I know you're joking, or you left in August People usderstand standards. Most people don't have much use for an organization that keeps people around who are failing to meet some pretty minimal standards.

How is the training not 4 months? They were given 4 months to get licensed and then went into production. No oversight at all.

That's got to be a joke as well. They get four months to pass the exams and they get (even if your manager is brain-dead) plenty of oversight. What they don't get (anywhere) is accounts. Clearly the program is lacking, but it sure isn't what you've made it out to be.

[/quote]

Youre awfully defensive. ive qualified my perspective as it being from one branch, i dont see why you have such a hard time accepting it. im sure there are much slacker training programs at various firms and various branches.

In regard to the August layoffs, you must not have much contact w/ clients of fired brokers. many dont understand production minimums as they dont see their broker as a pure salesmen. All they know is that he did a good job for them. its further insulting if you suggest that their friend/relative just couldnt hack it. sure some dont care and some may think its good, but if they were friends/related to the person they generally werent happy.

May 11, 2006 5:44 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=JCadieux]I don't see how they could be cutting just underperformers. I've talked with a couple of brokers who say that ALL of the trainees in their branches were cut regardless of performance.

I know that they're not cutting all trainees, but my partner and I have talked to some very promising candidates this morning. I supspect that most of the brokers will be snatched up by other firms very quickly.
[/quote]

The other brokers in the office are in no position to know the details of the production of trainees cut. Best of luck getting the bottom half of a training class placed.

[/quote]

yeah right. the sas know and the sas love to gossip.

May 11, 2006 5:48 pm

[quote=xmsbroker][quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker]

"If you don't know the numbers for the line, why comment on them?"

bc things happen fast in that business. some of the most successful people at one point were not considered on track and then landed a big client or two. youre better off having 1 $1mm account and 10 great prospects then having 40 $40k accounts

[/quote]

So people not making the grade should be kept around even if they're failing to meet minimal standards because one or two of them may land a single large account and catch up? As a shareholder, you'll excuse me if I don't like that approach, OK?

Hey, you say you had a tough experience in your office, which is perfectly possible. I don't doubt that. It also seems you have other issues. If I were a betting man (and I am) I'd say you and the other new poster that's capitalization challenged and talks about working at Jones are the same guy and that you left in August. Call it a hunch.

[/quote]

nope, sorry. im happy to be out of the retail business but i stayed until '06

[/quote]

Sure, if you say so

May 11, 2006 5:55 pm

[quote=xmsbroker][quote=mikebutler222]

I know what the trainees told me.

There's your first problem. People new to the biz aren't usually the folks to ask what it takes to train someone for a biz they know nothing about...

It obviously requires a self-starter, but its foolish (and dangerous) to think a self starter is capable of properly managing millions of wealth w/out some instruction or prior experience.

They get plenty of what-to-do-with-it help. That's not where people who aren't bringing in accounts have a problem.

Youve never heard a client complain about the August cuts? You should have had some of the accounts that were transferred to me. MS pissed some people off.

Not a one. Now I know you're joking, or you left in August People usderstand standards. Most people don't have much use for an organization that keeps people around who are failing to meet some pretty minimal standards.

How is the training not 4 months? They were given 4 months to get licensed and then went into production. No oversight at all.

That's got to be a joke as well. They get four months to pass the exams and they get (even if your manager is brain-dead) plenty of oversight. What they don't get (anywhere) is accounts. Clearly the program is lacking, but it sure isn't what you've made it out to be.

[/quote]

Youre awfully defensive. ive qualified my perspective as it being from one branch, i dont see why you have such a hard time accepting it.

I've said several times that your branch environment could well have sucked. No argument there. My problem with your comments have to do with when you start to talk about the program across the firm and get the details very, very wrong.

In regard to the August layoffs, you must not have much contact w/ clients of fired brokers.

Trust me on this one, I had plenty of contact and not a single complaint. Zero, zip, nada. People understand business (most were senior people in theor own biz field) and most understand the benefits of having standards.

its further insulting if you suggest that their friend/relative just couldnt hack it.

