Retention....please do not hijack
So as far as we (WS) know, Danny and David are taking their retention proposal to WFC this monday, Dec 1st. WFC will then digest the plan, and we hope to hear something by mid Dec. Anybody hearing the same thing or something different?? (Ferris, I clearly stole your “hijack” line, hope you don’t mind).
Ferris, it will only be a matter of time before some of these self appointed super-brokers would be on here telling you that while you are worried about retention, and looking up definitions to the word hijack, they are networking and eating Thanksgiving dinner with your clients.
Well WFC better make up their minds soon, becuase I’m about a half an inch away from signing on with another firm…just trying to hold out a smidge longer to find out about a retention…I hope WFC takes this seriously…
Even if 10,000 WB advisors leave, WFC would still be left with 4,600 more advisors than they have now...maybe that's what they're thinking...[quote=Vet20]Well WFC better make up their minds soon, becuase I’m about a half an inch away from signing on with another firm…just trying to hold out a smidge longer to find out about a retention…I hope WFC takes this seriously…
Even if 10,000 WB advisors leave, WFC would still be left with 4,600 more advisors than they have now...maybe that's what they're thinking... [/quote]please no more speculation about the retention. 1/2 of merrill? really? were they on the committee. I doubt it. they’ll announce when they announce and that we can all move on with our insecurity.
[quote=Vet20]Well WFC better make up their minds soon, becuase I’m about a half an inch away from signing on with another firm…just trying to hold out a smidge longer to find out about a retention…I hope WFC takes this seriously…
Even if 10,000 WB advisors leave, WFC would still be left with 4,600 more advisors than they have now...maybe that's what they're thinking... [/quote] You should probably just make the move and not wait. Think about it: What would it take from WFC to make you want to stick around? Having said that, you have to know that they aren't going to deliver. They have a decent bank brokerage program. Their bread and butter is the bank. They develop from there. I wouldn't say it'll be half of what ML got, but I wouldn't expect anything more. Take your deal now before the offerer reduces it based on WFC's proposal.In reply to YTB…
Here’s one of your previous posts from another forum:
“So
I start my new position on a bank platform in a few weeks. I’ll
start/finish my training and be in the branch producing and am pretty
excited. Everything is falling into place but since this is my first
time on my own, I am going to have to settle on a few packaged product
families for clients that aren’t interested in traditional wrap
accounts of individual positions…”<o:p></o:p>
Well, I’ve apparently been around a bit longer. This is an asset and relationship business and transitions from one to another companies kill both. A single million dollar account loss at 1.5 percent net production is $15,000 a year gone for good. That’s $150,000 or more over 10 years and that’s just 1 account!
My opinion is the retention will be less than the AGE deal and more than ML’s. The hangup is probably what to pay the already retention rich AGE brokers. I can understand the issue because AGE brokers were already less than 1 year ago. Also, WFC/WB probably want to announce the name of the new combined firm and a number of other things at the same time and that’s why its taking so long. They usually announce a series of meetings with new management, new products that are available, and so on. I’m sure it takes a bit to set all that up. I estimate a couple of more weeks and we’ll hear.
Guys, the longer this goes without word from management the more likely we are to get screwed. UBS STARTING point is 250% Smith Barney and MS arent that far behind on deals (just talked to a recruiter on Wednesday so those are the deals NOW)
WS isn’t MER and we do not have that kind of culture. MER was counting on there brokers being good little soldiers and “taking it like a man,” many did. WS culture is much more that of the regional as opposed to a wire house mentality. WS will have guys leaving in droves if the retention package is as bad as MER’s
That said, WFC may not care. Personally, that would be stupid since a third of WS earnings came from brokerage But, hey what’s a billion dollars in profit revenue?
[quote=BukiRob2]Guys, the longer this goes without word from management the more likely we are to get screwed. UBS STARTING point is 250% Smith Barney and MS arent that far behind on deals (just talked to a recruiter on Wednesday so those are the deals NOW)
WS isn’t MER and we do not have that kind of culture. MER was counting on there brokers being good little soldiers and “taking it like a man,” many did. WS culture is much more that of the regional as opposed to a wire house mentality. WS will have guys leaving in droves if the retention package is as bad as MER’s
That said, WFC may not care. Personally, that would be stupid since a third of WS earnings came from brokerage But, hey what’s a billion dollars in profit revenue?[/quote]
The longer they wait the more will leave…probably one of the top 5 in the WS side of the firm left last week…huge team…billions under mgmt…w/ Wachovia/First Union since the early 90’s!
Kurt Sylvia…you may have heard of him…listed regularly in the RR top 100 advisors in America…I think there was only 1 WS advisor listed higher than him in last years edition.
That has got to hurt…I expect people like me a Legacy AGE FC…to want to leave after dealing w the WS nightmare, but when legacy WS guys are jumping to…you know it is getting bad!
what firm did he go to?
[quote=nestegg]
[quote=BukiRob2]Guys, the longer this goes without word from management the more likely we are to get screwed. UBS STARTING point is 250% Smith Barney and MS arent that far behind on deals (just talked to a recruiter on Wednesday so those are the deals NOW)
WS isn’t MER and we do not have that kind of culture. MER was counting on there brokers being good little soldiers and “taking it like a man,” many did. WS culture is much more that of the regional as opposed to a wire house mentality. WS will have guys leaving in droves if the retention package is as bad as MER’s
That said, WFC may not care. Personally, that would be stupid since a third of WS earnings came from brokerage But, hey what’s a billion dollars in profit revenue?[/quote]
The longer they wait the more will leave…probably one of the top 5 in the WS side of the firm left last week…huge team…billions under mgmt…w/ Wachovia/First Union since the early 90’s!
Kurt Sylvia…you may have heard of him…listed regularly in the RR top 100 advisors in America…I think there was only 1 WS advisor listed higher than him in last years edition.
That has got to hurt…I expect people like me a Legacy AGE FC…to want to leave after dealing w the WS nightmare, but when legacy WS guys are jumping to…you know it is getting bad!
[/quote]
Retention had nothing to do with them moving. More like drop in gross and the time was ripe with there trailing 12, plus the whole WB fu&* up. Large teams generally take 6-9 months to make a move.
Kurt Sylvia went to UBS according to FINRA.
[quote=Hydeho]
[quote=nestegg]
[quote=BukiRob2]Guys, the longer this goes without word from management the more likely we are to get screwed. UBS STARTING point is 250% Smith Barney and MS arent that far behind on deals (just talked to a recruiter on Wednesday so those are the deals NOW)
WS isn’t MER and we do not have that kind of culture. MER was counting on there brokers being good little soldiers and “taking it like a man,” many did. WS culture is much more that of the regional as opposed to a wire house mentality. WS will have guys leaving in droves if the retention package is as bad as MER’s
That said, WFC may not care. Personally, that would be stupid since a third of WS earnings came from brokerage But, hey what’s a billion dollars in profit revenue?[/quote]
The longer they wait the more will leave…probably one of the top 5 in the WS side of the firm left last week…huge team…billions under mgmt…w/ Wachovia/First Union since the early 90’s!
Kurt Sylvia…you may have heard of him…listed regularly in the RR top 100 advisors in America…I think there was only 1 WS advisor listed higher than him in last years edition.
That has got to hurt…I expect people like me a Legacy AGE FC…to want to leave after dealing w the WS nightmare, but when legacy WS guys are jumping to…you know it is getting bad!
[/quote]
Retention had nothing to do with them moving. More like drop in gross and the time was ripe with there trailing 12, plus the whole WB fu&* up. Large teams generally take 6-9 months to make a move.
[/quote]
No doubt…the cluster Fuck that WS has become is making us all question things, retention or no retention…I know all the AGE guys feel that way, but when you see longterm BIG WS producers jumping…you know things are bad…and if retention sucks more will go…poor Danny…not lol
I heard that we were supposed to hear about the new name by Thanksgiving
The WACHOVIA name is poisen here in NC. I dont care about retention as much as just moving the F on. The idea that they already know everything and are just figuring the best way to make us drink coolaid is really starting to piss the rookie the f off. A bit off topic but I hope not a hijackwithout a doubt that is an effort to hijack. Fortunately the Air Marshall shot you in the leg as you were running towards the cockpit. Crisis averted.
Don't worry be happy.
Where did the FA go?
How do I get in touch with a good recruiter?
WFC had about 15 Billion of Market Cap blown away today. Have to think “broker retention” is about the last thing on their mind. Maybe I am wrong but think if their is anything coming it has been cut by a large amount from what may have been tossed around 6 weeks ago??
while retention may not be at the front of the agenda for WFc management, I do think they will address it, and I do not think that the market fluctuation will have any real impact on what the outcome is. Due to the fact that any upfront money will be a forgivable bonus, they can tweak the accounting so that it is a hit over a couple of years, not to mention that I think this “stay” bonus will have more deferred comp in it than anything else.
Meredith Whitney, an analyst at Oppenheimer, has been spot on in regards to the financial fiasco we are in now. Her #1 sell (as in dump) idea - Wells Fargo, due to the Wachovia merger. I will be shocked if the Wells retention is much better than BAC/MER’s.
maybe she needs to read some of the posts on here saying that there has be some retention or over a billion dollars of brokerage revenue will walk?? With all that revenue the brokerage unit alone will propel WFC to all time highs Who even cares about all the bad loans they picked up??Meredith Whitney, an analyst at Oppenheimer, has been spot on in regards to the financial fiasco we are in now. Her #1 sell (as in dump) idea - Wells Fargo, due to the Wachovia merger. I will be shocked if the Wells retention is much better than BAC/MER’s.