The last thing you want to do, ever, is insult the "last guy", regardless of the circumstances.

sure some dont care and some may think its good, but if they were friends/related to the person they generally werent happy.

If they were friends/relatives they wouldn't be happy the guy was canned. If the guy stayed in the biz, they no doubt would have moved with him. Now that we've accounted for that .001%, let me say again, I never got a complaint. Not one.

Also note that the threatened lawsuits never materialized, or the bad press, or all the other dire predictions.

May 11, 2006 6:31 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]Let me add, the same announcement said they
weren’t “making any reductions among Financial Advisors” and remain
committed to growing the sales force.[/quote]

I was canned too, only a couple of months after they said that same
statement. Of course, FA “trainees” are not FAs. Hey, if you are a
transactional guy, maybe he will call you a broker rathar than an FA…
Time will tell.

May 11, 2006 6:33 pm

Mike, what is your position at the firm?

Can you also explain how a trainee is functionally different than an FA (differences besides comp plan)?

May 11, 2006 6:40 pm

Mike is a dushbag. MS FA Trainees have “Financial Advisor” on their business cards. Is Morgan deceiving clients with that title?

The training program gives 1 year to reach our goals, I was given 9 months.

The ONLY 2 “success” stories of the program only made it by (1) landing
a big client in the last few weeks of the 1 year or (2) with help of a
senior FA.

May 11, 2006 6:57 pm

[quote=SaySo]Mike is a dushbag. MS FA Trainees have "Financial Advisor" on their business cards. Is Morgan deceiving clients with that title?

The training program gives 1 year to reach our goals, I was given 9 months.

The ONLY 2 "success" stories of the program only made it by (1) landing a big client in the last few weeks of the 1 year or (2) with help of a senior FA.

[/quote]

Exactly. Not to mention that fa 'trainees' obviously have to assert themselves as highly qualified wealth managers. who's going to give their lifes savings to someone who 'in training'?

May 11, 2006 7:00 pm

…i can say that the cuts by me happened to 3 guys that after a year had maybe 300k in total assets, in aggregate. i am sure some good trainees were cut, but it was possibly a lot of dead weight. you can say i had no training etc…and you may be right. bottom line is, if you are not given the training, get the training (out of your own pocket). this is your own business even though you are w2’ed. you must invest in it.

May 11, 2006 7:02 pm

[quote=frumhere]...i can say that the cuts by me happened to 3 guys that after a year had maybe 300k in total assets, in aggregate. i am sure some good trainees were cut, but it was possibly a lot of dead weight. you can say i had no training etc...and you may be right. bottom line is, if you are not given the training, get the training (out of your own pocket). this is your own business even though you are w2'ed. you must invest in it.[/quote]

doubt it. people needed $1mm at the year mark to stay.

May 11, 2006 7:10 pm

they were here 9-10 months. i am not a bs’er.

May 11, 2006 7:10 pm

[quote=SaySo]Mike is a dushbag. MS FA Trainees have "Financial Advisor" on their business cards. Is Morgan deceiving clients with that title?

The training program gives 1 year to reach our goals, I was given 9 months.

The ONLY 2 "success" stories of the program only made it by (1) landing a big client in the last few weeks of the 1 year or (2) with help of a senior FA.

[/quote]

If you're going to call someone a "dushbag" [SP], at least spell it correctly. Better still, don't call another poster a "dushbag" at all.

I've had differences of opinion with Mike, but they are just that. Differences. He is certainly not a douche bag because of that.

May 11, 2006 7:13 pm

[quote=frumhere]they were here 9-10 months. i am not a bs'er.[/quote]

okay, that makes sense.

May 11, 2006 7:32 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=JCadieux]…my partner and I have
talked to some very promising candidates this morning. I supspect that
most of the brokers will be snatched up by other firms very quickly.
[/quote]

The other brokers in the office are in no position to know the details of the production of trainees cut. Best of luck getting the bottom half of a training class placed.