I assume with your smiley faces that you are being facetious.
I don't recall Meredith Whitney mentioning the WS acquisition as a bright spot for WFC. I do recall her saying the banks haven't seen their lows and they need to raise more capital. I don't know what this ends up meaning for a WS retention package.meredith is the same bitch that said wfc was a great buy at $20/share and now a sell a week later?
If you bought at 20 and sold today you made money. She has been at the forefront of calling this mess, much to the chagrin of bank bulls.
[quote=Gordon Gekko]I assume with your smiley faces that you are being facetious.
I don't recall Meredith Whitney mentioning the WS acquisition as a bright spot for WFC. I do recall her saying the banks haven't seen their lows and they need to raise more capital. I don't know what this ends up meaning for a WS retention package. [/quote] Yes being sarcastic...think most analysts worse than worthless but she has been calling the shot pretty good. Do agree from the way the bank stocks are acting that the bad news is nowhere near out on them. Audited financials coming (for year end) and it will force these banks to fess up before the audits get done, could be real ugly.Gotcha! I’ve been trained somehow to think long-only and anyone that comes up with a bear case is a fool. I think the stock market is a better predictor of future earnings (versus most analysts, like the Wachovia one who cautioned us about the volatility in GE a week or so ago - thanks for the head’s up!) and the market is saying they will suck until further notice.
Whitney has been dead on. She panned all the banks today. She said Citi has the worst ahead of it, (can you freakin imagine?) and every bank in her universe will need a capital injection before this is over.
She may end up being a one hit wonder like Granville, or Prechter, but right now she moves markets. I think a lot of todays damage was a result of her comments.
Yet again, this thread is being hijacked…
The silence is deafening. I will say this though.... what happens with retention will be the single clearest signal with what Wells thinks of its brokerage. It will make a crystal clear distinction in how and if there is going to be a major shift in the culture at WS. WS has always been very good to its brokers when it came to mergers. WS is, like everyone else, paying big money for newly aquired brokers. If they offer a retention package similar to the MER deal, then they are clearly showing that they really do not care what you do in terms of staying or leaving.[quote=BukiRob]Yet again, this thread is being hijacked…
The silence is deafening. I will say this though.... what happens with retention will be the single clearest signal with what Wells thinks of its brokerage. It will make a crystal clear distinction in how and if there is going to be a major shift in the culture at WS. WS has always been very good to its brokers when it came to mergers. WS is, like everyone else, paying big money for newly aquired brokers. If they offer a retention package similar to the MER deal, then they are clearly showing that they really do not care what you do in terms of staying or leaving.[/quote] It is a bit surprising that there isn't much news with resepect to the securties side.At this point, every day that goes by just reduces the chance of any retention. I hate to say it, but dont be surprised if its minimal and it is all deferred comp. T-12’s are dropping by the day. Wonder what time frame they will use to measure if they even have a bonus. The strategy here is clear. Keep the FA in line and string em out as long as possible. The more time that passes the less likely guys will take deals or even be able to get one. The window of opp for deals has a limited shelf life and exp date will be coming up within the 1st qtr. Then only the very very best will be able to command anything.
At this point, every day that goes by just reduces the chance of any retention. I hate to say it, but dont be surprised if its minimal and it is all deferred comp. T-12’s are dropping by the day. Wonder what time frame they will use to measure if they even have a bonus. The strategy here is clear. Keep the FA in line and string em out as long as possible. The more time that passes the less likely guys will take deals or even be able to get one. The window of opp for deals has a limited shelf life and exp date will be coming up within the 1st qtr. Then only the very very best will be able to command anything.
Just took a call yesterday the big deals are still there. WFC will have to announce something in the next 2 weeks. Deal closes 23rd of Dec. I can not see any set of circumstances where retention isn't announced before then. If it isn't announced before the deal is inked it means no retention period.
As I said before, what Wells does here makes it crystal clear how they view brokerage. It is a clear signal of what the future will look like. I for one have no interest in working for a firm that would as soon screw me and the client because they simply do not care and see it as a way to increase revenue for the bank.
Every bank screws it brokers, it is a fact of life. Banks are especially good at getting paid twice on every trade. How much do you think the bank marks up syndicate cd’s and structured products? They take a cut, then they also take 60% of whatever our commission is. When the dust settles, you are probably getting only a 20 - 25% payout of the real commissions. I am betting the commissions they pay on “banking services”, is a fraction what they pay to independent leasing firms and mortgage brokers that refer business to them.
I would love to know what % of total revenue generated the broker actually gets paid. Add up the postage and handling fees, the money market spreads, bond dept markups, account fees and every other fee a bank charges, I bet the real "payout" is 25% at best.Hey BukiRob, switching over your U4 shuts down in about two weeks for the rest of the year. I’d say you are sticking into 2009 waiting for Danny Bucks. You keep saying over and over again that the silence is deafening. You might want to listen to what you are saying.
I dont know one FA (big producer or small) where the number one question on their minds is WHERE IS THE RETENTION!!!. Does mgt get this??? Its a damn distraction, thats for certain.
[quote=mnbondguy]Every bank screws it brokers, it is a fact of life. Banks are especially good at getting paid twice on every trade. How much do you think the bank marks up syndicate cd’s and structured products? They take a cut, then they also take 60% of whatever our commission is. When the dust settles, you are probably getting only a 20 - 25% payout of the real commissions. I am betting the commissions they pay on “banking services”, is a fraction what they pay to independent leasing firms and mortgage brokers that refer business to them.
I would love to know what % of total revenue generated the broker actually gets paid. Add up the postage and handling fees, the money market spreads, bond dept markups, account fees and every other fee a bank charges, I bet the real "payout" is 25% at best. [/quote] This is a key point! it's not just what your payout percentage is, it is what is the real gross commission, not what is shown to brokers. Makes me want to think RIA.I imagine if we get paid say 4% for an annuity trade, then the bank is keeping 3 or 4% on top of that for the house. I;m not sure what the real commission rate is other than what we see. Obviously the % is significantly more.
A lot of annuity companies pay 6% or 7% gross if you do not take the trail option. You are CORRECT. The house keeps the difference. A while back, the banks tried to go “product neutral” so rogue FA’s would not be tempted to sell a higher paying annuity over another one that may be more suitable… The problem is, the bank kept the difference (gladly) and nailed the FA. Some banks put breakpoints in place even like mutual funds to discourage large annuity purchases…all in the name of compliance.
Anyone here get word of or hear about a conf call at Wach this Fri re retention?? I heard 3rd hand info an email was out in another region but I haven’t seen it yet. Couldn’t confirm the validity of the info, so may be source just heard incorrectly.
We “used to” get paid for all or most of the commish on Annuites at AGE…of course Mother Wachovia/Wells/whatever name we are this week will just keep taking more and more…how else can they pay 96 million in golden parachute $$ to the old execs…man I miss AGE…a company that was profitible yet treated employees and clients fairly too…ah the good ol days
I heard today retention will be out before Christmas. New name will Wells Fargo Advisors.
I heard today retention will be out before Christmas. New name will Wells Fargo Advisors.
It has to be, the deal is finalized on the 23rd. I tend to believe the prior post that we will know something by friday in terms of what they are going to do, or not do.
…nothing like waiting until the last minute…making their advisors feel warm and fuzzy…
I heard the 15th they’ll announce the name & package…
I think that makes sense because that is right after the license transfer places shut down for the year so, no one will be able to immediately bail out.
Good grief - Charlie Brown
it almost has to be next week at the earliest. WFc just got the proposal this past Monday, so no way they moved on it that quickly.
apparently 4th or 5th revision of retention package is in WS hands. I wonder how bad the first version looked?
honestly…I’ve never watched frogs be boiled before…
It only shuts down for mass transfers - not individuals. That date is Dec. 26th. See previous thread - FINRA-CRD
Are there any other small branches being told or being hinted at that they may need to go Finet or consolidate with other branches?
Retention info etc. will be out next week. Heard that from a Regional President.
PM me and I’ll tell you which region.
Found out that Danny and Carrol just gave WFc the proposal TODAY. They were orginally supposed to do it on Monday, but it did not happen. I would have to think it is 2 weeks minimum at this point. Fun times.
If you were the ones writing the check on the alleged retention, wouldn't you wait as long as you can to come out with one. Like maybe a couple quarters into next year??Found out that Danny and Carrol just gave WFc the proposal TODAY. They were orginally supposed to do it on Monday, but it did not happen. I would have to think it is 2 weeks minimum at this point. Fun times.
For some reason most fcs seem content to stick and wait. Why rush, especially with the Meredith Whitney forced capital raises on the horizon? Has anyone left lately, other than that Sylvia fellow in FLA? Legacy AGE guys?
Wells Fargo Advisors - There’s a shocker - How original
It won’t matter what they are called, I think most Legacy AGE guys and girls still refer to themselves as AG Edwards when making calls. Something of an identity crisis I would say.
Beats Wachovia Securities...and yes, I too say AG Edwards. Clients might as well have one constant.Wells Fargo Advisors - There’s a shocker - How original
Beats Wachovia Securities...and yes, I too say AG Edwards. Clients might as well have one constant.[/quote] That constant being the bank? Why not drop the Merril name and call in Bank of America Advisors, or change JP Morgan to Chase Advisors, etc? I think there is some value in having a distinct name for the Investment arm of the biz. Just my 2 cents.[quote=Herman Munster]Wells Fargo Advisors - There’s a shocker - How original
The new name will NOT be AG Edwards, it was givien serious consideration, but the decision was made to let that name go by the way side. Retention will be different for each channel, ISG, PCG, Finet.
Thank heavens, this is no longer AG Edwards and the name should not be associated with it.
Beats Wachovia Securities...and yes, I too say AG Edwards. Clients might as well have one constant.[/quote] Hey Shred, a little off the thread topic, but do you guys at AGE still have the Point Shop stuff that we used to get for opening new accounts, hitting production numbers, etc? Has that gone away with the WB/WFC changes? We don't have anything like that at RJ. I really miss it. Point Shop gift cards bought Christmas for us for the last 5 years or so!![quote=Herman Munster]Wells Fargo Advisors - There’s a shocker - How original
The Point Shop is closing its doors at the end of this month. We were told earlier in the year to use the points or lose them. I treated myself to a nice set of Bose headphones, a Bose wave radio, and some other goodies. Hated to see the Points Shop go, but wasn't surprised.
[quote=eggward]
The Point Shop is closing its doors at the end of this month. We were told earlier in the year to use the points or lose them. I treated myself to a nice set of Bose headphones, a Bose wave radio, and some other goodies. Hated to see the Points Shop go, but wasn't surprised.
[/quote] That's too bad. Guess that's one of those "best practices...."
I agree. Failure to communicate with 14,600 advisors…oops…
.just an oversight.
Did anyone catch that interview with Ben Edwards in the St. Louis paper? That guy is a class act!
Columbia MO office has blown up. Million dollar producer left and went to Stifel. Branch Manager left the week before he did and went to Hillard Lyons. Open manager position if anyone wants it.For some reason most fcs seem content to stick and wait. Why rush, especially with the Meredith Whitney forced capital raises on the horizon? Has anyone left lately, other than that Sylvia fellow in FLA? Legacy AGE guys?
Yeah, I had somebody forward it to me. Somebody should paste a link if they can find it. I have met him on more then 20 occassions, and I can tell you he is the real deal.Did anyone catch that interview with Ben Edwards in the St. Louis paper? That guy is a class act!
[quote=Gordon Gekko]Did anyone catch that interview with Ben Edwards in the St. Louis paper? That guy is a class act![/quote]
A new article? When was this? Link?
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2008/12/08/story1.html?b=1228712400%5e1742967&page=1 <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
RJ picked up a couple more WS FA’s yesterday.
What area?RJ picked up a couple more WS FA’s yesterday.
Somewhere in Illinois
I think the email said Indiana.
You are probably right. Il., In. pretty the same anyway.
looks like Stifel and RJ are getting all the "scale and scope" from the WS/AGE merger...RJ picked up a couple more WS FA’s yesterday.
Dunno.Where did the FA go?
great interview with Ben Edwards. Wachovia Securities, once upon a time, was a classy firm to be associated with. what a shame.
I really hope the WFS retention deal is strong, or else there is going to be a FLOOD of AGE guys on the market. Law of Supply/Demand says that won't be helpful for upfront packages.
I think this indicative of what we are in for at WFC and also shows the lack of power that Danny boy has. I am tired of being jerked around. I have been at WS for almost 10 years and I am days from taking a big check to leave. I think it is time to go.
ISG got the comp plan for next year, no changes at all.
For those of you have have gone through a Merger before, Typically, how long after closing are you expected to receive your retention bonus?
Retention plans… If the ‘retention’ plan is going to be sizable, or have the punch or power to retain 80% or more of the targeted FAs, don’t you think it’d have been announced and sold hard by management by now? I’m talking Wachovia in this case.
Afterall… retention plans are not designed to keep everyone. They’re designed to keep the specific types of employees a company wants to keep. Even then, not everyone a firm or company WANTS to keep will buy into the plan. So ultimately, why is anyone waiting on a retention plan if they’re honestly of the opinion that another firm might be a better fit or a safer haven for their business??
If there is GREAT news coming for the droves of FAs at Wachovia, why then is it so low on the priority list??
I’m not the first and I’m sure I won’t be the last to say this here… the masses at Wachovia are going to be very dissapointed when an underwhelming ‘retention’ plan finally does get announced.
Ice, you are spot on. Great post.
[quote=iceco1d] You know, I was just thinking…what would some of our clients think if they read these retention threads? I mean, I’m sure they assume we make a decent living…but think about this. Any other shmuck with a 9-5 job making $40, 50, 60K a year - heck a couple that’s making that EACH per year…to wander onto this site, and see the masses of FAs bitching because they are ONLY getting $200K, $150K, $300K, whatever the retention happens to be for a guy with decent production, to do nothing but stay in your seat.
My god, seriously, what would they think/say/do? They’d be astonished. Absolutely flabbergasted. $300,000 to just ‘not leave.’ When a merger happens in any other industry, 99% of the employees there are probably just elated that they still have a job - even if it’s at a lower rate; let alone a 6 figure bonus to get them to stay!
Please don’t consider this to be critical of those of you that are at WS/AGE/ML, I feel for you. I realize that this nonsense has been stressful and unfortunate for all of you. I’m just taking a timeout here for us to consider…you know that old saying, “how the other half lives” - well, we (well, not me yet, at least not because of being an FA) ARE part of “the other half.”
For all of the bullshit this year…I’m grateful to be where I am, and not at Hershey, or “InBev” or GM/Ford/Chrysler, or, well…you get it.[/quote]
No, what is more staggering is just how many “advisors” have an EMPLOYEE mentality. I dont know about you but I AM the person who created my business. I was given space in a bull pen with a telephone. I obtained my own list of leads, I made the calls, I CLOSED Client. NOT THE FIRM, ME.
An EMPLOYEE has the mentality you just described. If WFC wants MY business and therefore MY clients business they had best give me a reason to stay because trust me, Wells competition is banging on my door.
99% of the other so called business do not require the folks that work there to drum up the business… to create the client base, close them and keep them. The firm does nothing more than act as my inventory supplier and basic brand awareness. ALL OF WHICH I PAY FOR.
What truly is staggering is the inability of advisors to realize the commercials advertising your firm, the office you go to and even the staff that supports you administratively YOU PAY FOR. There is a reason you only get between 38-42% of the revenue YOU create… Your paying for all of those things that make your office run. The mere fact that you, a supposed FA are unable to grasp that concept shows just how much the firms have you control of what you think and what you believe.
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=iceco1d] You know, I was just thinking…what would some of our clients think if they read these retention threads? I mean, I’m sure they assume we make a decent living…but think about this. Any other shmuck with a 9-5 job making $40, 50, 60K a year - heck a couple that’s making that EACH per year…to wander onto this site, and see the masses of FAs bitching because they are ONLY getting $200K, $150K, $300K, whatever the retention happens to be for a guy with decent production, to do nothing but stay in your seat.
My god, seriously, what would they think/say/do? They'd be astonished. Absolutely flabbergasted. $300,000 to just 'not leave.' When a merger happens in any other industry, 99% of the employees there are probably just elated that they still have a job - even if it's at a lower rate; let alone a 6 figure bonus to get them to stay!
Please don't consider this to be critical of those of you that are at WS/AGE/ML, I feel for you. I realize that this nonsense has been stressful and unfortunate for all of you. I'm just taking a timeout here for us to consider...you know that old saying, "how the other half lives" - well, we (well, not me yet, at least not because of being an FA) ARE part of "the other half."
For all of the bullshit this year...I'm grateful to be where I am, and not at Hershey, or "InBev" or GM/Ford/Chrysler, or, well...you get it.[/quote]
No, what is more staggering is just how many "advisors" have an EMPLOYEE mentality. I dont know about you but I AM the person who created my business. I was given space in a bull pen with a telephone. I obtained my own list of leads, I made the calls, I CLOSED Client. NOT THE FIRM, ME.
An EMPLOYEE has the mentality you just described. If WFC wants MY business and therefore MY clients business they had best give me a reason to stay because trust me, Wells competition is banging on my door.
99% of the other so called business do not require the folks that work there to drum up the business... to create the client base, close them and keep them. The firm does nothing more than act as my inventory supplier and basic brand awareness. ALL OF WHICH I PAY FOR.
What truly is staggering is the inability of advisors to realize the commercials advertising your firm, the office you go to and even the staff that supports you administratively YOU PAY FOR. There is a reason you only get between 38-42% of the revenue YOU create.... Your paying for all of those things that make your office run. The mere fact that you, a supposed FA are unable to grasp that concept shows just how much the firms have you control of what you think and what you believe.[/quote] Has not been my experience that the clients are "My Clients" this past year have heard the following...this client is "too young to trade" this client is "too old to trade" this client "trades too much" and off course also heard this client does not "trade enough" Thats just a sample of stuff that makes me think the clients really arent mine, except if I make a mistake, then its "my client." This past year has been pathetic listening to all the compliance company bs.