[/quote]

You'd be surprised, Mike. Gorman admits that their training program needs help. And just because you weren't successful at Morgan Stanley doesn't mean that you won't be successful in a more supportive environment.

We place a lot of experienced FAs with small books. Lots of these trainees did very well despite scaled back training and lackluster support. And several of the candidates that have called yesterday and today seem to have been on-track, and had decent pipelines. We'll have to verify this, but if last August's cuts are any indication then there are some gems the got caught up in the system.

I'm not saying that everybody that was cut will stay at the Wirehouse level. We still reject the majority of the trainee level candidates that contact us. But there are a significant number of MS trainees that will do better in a more supportive environment.

[quote=frumhere] i am sure some good trainees were cut.... Bottom line is, if you are not given the training, get the training (out of your own pocket).[/quote]

Or join a firm that actually invests in training its trainees. Results vary from branch to branch, but there are lots of firms with stronger programs.

May 11, 2006 7:45 pm

[quote=xmsbroker]

Mike, what is your position at the firm?

Can you also explain how a trainee is functionally different than an FA (differences besides comp plan)?

[/quote]

You mean besides the fact that they're paid, tracked and supervised differently than an FA are are on "probation" until they complete the training program?

May 11, 2006 7:46 pm

[quote=SaySo]Mike is a dushbag. MS FA Trainees have "Financial Advisor" on their business cards. Is Morgan deceiving clients with that title?

The training program gives 1 year to reach our goals, I was given 9 months.

The ONLY 2 "success" stories of the program only made it by (1) landing a big client in the last few weeks of the 1 year or (2) with help of a senior FA.

[/quote]

I feel your pain, brother...

May 11, 2006 7:48 pm

at my office they werent supervised differently but thats probably rare

they are coded differently, what do they do differently on a daily basis?

what do you mean by probation?

May 11, 2006 7:50 pm

[quote=xmsbroker]

[quote=SaySo]Mike is a dushbag. MS FA Trainees have "Financial Advisor" on their business cards. Is Morgan deceiving clients with that title?

The training program gives 1 year to reach our goals, I was given 9 months.

The ONLY 2 "success" stories of the program only made it by (1) landing a big client in the last few weeks of the 1 year or (2) with help of a senior FA.

[/quote]

Exactly. Not to mention that fa 'trainees' obviously have to assert themselves as highly qualified wealth managers. who's going to give their lifes savings to someone who 'in training'?

[/quote]

It isn't what they have on their business card, it's their status in the firm. You're just being silly now.

Plenty of management types have been laid-off too, and I don't consider that a lie on Mack/Gorman's part.

May 11, 2006 7:52 pm

[quote=Starka]

[quote=SaySo]Mike is a dushbag. MS FA Trainees have "Financial Advisor" on their business cards. Is Morgan deceiving clients with that title?

The training program gives 1 year to reach our goals, I was given 9 months.

The ONLY 2 "success" stories of the program only made it by (1) landing a big client in the last few weeks of the 1 year or (2) with help of a senior FA.

[/quote]

If you're going to call someone a "dushbag" [SP], at least spell it correctly. Better still, don't call another poster a "dushbag" at all.

I've had differences of opinion with Mike, but they are just that. Differences. He is certainly not a douche bag because of that.

[/quote]

Yeah, there are plenty of other reasons

Thanks

May 11, 2006 8:02 pm

[quote=JCadieux] [quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=JCadieux]...my partner and I have talked to some very promising candidates this morning. I supspect that most of the brokers will be snatched up by other firms very quickly.
[/quote]

The other brokers in the office are in no position to know the details of the production of trainees cut. Best of luck getting the bottom half of a training class placed.

[/quote]

You'd be surprised, Mike. Gorman admits that their training program needs help. And just because you weren't successful at Morgan Stanley doesn't mean that you won't be successful in a more supportive environment.

All the same, I can't see any other wirehouse rushing out to hire the bottom 1/2. You know one of the major criticisms of the program wasn't just how it was run, but who they hired to fill the probably-too-many slots. Again, best of luck.

We place a lot of experienced FAs with small books. Lots of these trainees did very well despite scaled back training and lackluster support. And several of the candidates that have called yesterday and today seem to have been on-track, and had decent pipelines. We'll have to verify this, but if last August's cuts are any indication then there are some gems the got caught up in the system.

Sure there are, and last August, the guys doing under $225k with LOS > 8 years? Plenty of gems there. Look, I could be wrong, but you sound more like you're trolling than that you got any phone calls in the entire 24 hours since this happened. I could be wrong, again, call it a hunch.

I'm not saying that everybody that was cut will stay at the Wirehouse level.

Ding, Ding, Ding.... say, boys and girls, wouldn't you just love to hear who rushes out to hire the bottom half of a class already known for low hiring standards?

We still reject the majority of the trainee level candidates that contact us. But there are a significant number of MS trainees that will do better in a more supportive environment.

"Supportive environment"? LOL Again, I really do wish them luck, but don't blow smoke up their skirts that being in the bottom 1/2 had anything to do with anything but themselves or that there are a warm set of mothers arms at some firm you're being paid to deliver them to.

[quote=frumhere] i am sure some good trainees were cut.... Bottom line is, if you are not given the training, get the training (out of your own pocket).[/quote]

Or join a firm that actually invests in training its trainees. Results vary from branch to branch, but there are lots of firms with stronger programs.

"Invests in training its trainees" I just love recruiterspeak....I suggest you listen again to the criticisms internally to the program. It was too big, causing hires that never should have been hired. The instruction on exams was weak, too many failures. I've yet to hear any real evidence that universally people who managed to pass their exams weren't given just what they would have recieved at any other wirehouse. Another wirehouse where, no doubt, "I didn't get any support" is the claim of everyone who washes out.

Just for grins, could someone tell me just what, besides the tools, and a chance, trainees should be given? Any one here in the biz more than 5 years ever given more than a phone and some advice after they passed the exams? Seriously, I'd love to hear it.

May 11, 2006 8:05 pm

[quote=xmsbroker]

at my office they werent supervised differently but thats probably rare

they are coded differently, what do they do differently on a daily basis?

what do you mean by probation?

[/quote]

You're fixated on what they look like to clients and not the terms of their employment and how they've yet to achieve full-status as they're still in a training program. "Probation" as in the terms of their continued employment being contingent on completing a training program. No FA fits that category.

May 11, 2006 9:28 pm

This just in... Gorman derails 500 trainees James Gorman, head of Morgan Stanley's Global Wealth Management, announced in an internal memo that the firm has fired 500 trainees from its four-year adviser training program - half of the trainees in the program.

"These are individuals who were not tracking toward long-term success in the business," he said in a memo. Mr. Gorman said that future training groups for advisors will be limited to between 700 and 1,000 trainees down from the usual 1,500 to 2,500.

He added that the firm "remain[s] committed to the long-term growth of our sales force."

"We believe that a smaller program will be more focused and effective, enabling a higher percentage of trainees to benefit from superior training and become successful wealth managers at Morgan Stanley," Mr. Gorman said in the memo.

"The program redesign is underway and will be rolled out in the second half of this year," he said.

The firm had about 9,000 advisers on staff at the end of February.

"Morgan Stanley has to slash low producers to get production up to a respectable level," said Rick Peterson of Rick Peterson & Associates, a recruiting firm.

"Merrill Lynch is around $700,000 average production per broker [and] Morgan Stanley is not going to get there."

But, he said, "Morgan Stanley focused way too much on trainees [who don't produce much]."

Since Mr. Gorman joined Morgan Stanley in February, he has rechristened the firm's 9,000-member retail brokerage unit "Global Wealth Management Group." and recruited several former colleagues from Merrill Lynch.