I think this thread has been officially hijacked lol!
[quote=nestegg]I think this thread has been officially hijacked lol!
[/quote]
Can’t argue with that. I will add, though, that, since the recent unpleasantness in the wirehouse world, there has been precious little of value coming from that side of the isle here. Sorry that so many of your firms’ business models have been proven to be failures. I really am. I’m sure most of you folks are stand-up folks, but, seriously, it’s time to point the finger where it belongs…
[quote=YHWY]
[quote=nestegg]I think this thread has been officially hijacked lol!
[/quote] Can’t argue with that. I will add, though, that, since the recent unpleasantness in the wirehouse world, there has been precious little of value coming from that side of the isle here. Sorry that so many of your firms’ business models have been proven to be failures. I really am. I’m sure most of you folks are stand-up folks, but, seriously, it’s time to point the finger where it belongs…[/quote]
Hello Rob.
Hey Reggin, How are you tonight?
Great. How are things in Cape Coral?
Beautiful! It was about 78 and sunny today. You should look me up and we can spend a day on the boat together. It’s a blast, maybe box a few fish! (I extend the same heart-felt invite to whomever is interested.) Especially this time of year when the weather’s so harsh many other places.
Buki,
Spot on, not sure an advisor should be targeting the avg person making 60k a year anyway! Why do pro athletes make so much? Why do movie stars make so much? WHY? Becasue they bring value to the table. If my firm wants to continue to receive 60% of everything the (I) make than they BETTER take care of me when there is a change. If not why would I not make the change and get paid? If I leave they loose 100%!! If my clients stay with old firm than I guess I was an employee, if they follow than guess that makes me the driver in the seat of my own destiny.[quote=Reggin] [quote=YHWY]
[quote=nestegg]I think this thread has been officially hijacked lol!
[/quote] Can’t argue with that. I will add, though, that, since the recent unpleasantness in the wirehouse world, there has been precious little of value coming from that side of the isle here. Sorry that so many of your firms’ business models have been proven to be failures. I really am. I’m sure most of you folks are stand-up folks, but, seriously, it’s time to point the finger where it belongs…[/quote]
Hello Rob.[/quote]
Hey Primo, why did u refer to “Joe” as “Rob”?
Who IS “Joe”?
yeah but… Danny Isadouche
re a prior post:
"What if our clients went online and looked at these posts?" Are you frikken kidding me? Are you? How many of us in our spare time log on to the Registered Truck Driver Forums? or Registered Plumber Forums or Registered News Anchor Forums? You must be a Registered Neurosurgeon. I didn't invent the retention bonus concept. It is this simple, pay me to stay or I will go to a better firm for a big check. Do you have an issue with capitalism? BTW a source at the WSJ just told me a HIGH probability of NO retention bonus at WS. Great. Now we will see how many WFC retains.Just talked to someone in the office who is almost always right on the grapevine rumor stuff… said we will hear something within the next 10 days. Didnt give any numbers but did say that he is hearing that the deal is significantly better than what the guys at MER were offered.
Go Bless you BukiRob…I had just thrown up after reading Danny’s post. Now I can go back to being non-productive for the rest of the day. Damn, I need to find some focus.
Been in this businees for over 30 years, the last 20 with AGE. For the first 10-20 years your book was worth nothing. If you moved, or even retired, you got nada, zip, nothing. Finally we are recognized as a business and it is worth what someone will pay for it. If you leave however, just for the money, it will bite you.
I heard the same thing about the announcement timeframe, just that the deal is on par with the ML one.[/quote] I heard the exact opposite. That WFC and WS specifically want to compensate the lower end producers (Guys doing under 500K) Like Ive said.... change is coming. The only question is do you get paid because regardless of what is or is not on the table with regards to retention, change IS coming[quote=BukiRob]Just talked to someone in the office who is almost always right on the grapevine rumor stuff… said we will hear something within the next 10 days. Didnt give any numbers but did say that he is hearing that the deal is significantly better than what the guys at MER were offered.
I think different channels will get diff retention comp terms. I would think the lowest terms will be on par with ML, they’d have to be or their will be trouble in the ranks. The channels that fair better in terms of retention I would think will see something better that what ML has done. I also agree it will be known within 10 business days. Merry Christmas, hopefully. Bottom line I think there is a 99% chance there is going to be a package of some sort. As for providing retention to the sub 500k folks, great. No problem with that, if thats the case. Plenty of talented and good potential people there to keep around, but I dont think that will be at the expense of the higher end people north of 500k. They should see better %'s. JMO
[quote=3rd ID] I think different channels will get diff retention comp terms. I would think the lowest terms will be on par with ML, they’d have to be or their will be trouble in the ranks. The channels that fair better in terms of retention I would think will see something better that what ML has done. I also agree it will be known within 10 business days. Merry Christmas, hopefully. Bottom line I think there is a 99% chance there is going to be a package of some sort. As for providing retention to the sub 500k folks, great. No problem with that, if thats the case. Plenty of talented and good potential people there to keep around, but I dont think that will be at the expense of the higher end people north of 500k. They should see better %'s. JMO
[/quote]
I simply do not see a large departure from what the AGE brokers were offered… EX 400k producer could have taken 50% upfront with an additional 20% in D.C. Today that might be 35-40 upfront with the D/C
The bottom line is with deals STARTING at 250% If they try to lowball (ala MER) guys will leave. WS isnt MER, they dont drink the kool-aid and it is a completely different culture.
Million dollar producers got 100% upfront and 25% D/C
A guy I worked with at MS just went to WFC…his T-12 was about 325K, he was tired of hearing his two friends who failed at wirehouses doing 75k month at a WFC branch. He got a 6 month salary of 6K per month. He did not care, would have gone for ZERO, but there is a different “culture” at the bank…you do not pay for brokers, or pay very little.
By the way anyone hear that MS is paying 4 to 8% bonus based on t-12 to its FA’s? I dont know what they are calling it but I heard it was to help them through this tough period. I wonder if this is a no strings attached payout.
i’m with isg. we’re the most profitable firm in the entire industry - double pcg’s margins - but never get the bonuses, sales support, even adequate smartstation functionality. our production goes to support pcg/age that mgmt loves to dolt on. i don’t get it, but i think we can all agree that sr mgmt at this firm is as much an oxymoron as freezer burn.
make no mistake, i'm here by choice. i left the wirehouse and embraced teaming with the banking divisions. i recently got a significant referral from wealth mgmt for laddered bonds. that certainly doesn't happen with pcg/age. wirehouse teamwork???...another oxymoron. well's process will only enhance the opportunity. at the same time, i share an assistant and open my own accounts. grass roots baby, just like the age guys claim to be while venting about their precious retention bonus. isg actually deserves a retention bonus far more than pcg/age since they just got one a year ago. all those stressing out over the matter should just get it over with a call a recruiter. that you're so focused on retention suggests your biz has issues. part of me hopes we don't get a bonus, as i'll scoop up all those opportunities left from those that leave for the wrong reasons. better still i woundn't have the handcuffs retention presents. i only wish i lived closer to kurt sylvia's region - he'll leave $100s of millions behind.go_h is a deer in the headlights–whining, bragging and lost. Don’t want retention? Who is Kurt?
go_h do you work in a grocery store branch? Have people walk in and open an account after they bought a box of corn flakes? FYI, I brought my clients to WS/PCG. My biz is great!My U4 and my clients are mine. If I take my U4 to WFC it will go at market rates. If WFC does not pay to retain me or my clients we will go where we are wanted. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?
amen, brother
[quote=BukiRob][
I heard the exact opposite. That WFC and WS specifically want to compensate the lower end producers (Guys doing under 500K) [/quote] You can't compare it to ML where their advisors do on average more production.What I heard from a friend in STL was that there will be retention offered, starting at $250,000 in production.
If you are already on a deal, you will most likely be bumped back up to what your original deal was. (if you had 100k forgiven already, they kick your deal back up to that number.) Similar to the Wachovia buying Pru deal. Any legacy Pru guys want to chime in on more details on how that deal worked?not a deer in headlights and i didn’t say i didn’t want retention. i am not consumed with retention as there are other benefits. just like a wirehouse bro…if you leave your book is spread amongst other brokers.
i don't intend to brag. the isg system is misunderstood. we're all wirehouse guys, but we have close to 100MM in deposits available to prospect in our branches. clearly not lost with those resources. i'm not whining, but just don't see how pcg/age should expect a bonus. that's like smith barney and ubs guys wanting retention due to their companies' negative headlines. the wach/wfc had no bearing on the pcg/age operations, and a bonus was paid less than a year ago for the age acquisition (isg got no bonus then, ergo pcg/age gets nothing this time.) kurt sylvia is the top isg broker that managed several billion...he took 10mm to move to ubsyou always can leave, so can i. i’m just saying you should consider leaving for reasons beyond the retention, since the doesn’t appear to be any reason to provide one to your division as you just got a package.
if you leave, you'll have to pay back the package you just got, which offsets the benefits of leaving. i'm responsible for my book, no one handed them to me. i work in a major metropolitan area i'm not arguing, i'm just trying to be realistic.Wells Fargo & Co. will sell $6 billion in debt under the government program in which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. backs the debt, the San Francisco bank said in a regulatory filing Wednesday.