May 11, 2006 9:43 pm

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker]

at my office they werent supervised differently but thats probably rare

they are coded differently, what do they do differently on a daily basis?

what do you mean by probation?

[/quote]

You're fixated on what they look like to clients and not the terms of their employment and how they've yet to achieve full-status as they're still in a training program. "Probation" as in the terms of their continued employment being contingent on completing a training program. No FA fits that category.

[/quote]

they do the same job.

i certainly wasnt any more or less excited when i 'completed' the trng program. its not like completing it means your job is no longer contingent.

i dont know why you care so much about the internal coding. if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and can call itself a duck...

May 11, 2006 9:56 pm

Butler....After the next cuts will your line be "everyone saw the cuts coming" "the righting was on the wall" These are the exact lines the region guys gave us after last August. These same region guys, who are no longer with the firm (Steve Townsend, Sanchez) are now saying that they see the same lines coming this summer.

Im sure these will be your sorry ass excuses for all the b.s. your spewing on this site.

May 11, 2006 9:58 pm

"writing" sorry.

May 11, 2006 10:47 pm

"Any one here in the biz more than 5 years ever given more than a phone and some advice after they passed the exams? Seriously, I'd love to hear it."

Are you implying the training at MS is the same as its competitors? Even senior mgmt doesnt believe that...

Even if you do foolishly believe that, the point is MS is firing people before their evaluation day and other firms arent.

May 12, 2006 3:25 am

I have the solution to our Trainee Problems! DON'T HIRE ANY!

This industry is moving toward teams anyway. The biggest producers are those in teams. Individual rookies just aren't making it because there are so many people in this industry. Let senior FAs bring on partners as they see fit. They can mentor the new FA and expand their practice. This would dramatically reduce the failure rate and we wouldn't have unqualified people out there giving advice.

A client of mine got invited to a seminar last month. He said to me, "This guy worked for my friend's Car Dealership last year! Now he's some kind of financial expert? Give me a break."

May 12, 2006 11:31 am

[quote=fritz]

Butler....After the next cuts will your line be "everyone saw the cuts coming" "the righting was on the wall" ...[/quote]

OK, Ms Cleo, here's the offer again; here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is. Let's make a wager on this one. And again, no, I won't give you odds, even though the "due date" on this prediction has come and gone at least three times.

May 12, 2006 11:33 am

[quote=xmsbroker]

"Any one here in the biz more than 5 years ever given more than a phone and some advice after they passed the exams? Seriously, I'd love to hear it."

Are you implying the training at MS is the same as its competitors?

[/quote]

I thought the line you quoted was pretty clear. If you have an answer for it, let's hear it.

May 12, 2006 12:43 pm

As a former manager the only did more than hire trainees is fire them. They were nothing more than a challenge goal number. It’s sounds cold but it is fact. Why the excitement over these 500??? They would have been fired eventually. Morgan sends a thousand trainees up the hill, and hopes that the enemy has less than a thousand bullets. Crappy training program run by managers who were worried about a P&L that was dragged down by rookies who added thousands to the fixed expenses line.

May 12, 2006 1:26 pm

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker]

"Any one here in the biz more than 5 years ever given more than a phone and some advice after they passed the exams? Seriously, I'd love to hear it."

Are you implying the training at MS is the same as its competitors?

[/quote]

I thought the line you quoted was pretty clear. If you have an answer for it, let's hear it.

[/quote]

Mike, you obviously believe that better training is possible as you have acknowledged the program was lacking and earlier you said:

''It's more likely that getting on with revamping the training program and getting the new WM deal up and running was the real motivation"

Now youre saying that training everywhere is nothing more than being handed a phone? Strange. Why would MS be revamping the program if all theyre going to do is hand someone a phone?

I dont make any claims to be an expert trainer, but certainly things can be done to make someone more successful. WM education is one obvious step. the 7/66 do not teach nearly enough about investing for someone to handle a $1mm+ portfolio and proper understanding is important for the sales side as well. A lot of wealthy people can gauge how well someone understands investing. Likewise, guidance is needed to structure a business plan. You cant make it anymore simply by making 200 calls everyday.

Mike, perhaps you can answer my questions. Do you think the training at MS is as good as every firm? If yes, why are they changing the program?

May 12, 2006 1:58 pm

[quote=xmsbroker][quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"Any one here in the biz more than 5 years ever given more than a phone and some advice after they passed the exams? Seriously, I'd love to hear it."

Are you implying the training at MS is the same as its competitors?

[/quote]

I thought the line you quoted was pretty clear. If you have an answer for it, let's hear it.

[/quote]

Mike, you obviously believe that better training is possible as you have acknowledged the program was lacking and earlier you said:

''It's more likely that getting on with revamping the training program and getting the new WM deal up and running was the real motivation"

The WM program, which is brand new, and will cover about 50% of all hires going forward, is an effort to do much of what was suggested above, to groom people for placement into WM teams. That’s a completely different focus than any program that I know of on the street.

The revamping aside from that, that I’ve heard discussed is raising the hiring standards and providing better pre-exam instruction. It isn’t as if some magic success formula has been discovered and is going to be implemented.

Now youre saying that training everywhere is nothing more than being handed a phone?

You seem to suffer from a significant comprehension problem. What I said was “I got no support” is what you hear everywhere from people who failed to make the grade in a career field where the attrition rate is somewhere north of 75% in the first five years. I simply asked what “support” people making that claim think would have made the difference, since I’ve heard that complaint everywhere, including ML which has a reputation for having the best program on the street. The reason for failure with new trainees isn’t that they weren’t given the skills to manage $1MM+ accounts, it’s that they couldn’t OPEN accounts.

I’m unaware of any training program on the street that has as a goal that trainees will be able to manage $1MM accounts on their own without relying on the assets within the firm to given them guidance once the account is opened or in the proposal stage.

I dont make any claims to be an expert trainer, but certainly things can be done to make someone more successful. WM education is one obvious step.

You’re aware that even the old program incorporated earning the CFP designation, right? Again, the problem wasn’t that trainees weren’t WM skilled, its that they didn’t open accounts and bring in assets.

Likewise, guidance is needed to structure a business plan. You cant make it anymore simply by making 200 calls everyday.

I would agree that if the plan didn’t include that, it was severely lacking. I just asked a trainee in the office and told me that was part of his program even before he finished his exams.

Mike, perhaps you can answer my questions. Do you think the training at MS is as good as every firm? If yes, why are they changing the program?

Is it as good as everywhere else? I can’t tell you that, and that’s a fair question. My guess is it’s better than some, not as good as others. I think the real problems were, as discussed earlier, as Mack himself said. We tried to make it so big that hiring standards suffered as a result. I also noticed the pass rate on the exams weren’t as high as I saw at ML. That could have been a function of hiring standards or the course itself, I couldn’t tell you. What I can, again, tell you is I heard the “I got no support” claim even at ML, with their reputation.

My take on their program was that it gave you a solid basis to take the exams, it then gave you knowledge about how to use the firm’s tools and how to devise a business plan. After that, the trips to ML’s campus were only informative in so much as you got to hear what was working for others, and you got some motivation from hanging (and drinking a lot) with others going through the same pressure. The same with the interaction with office mentors, the biggest value was motivational when you got down. But when it comes right down to it, those aren’t difficult tools to supply a trainee and beyond that, it’s all up to the individual. No one else can give you “support” that opens accounts, only “support” that helps to keep trying.

Oh, and why are they changing it? As I mentioned above, hiring standards were low and the new WM track. Beyond that it could well be that they’ve acknowledged the change in the biz and how people should start in it before others have.

It’s interesting how you’ve tried to change this from “lies” and “bad press” and “lawsuits” to “don’t you think the training program sucked?”….

May 12, 2006 2:07 pm