The debt’s backing by the federal government allows the bank to pay a lower rate on the debt offering. Half the bond issue will carry a fixed rate of 3 percent while the other $3 billion will carry a variable rate, according to Wells Fargo’s (NYSE: WFC) filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Maybe this is the money for the retention!!! 15,000 brokers, average bonus 400K..there you go, ..Thts 6 billion.Talk from around water cooler from brokers at the meeting for top brokers thaqt was in TX.
Retention for WB's only. AGE folks just got one. New name; Wells Fargo Advisersgo_h sounds like blowhard…obviously worried, concerned and scared…probably transferred to his clients—fear is contagious.
Huh? What are u talking about? Both wb and age fas got retention last year. In fact wb fa’s received retention for sitting on their ass
Ok, I was not going to start this fight earlier, but ignorance seems to be abundant. PCG got approx half of what the AGE guys got last year. ISG brokers got ZERO!!! ISG is twice as profitable as PCG/AGE, ISG brokers do more on average, yet got nothing last year, and frankly, I did not hear much complaining. Do we have a better referral sourc ein ISG?? Yes, but do we take a lesser payout for that?? Yes. Simply put, ISG should and will get the best retention, followed by old school PCG, followed by a small if not Zero package for AGE. I can not make comments about FINET because I do not know what they got. Let the firestorm begin.
Why in the world would they pay retention to the bank advisors. Where are they going to go and who are they going to take with them for clients? They can be replaced overnight.
The AGE guys thought at the time the retention package was close to fair. Now that we have seen the WS system, management, and lack of support we realize that we were low-balled. If they want us to stay there better be something substantial. The WS side got something for nothing and not for the first time. Example-PRU. Why would they get more?[quote=Blue2]Why in the world would they pay retention to the bank advisors. Where are they going to go and who are they going to take with them for clients? They can be replaced overnight.
The AGE guys thought at the time the retention package was close to fair. Now that we have seen the WS system, management, and lack of support we realize that we were low-balled. If they want us to stay there better be something substantial. The WS side got something for nothing and not for the first time. Example-PRU. Why would they get more?[/quote] "Better be something substantial" Are you dillusional? Do you think these people are smart enough to know that the T-12 numbers for most are phony in terms of future numbers. Would you pay something substiantial if you were writing the check? Consider also they bought WB for the bank and the brokerage came along with it?As age legacy fa I m sitting in front of my computer and watching the market drop 200 points, cant get any straight answers from back office, computer has frozen up for the 4th time this week, clients calling to ask if wachovia is going bankrupt, cold calling prospect who does not want anything to do with wachovia, client’s are unhappy and my production is down 50% and I am asking myself how did I get to this point.
Your story is same as about a dozen people I know...Can hardly wait for next year, Here we go!!As age legacy fa I m sitting in front of my computer and watching the market drop 200 points, cant get any straight answers from back office, computer has frozen up for the 4th time this week, clients calling to ask if wachovia is going bankrupt, cold calling prospect who does not want anything to do with wachovia, client’s are unhappy and my production is down 50% and I am asking myself how did I get to this point.
This is meant as 100% sincere and constructive in nature: The markets are providing us enough challenges. Do any of us really need, or should we accept, our own firm adding to the difficulty? Even for a “retention” check? Sounds like there is some very preventable misery out there. A firm’s technology, culture and balance sheet are things over which you have control to choose for yourself. Life’s too short to be miserable in one’s own office, IMHO. Best of luck to you all!!!
Should be better when you get on the WS system. WWAs age legacy fa I m sitting in front of my computer and watching the market drop 200 points, cant get any straight answers from back office, computer has frozen up for the 4th time this week, clients calling to ask if wachovia is going bankrupt, cold calling prospect who does not want anything to do with wachovia, client’s are unhappy and my production is down 50% and I am asking myself how did I get to this point.
[quote=go_huskies]i’m with isg. we’re the most profitable firm in the entire industry - double pcg’s margins - but never get the bonuses, sales support, even adequate smartstation functionality. our production goes to support pcg/age that mgmt loves to dolt on. i don’t get it, but i think we can all agree that sr mgmt at this firm is as much an oxymoron as freezer burn.
make no mistake, i'm here by choice. i left the wirehouse and embraced teaming with the banking divisions. i recently got a significant referral from wealth mgmt for laddered bonds. that certainly doesn't happen with pcg/age. wirehouse teamwork???...another oxymoron. well's process will only enhance the opportunity. at the same time, i share an assistant and open my own accounts. grass roots baby, just like the age guys claim to be while venting about their precious retention bonus. isg actually deserves a retention bonus far more than pcg/age since they just got one a year ago. all those stressing out over the matter should just get it over with a call a recruiter. that you're so focused on retention suggests your biz has issues. part of me hopes we don't get a bonus, as i'll scoop up all those opportunities left from those that leave for the wrong reasons. better still i woundn't have the handcuffs retention presents. i only wish i lived closer to kurt sylvia's region - he'll leave $100s of millions behind. [/quote] You gotta be kidding. EVERY isg broker I know couldn't come close to making it on their own...whether it be PCG, wirehouse, or regional. That was their only option if they wanted to stay in the business. Of course isg is profitable. it's easy business. sell fixed annuities out the wazoo to bank customers when their cds come due. like shooting fish in a barrell. No offense, but ANYBODY can be an isg rep. There is NO WAY isg reps receive ANY retention. You are so replaceable because the bank has the relationships, not you. The reason PCG reps are getting a retention and the reason our payouts are higher is b/c we create our own relationships. We are not parasites sucking on the banks customers. Believe it or not, I have nothing against isg reps. However, you are way out of line if you actually think that you are on par with PCG or FiNet reps...the guys who actually create their own relationships. Your quote "i left the wirehouse and embraced teaming with the banking divisions. i recently got a significant referral from wealth mgmt for laddered bonds. that certainly doesn't happen with pcg/age." is so ridiculous. Who decides to leave so they can "embrace teaming with banking divisions". What B.S. FYI - I wish Kurt Sylvia was closer too. You are right he will leave $100s of millions behind b/c he was in ISG and they are the bank's relationships not his. My best bud is leaving ISG tomorrow to go to a wirehouse. He's getting a nice package to go and even he told me that he'd be surprised if he can move a chunk of his book b/c of the tight nit relationships his customers have with the bank branch.[quote=Go_Long][quote=BukiRob][
I heard the exact opposite. That WFC and WS specifically want to compensate the lower end producers (Guys doing under 500K) [/quote] They have to pay at lower production levels, you can't compare it to ML where their advisors do on average more production. Fact is that on the AGE side, half the firm is doing less than 300k. If there is a retention it will be very interesting to see if they use a trailing 12, where the cutoff is. September - when the deal was announced, or later when production and trailing 12 numbers dropped. It's amazing. If you're a doctor making $300k, you're respected big time. If you're an advisor, you're chump change and not worthy... There are a lot of good solid producers that are 250-500K. They may not be in the metropolitan areas with some disadvantages. Try to make 500k in T12 with a fee-based book of business. You need a lot of assets in a -40% down market.Wirehouse brokers “making” $300k are respected big-time in this business. The difference is, they need to produce @$750 in revenue to “make” that $300k. Those damn “payouts” from gross commission.
you really don’t get it. i can move as much as my book as any other rep. i run managed money and laddered bonds just like any other broker. your misconception is shared by many, but if i leave, i not only take my book, i take a huge base of bank resources including the bankers.
those bs brokers from mini-banks that sell fixed annuities don't get hired here. you need a book of fee based revenue to get in, and you get squat for bonuses - the opportunity is why you come. indeed, stock brokers need not apply - dinosaurs walking the earth. i earn my biz just like you for a majority of revenue - client referrals and hustle. the bank referrals add real gravy, but my book is mine. my colleague took a team to merrill this year. got 200% up front and nearly wiped out the regional wealth management office. the bank lost corp clients to mother's total merrill process. this ain't your daddy's bank brokerage. think about it, do you believe that if a client's cfp leaves this bank with all its issues, they'd actually stick around? finally, i'm not anti-pcg/age, it's just that that division comes across as overly entitled and i think they're going to be disappointed. if you get a retention package, cheers to youAll I have to say is misery loves company. We get it. You are independent and you berate everyone else who isn't. I will never go independent. I've crunched the numbers. First, the 90% payout on fee based business is a sham. Most independents charge the fa anywhere from 25-75bps on the value of assets that you receive zero payout on. the 90% is on the remainder. So, it's more like 65% payout. Second, I don't mind the firm keeping more of my payout in exchange for providing the infrastructure, paying the light bills, paying my assistant, all of my state registrations, state insurance licenses, providing opportunities for continuing ed, etc... Third, the average indy rep produces jack. For example, the average LPL advisor produces $175k. Fourth, the net payout is the virtually the same when you take into account all costs. For example, an indy has to pay 12.4% FICA tax versus 6.2% as a wirehouse rep (the firm pays the other half). Fifth, I like the professional and social aspect of the branch environment. We have a friendly competition with each other. We hang after work. We enjoy ourselves. In our branch we figured it out that you should go indy if you are a $1million+ producer because your fixed expenses will then represent a small enough percentage for it to make sense. That is probably the reason PCG created the Profit Formula channel to allow high end PCG reps to earn a higher payout and keep them from going indy. Also, you need to buy your own building instead of paying rent to yourself. Ironically, most indy reps are low producers who continue to rent their space and spend most of their time on these forums berating wirehouse reps b/c they aren't indy. Telling them they aren't true business owners. When in reality, they want everyone else to be as miserable as they are. If I was so happy about my decision, I could care less what other people chose. MISERY LOVES COMPANY!Wirehouse brokers “making” $300k are respected big-time in this business. The difference is, they need to produce @$750 in revenue to “make” that $300k. Those damn “payouts” from gross commission.
Please allow me to re-phrase, so as not to be as provocative: Anyone “making” $300k is respected big-time in this business, just as doctors who “make” $300k are, which is the example used by Vet20, above, prompting my apparently incendiary response. I intended no malice toward reps in any platform. My point was, simply, that (most, anyway) doctors don’t pay a “franchise percentage to a parent “firm””, for lack of a better term.
ot…senate killed the auto bailout…
i didn't think they'd be this stupid...bankruptcy may be in order, but at least buy time with money already earmarked to get through the credit crunch... santa's rally broken if s&p breaks 850...need 820-800 to hold...otherwise 740-600 real possibility... double short (30% hedge) if break 850...oh yeah, since my office is in a bank, should i check with the board to see if it's ok to proceed??? so much for bullsh!ting about retention, back into the kill zoneryedog, your way off base on your view of ISG. A lot of us came from wirehouses. We brought books with us. We run managed money as much as anyone. Our best customers we still develop on our own. We market ourselves in the community and beat the bushes for new biz (maybe not as hard anymore). I work with many guys that came over from ML, SB, MS etc. I helped recruit quality guys I knew there. They were hitters there and are bigger hitters here. There are ISG reps that are not up to par but they are steadily being replaced by wirehouse folks that have built good practices and know how to exploit every single opportunity ISG affords them while continuing their same business practices as before. ISG is being recognized up the chain of command and you will see us get the retention and quite possibly the largest package of the 3. Now if you thought ISG guys couldnt cut it at the wirehouse, why did you let your best bud just blow himself up by going there?
3rd ID…you nailed it. there is no disrespect to the pcg/age guys, but we need less time to market ourselves. new business is constant, so we kill wirehouses in billing at least 50bps below wirehouse standards.
merrill pays my mortgage. i use the same managers, but bill at 1.8bps for mgd money vs merrill's 2.25. since we already have at least some portion of the client's banking needs, especially on the corporate side, it's a no brainer to the client. Throw in my CFP, and a nice big insurance business succession strategy materializes that the stockbroker doesn't quite comprehend, but the client values. you guys thinking isg means fixed annuity morons need to wake up. we found the keys to the door past the 'do not call' world and likely know more of your clients than you'd want to believe. we don't kill pcg/age out of courtesy, not because you're better. go ahead, make the move, just don't be surprised when your 5 year+ client says he isn't leaving since he found a better broker that provides greater service at less cost... again, i don't mean to be confrontational, but most don't know the playing field you're dealing with...we're highly skilled, very professional, and worth more to wells than most of you imagine.Disclaimer: I have no ill will towards AGE/PCG, despite all the comments about our replacability.
That said, if you are AGE/PCG and you do less than 500K a year, AND if you care about retention, you had better get on your knees and pray that ISG is not included in the potential retention package. If ISG IS included in the deal, then we (ISG) will kill the curve. I would imagine the avergae difference in production of an ISG rep vs a AGE/PCG rep exceeds 100k/yr. If I am wrong, I would love to hear somebody tell me.All I have to say is misery loves company. We get it. You are independent and you berate everyone else who isn't. I will never go independent. I've crunched the numbers. First, the 90% payout on fee based business is a sham. Most independents charge the fa anywhere from 25-75bps on the value of assets that you receive zero payout on. the 90% is on the remainder. So, it's more like 65% payout. Second, I don't mind the firm keeping more of my payout in exchange for providing the infrastructure, paying the light bills, paying my assistant, all of my state registrations, state insurance licenses, providing opportunities for continuing ed, etc... Third, the average indy rep produces jack. For example, the average LPL advisor produces $175k. Fourth, the net payout is the virtually the same when you take into account all costs. For example, an indy has to pay 12.4% FICA tax versus 6.2% as a wirehouse rep (the firm pays the other half). Fifth, I like the professional and social aspect of the branch environment. We have a friendly competition with each other. We hang after work. We enjoy ourselves. In our branch we figured it out that you should go indy if you are a $1million+ producer because your fixed expenses will then represent a small enough percentage for it to make sense. That is probably the reason PCG created the Profit Formula channel to allow high end PCG reps to earn a higher payout and keep them from going indy. Also, you need to buy your own building instead of paying rent to yourself. Ironically, most indy reps are low producers who continue to rent their space and spend most of their time on these forums berating wirehouse reps b/c they aren't indy. Telling them they aren't true business owners. When in reality, they want everyone else to be as miserable as they are. If I was so happy about my decision, I could care less what other people chose. MISERY LOVES COMPANY![/quote] Absolutely spot on. Ive looked at Finet with 2 other brokers to share expenses the 3 of us were doing a combined 1.3 million. Obviously the last 2 quarters have done significant damage to those revenues. Our feeling was that was the minimum we had to make to make the numbers work.[quote=YHWY]Wirehouse brokers “making” $300k are respected big-time in this business. The difference is, they need to produce @$750 in revenue to “make” that $300k. Those damn “payouts” from gross commission.
All I KNOW is in my branch we have 3 guys that were recruited by the previous manager from Bank One’s bank brokerage channel. All three were doing very big numbers (read million dollar plus producers.) None of them is doing even half of those numbers here. All three have been here in excess of 3-4 years.
BANK ASSETS ARE STICKY TO THE BANK, NOT YOUAll I have to say is misery loves company. We get it. You are independent and you berate everyone else who isn't. I will never go independent. I've crunched the numbers. First, the 90% payout on fee based business is a sham. Most independents charge the fa anywhere from 25-75bps on the value of assets that you receive zero payout on. the 90% is on the remainder. So, it's more like 65% payout.[quote=YHWY]Wirehouse brokers “making” $300k are respected big-time in this business. The difference is, they need to produce @$750 in revenue to “make” that $300k. Those damn “payouts” from gross commission.
What???
Second, I don't mind the firm keeping more of my payout in exchange for providing the infrastructure, paying the light bills, paying my assistant, all of my state registrations, state insurance licenses, providing opportunities for continuing ed, etc...
Hard to argue with someone who is happy paying his firm $250,000 + to cover $50,000 in expenses for him.
Third, the average indy rep produces jack. For example, the average LPL advisor produces $175k.
If you are a big producer in a wirehouse, you will be a big producer as an independent.
Fourth, the net payout is the virtually the same when you take into account all costs. For example, an indy has to pay 12.4% FICA tax versus 6.2% as a wirehouse rep (the firm pays the other half).
True, if you're doing under $100,000. Also, FICA is only paid on the first $102,000 of income.
Fifth, I like the professional and social aspect of the branch environment. We have a friendly competition with each other. We hang after work. We enjoy ourselves.
That's a valid point and should be considered before going indy.
In our branch we figured it out that you should go indy if you are a $1million+ producer because your fixed expenses will then represent a small enough percentage for it to make sense. That is probably the reason PCG created the Profit Formula channel to allow high end PCG reps to earn a higher payout and keep them from going indy. Also, you need to buy your own building instead of paying rent to yourself. Ironically, most indy reps are low producers who continue to rent their space and spend most of their time on these forums berating wirehouse reps b/c they aren't indy. Telling them they aren't true business owners. When in reality, they want everyone else to be as miserable as they are. If I was so happy about my decision, I could care less what other people chose. MISERY LOVES COMPANY![/quote]
Actually they do. They pay in the form of a reduced fee via a co-pay to be a provider for that Insuance company.Please allow me to re-phrase, so as not to be as provocative: Anyone “making” $300k is respected big-time in this business, just as doctors who “make” $300k are, which is the example used by Vet20, above, prompting my apparently incendiary response. I intended no malice toward reps in any platform. My point was, simply, that (most, anyway) doctors don’t pay a “franchise percentage to a parent “firm””, for lack of a better term.
Holy missing the point, Batman! Then, assuming you’re right, a doctor would have to generate $300k + That co-pay-to-be-part-of-the-insurance-carrier-whatever, in order to “make” $300k.
I’m really, really not looking to start a whole new argument. My point was always simply that to confuse “gross production” to what any of us “make”, on any platform, is a very, very potentially misleading position. (i.e, as it started: Comparing the perception of an FC “doing”, I think was the term, $275-$350 to a doctor who “makes” $300k is an erroneous comparison). That’s it. No offense to anyone intended.
I was mildly entertained reading the last 3 pages of this “We are ISG and we deserve respect!” versus “We are PCG/AGE and we deserve more respect!”, and then I read the title of the thread again: “Retention…please do not hijack”.
Gentlemen and ladies, this thread has been hijacked. If you want to start a new thread to discuss which channel of business you think is the coolest, please do that. If you have nothing to add to the present discussion on retention, then please show some restraint.
Lets get it back on track…Where is the retention? Seems pretty quiet.
My sincere apologies for distracting from and interrupting serious discussion of the retention package’s announced details that everyone is keen to analyze. I and the rest of the interlopes now leave you to it.
Got to be an announcement soon. Isn’t the merger done on 12/23? I believe the announcement will be made my then.
HIJACK anyone. Thank you for bringing the topic back to earth CS. After the PC trip fiasco of late, Danny and his boys better start back pedaling and butt-kissing real soon. Unfortunately, I think Danny has very little say in this whole thing. I don't know if he knows if he really has the job (long-term). I have heard that the package will come w/o 12/15. Defered comp portion of the AGE deal, that magic 10 year invisible portion might be fronted to us now (as a 6 yr upfront loan), other retention on top will be "disappointing". I just keep coming back to the idea that Danny has very little say in this whole matter (why do you think it is sooo quite) and our New Masters will determine the shots. Apparently Danny looks quite worn down lately and is exteremly apologetic in public. Perhaps the Prince and is UBM has been taken down several notches.I was mildly entertained reading the last 3 pages of this “We are ISG and we deserve respect!” versus “We are PCG/AGE and we deserve more respect!”, and then I read the title of the thread again: “Retention…please do not hijack”.
Gentlemen and ladies, this thread has been hijacked. If you want to start a new thread to discuss which channel of business you think is the coolest, please do that. If you have nothing to add to the present discussion on retention, then please show some restraint.
Rumor has it Stumpf called Ken Lewis before he rolled out the ML/BAC retention. Topic of the conversation was a last minute plea to NOT pay a retention, period. Obviously Lewis did not agree with Stumpf. Stumpf is dead set against retention and has the opinion of ‘let them walk’. Another rumor is that the #2 in command WS guy is pushing real hard to get a retention in place. Don’t know the corporate structure of WS, but I can only assume it is the Danny guy you guys are talking about. There has been zero communication to the WFC guys.
HIJACK anyone.[quote=CommonSense]I was mildly entertained reading the last 3 pages of this “We are ISG and we deserve respect!” versus “We are PCG/AGE and we deserve more respect!”, and then I read the title of the thread again: “Retention…please do not hijack”. Gentlemen and ladies, this thread has been hijacked. If you want to start a new thread to discuss which channel of business you think is the coolest, please do that. If you have nothing to add to the present discussion on retention, then please show some restraint.
Thank you for bringing the topic back to earth CS.
After the PC trip fiasco of late, Danny and his boys better start back pedaling and butt-kissing real soon. Unfortunately, I think Danny has very little say in this whole thing. I don’t know if he knows if he really has the job (long-term).
I have heard that the package will come w/o 12/15. Defered comp portion of the AGE deal, that magic 10 year invisible portion might be fronted to us now (as a 6 yr upfront loan), other retention on top will be “disappointing”. I just keep coming back to the idea that Danny has very little say in this whole matter (why do you think it is sooo quite) and our New Masters will determine the shots. Apparently Danny looks quite worn down lately and is exteremly apologetic in public. Perhaps the Prince and is UBM has been taken down several notches. [/quote]
Disappointing?? WTF? AGE brokers have ZERO to be complaining about. They got the LARGEST retention any wire house has given brokers! Cripes… MER brokers doing under 500K got ZERO. 90% of AGE brokers do less than 500K. They got paid 18 months ago and are potentially going to get paid again and you say that is “disappointing” WTF???
Eleven weeks later…rumor is that Danny has the job and an announcement is coming Monday. All communication from management has been positive. WFC is aware that the brokerage unit is in need of standard retention. ISG and PCG will both get industry standard deals very big producer biased, but not so harsh on the middle of the pack like MER and BAC. The complications come from the amount of money already received by AGE and even the smaller amount rec’d by WS PCG brokers. An industry deal announced next week will subtract any EFL balance…If you are a new hire, there will most likely be a cuttoff on retention like the MER deal…ie 2006 or after.
Either way, the time that has passed is an indication the the priority this has had with WFC. Next week is the week it needs to be done. With retention that is less than the industry standard, tied to the 10-11 weeks we've been waiting will speak to the future of the NEW firm. Anything beyond that, I will assume we are screwed. It will be a complete disregard to us as we all try and salvage a sense of relief and peace and enjoy a few days for the holidays. Instead we will be forced to make tough decisions as deals to go other firms have expiration dates. Instead of eggnog, we will be preparing protocol lists for the acats.I truly don't think ISG will get a larger retention than PCG. I guess we will see. Regarding my bud, I never said bank reps can't make it at the wirehouse. What I said was most bank reps couldn't make it at the wirehouses (prior to joining the bank) and were left with the bank as their only option. Regarding my bud, I don't think he'll blow himself up. He has an LOS of 3 years and is already doing $350k. He told me the referrals that the bank provides is the main reason he was doing so well He wasn't penalized for being a bank rep by his new firm and was given a nice upfront package. I guess he wanted to cash in on his low LOS. His new firm said he was in the 1st quintile for his LOS. He never worked at a wirehouse before. I've been helping him put together a business plan. Told him that he's responsible from bringing in his own clients now. He understands. He's going to do two seminars a month after he tries to bring over some of his clients. He's admitted that most of his clients probably won't come over b/c of their relationships witht he bank and that he's pretty much starting over.ISG is being recognized up the chain of command and you will see us get the retention and quite possibly the largest package of the 3. Now if you thought ISG guys couldnt cut it at the wirehouse, why did you let your best bud just blow himself up by going there?
All I have to say is misery loves company. We get it. You are independent and you berate everyone else who isn't. I will never go independent. I've crunched the numbers. First, the 90% payout on fee based business is a sham. Most independents charge the fa anywhere from 25-75bps on the value of assets that you receive zero payout on. the 90% is on the remainder. So, it's more like 65% payout.[quote=ryedog123][quote=YHWY]Wirehouse brokers “making” $300k are respected big-time in this business. The difference is, they need to produce @$750 in revenue to “make” that $300k. Those damn “payouts” from gross commission.
What???
Say you charge 1.25% on a mutual fund wrap program. In PCG, we receive say 40% on the entire amount. However, within FiNet, we would have to pay 35bps to the house with the remainder (.90%) receiving the 85-90% payout. That's why I said it's actually more like a 65% payout on advisory fees. Second, I don't mind the firm keeping more of my payout in exchange for providing the infrastructure, paying the light bills, paying my assistant, all of my state registrations, state insurance licenses, providing opportunities for continuing ed, etc...
Hard to argue with someone who is happy paying his firm $250,000 + to cover $50,000 in expenses for him. You could be right. However, too many indy reps focus on cutting costs instead of increasing gross. 100% of my time is spent focusing on growing my business. I don't think that would be the case if I was indy. Third, the average indy rep produces jack. For example, the average LPL advisor produces $175k.
If you are a big producer in a wirehouse, you will be a big producer as an independent. True as long as I'm not spending most of my time paying the utility bills or managing my employees. Fourth, the net payout is the virtually the same when you take into account all costs. For example, an indy has to pay 12.4% FICA tax versus 6.2% as a wirehouse rep (the firm pays the other half).
True, if you're doing under $100,000. Also, FICA is only paid on the first $102,000 of income.
That is true. My point is that the 90% payout at finet and the 40% payout at PCG are not apples to apples comparisons. Fifth, I like the professional and social aspect of the branch environment. We have a friendly competition with each other. We hang after work. We enjoy ourselves.
That's a valid point and should be considered before going indy. At least I was right on one point. Just kidding.
In our branch we figured it out that you should go indy if you are a $1million+ producer because your fixed expenses will then represent a small enough percentage for it to make sense. That is probably the reason PCG created the Profit Formula channel to allow high end PCG reps to earn a higher payout and keep them from going indy. Also, you need to buy your own building instead of paying rent to yourself. Ironically, most indy reps are low producers who continue to rent their space and spend most of their time on these forums berating wirehouse reps b/c they aren't indy. Telling them they aren't true business owners. When in reality, they want everyone else to be as miserable as they are. If I was so happy about my decision, I could care less what other people chose. MISERY LOVES COMPANY![/quote][/quote]
All I have to say is misery loves company. We get it. You are independent and you berate everyone else who isn't. I will never go independent. I've crunched the numbers. First, the 90% payout on fee based business is a sham. Most independents charge the fa anywhere from 25-75bps on the value of assets that you receive zero payout on. the 90% is on the remainder. So, it's more like 65% payout.[quote=Hank Moody] [quote=ryedog123][quote=YHWY]Wirehouse brokers “making” $300k are respected big-time in this business. The difference is, they need to produce @$750 in revenue to “make” that $300k. Those damn “payouts” from gross commission.
What???
Say you charge 1.25% on a mutual fund wrap program. In PCG, we receive say 40% on the entire amount. However, within FiNet, we would have to pay 35bps to the house with the remainder (.90%) receiving the 85-90% payout. That's why I said it's actually more like a 65% payout on advisory fees. Second, I don't mind the firm keeping more of my payout in exchange for providing the infrastructure, paying the light bills, paying my assistant, all of my state registrations, state insurance licenses, providing opportunities for continuing ed, etc...
Hard to argue with someone who is happy paying his firm $250,000 + to cover $50,000 in expenses for him. You could be right. However, too many indy reps focus on cutting costs instead of increasing gross. 100% of my time is spent focusing on growing my business. I don't think that would be the case if I was indy. Third, the average indy rep produces jack. For example, the average LPL advisor produces $175k.
If you are a big producer in a wirehouse, you will be a big producer as an independent. True as long as I'm not spending most of my time paying the utility bills or managing my employees. Fourth, the net payout is the virtually the same when you take into account all costs. For example, an indy has to pay 12.4% FICA tax versus 6.2% as a wirehouse rep (the firm pays the other half).
True, if you're doing under $100,000. Also, FICA is only paid on the first $102,000 of income.
That is true. My point is that the 90% payout at finet and the 40% payout at PCG are not apples to apples comparisons. Fifth, I like the professional and social aspect of the branch environment. We have a friendly competition with each other. We hang after work. We enjoy ourselves.
That's a valid point and should be considered before going indy. At least I was right on one point. Just kidding.
In our branch we figured it out that you should go indy if you are a $1million+ producer because your fixed expenses will then represent a small enough percentage for it to make sense. That is probably the reason PCG created the Profit Formula channel to allow high end PCG reps to earn a higher payout and keep them from going indy. Also, you need to buy your own building instead of paying rent to yourself. Ironically, most indy reps are low producers who continue to rent their space and spend most of their time on these forums berating wirehouse reps b/c they aren't indy. Telling them they aren't true business owners. When in reality, they want everyone else to be as miserable as they are. If I was so happy about my decision, I could care less what other people chose. MISERY LOVES COMPANY![/quote][/quote] [/quote]
Managing employees is much easier as an indy that as a wirehouse broker. They know that we can actually fire them, unlike sales assistants who can make broker's lives miserable. Been there, done that.
I've been indy for over 5 years and have never written a check for a utility bill. I have written rent checks, though. It takes one minute per month.
QUOTE: Disappointing?? WTF? AGE brokers have ZERO to be complaining about. They got the LARGEST retention any wire house has given brokers! Cripes… MER brokers doing under 500K got ZERO. 90% of AGE brokers do less than 500K. They got paid 18 months ago and are potentially going to get paid again and you say that is “disappointing” WTF???[/quote]
Just some news, some of you have probably already seen this.
Wells Fargo & Co. has selected an internal candidate to run its wealth-management group instead of a Wachovia Corp. executive based in Winston-Salem.
According to a company memorandum obtained by the Winston-Salem Journal yesterday, Wells Fargo has named Jay Welker, the head of its wealth-management group, as the president of the combined group.
The decision, according to analysts, may not bode well for Wachovia’s wealth-management operations in Winston-Salem and its 600 local employees. Stanhope Kelly, the president of Wachovia’s wealth-management division, is the company’s highest-profile executive based in Winston-Salem.
Wells Fargo’s plans for wealth management have received considerable scrutiny from some analysts who consider Wachovia’s platform as better overall.
The memo sent by David Carroll, the recently named head of Wells Fargo’s wealth, brokerage and retirement-services group, says that Kelly will remain with Wells Fargo “in a leadership position and will help with the transition.”
“We thank Stan for his leadership, his passion and his dedication in building Wachovia Wealth Management into the firm it is today,” Carroll said.
Of the five top officials reporting to Carroll, three are from Wells Fargo and two from Wachovia – John Papadopulos, named as the president of the retirement-services group, and Danny Ludeman, chosen as the president of the brokerage group.
“Looks like Wachovia got brokerage, one of the crown jewels here, and retirement services, a big move up in the corporate hierarchy,” said Tony Plath, a finance professor at UNC Charlotte.
“Wells Fargo is taking wealth, the other crown jewel. As expected, Wells Fargo is taking business services, which I suspect is the back-office-support side of the wealth-management unit,” Plath said.
“That’s the scary part for Winston-Salem, since this is the part that’s in charge of the data center and the wealth/brokerage operations business that’s big in the Triad,” he said.
Wachovia has about 2,900 local employees, including 1,134 in wealth management and general banking, and 1,433 in information technology. The employment number does not include local branch employees, who are not expected to be affected by the integration since Wells Fargo doesn’t have any branches in Winston-Salem.
In other Wachovia news, The Charlotte Observer reported yesterday that Wachovia will pay an average of 20 percent of what employees may have expected from bonuses this year. The bank said that there will be differences based on individual performance.
< ="-" =“text/; =utf-8”>< name=“ProgId” =“Word.”>< name=“Generator” =“Microsoft Word 10”>< name=“Originator” =“Microsoft Word 10”><>
Just a thought -- Wells Fargo, as I understand it, traditionally
takes a long time to make any move. This is an odd situation because the
AGE guys were already paid. How much do you pay them now? Should
you pay WS more? Do you even pay ISG? We're talking billions - at
the same time they have to come up with a new name and have some testing done
on it before they announce it --
BAC had a much easier series of decisions - mainly what to pay one group of
brokers and they didn't pay that much. In other words, I wouldn't read we're getting
screwed into the delay.
I believe if you have an all upfront deal with a five year promissory note -
the retention should be very good. Remember the deferred part of many of
the deals was twenty to thirty percent at a minimum. Combining that with
upfront part - and scaling back the total 10% or so, well it should be
acceptable anyway.
As for the bank brokers exclaiming how good they are, let me draw a quick picture for you: It's like having
someone drive a boat out into the ocean - catch several dozen fish for you - skin
them - clean them - prepare them and then give them to you all on a silver platter
and then calling yourself an expert fisherman.
You're a bank clerk that got a promotion! So they should go get all the
clients for you and then pay you extra for the privilege of earning income from
all of their work and advertising? You won the lottery and just have clients led to you with hundreds of thousands each to invest and then you want a bonus on top of it?
I don't mean any offense but please, be serious.
Have heard from multiple sources at Wells that the attitude is No Retention. Maybe they cave in and do a little, but as of two weeks ago Zero was the planned retention.Rumor has it Stumpf called Ken Lewis before he rolled out the ML/BAC retention. Topic of the conversation was a last minute plea to NOT pay a retention, period. Obviously Lewis did not agree with Stumpf. Stumpf is dead set against retention and has the opinion of ‘let them walk’. Another rumor is that the #2 in command WS guy is pushing real hard to get a retention in place. Don’t know the corporate structure of WS, but I can only assume it is the Danny guy you guys are talking about. There has been zero communication to the WFC guys.
Actually i m hoping that there annouce no retention which make my decision to transition to UBS much easier. Why would anyone from a business sense leave a 240 percent package if there is no retention from wells. my prod has gone from 350k last year to 550k this year so just hoping for no retention. wells got all the deposits, the losses for tax benefit from wachovia buyout and now they want my business for free? I dont think so.
Your thoughts are self indulging. My guess is you could not catch a fish if one were put on a hook for you.
If it is so easy and less than being an advisor in a bank, you should consider making the move. I have been in both. The top brokers in ISG and PCG are on the same level. The pikers(like i suspect you ar) in PCG and ISG, also on the same level. The skills needed in a bank brokerage are a little different then pcg. Management skills and establishing yourself as a leader make that distribution channel better business model than 40 guys in an office bs'ing eachother waiting for the next resignation and hoping to inherit free assets. If a pcg guy comes to ISG and is a team player, works well with partners in bank, the odds of success is good. If a PCG guy comes and claims to be an expert fisherman(like you), he will starve.thanks for your wisdom and candor. much appreciated. lol
I don’t understand why the Wachovia reps would get paid more than the AGE reps. Didn’t the Pru guys get paid retention when Wachovia bot Pru? Yes we just got paid several months ago. This is a new deal with a new firm everyone should get the same regardless if we just got paid or not. I have lost 5 million in assets because of the Wachovia name. I think i should be paid. I would have probably gained 10 million in assets if I was still at AGE right now. Maybe I just don’t get it. Can someone tell me why I am wrong?
[quote=mnbondguy]
AGE brokers should get paid big time. AGE employees had their benefits slashed at WS, and have seen their restricted stock and options go to basically zero for reasons beyond their control. AGE stock would have been up just as much as Stifels if not for this merger. I wonder how much long term damage has been done to the average legacy AGE broker because of this merger?? I am sure Danny will get paid, even though his "universal bank" model has been a disaster.[/quote] 1st to agree that damage to business has been steep and everyone deserves money for pain, suffering, etc etc..but what does Wells have to do with that? Think taking prior managements old bonus' would make more sense...and dont see that happening.[quote=fritz][quote=mnbondguy]
AGE brokers should get paid big time. AGE employees had their benefits slashed at WS, and have seen their restricted stock and options go to basically zero for reasons beyond their control. AGE stock would have been up just as much as Stifels if not for this merger. I wonder how much long term damage has been done to the average legacy AGE broker because of this merger?? I am sure Danny will get paid, even though his "universal bank" model has been a disaster.[/quote] 1st to agree that damage to business has been steep and everyone deserves money for pain, suffering, etc etc..but what does Wells have to do with that? Think taking prior managements old bonus' would make more sense...and dont see that happening.[/quote] because Wells is a bank and they will milk the brokers just like WB does. If they don't pay, the brokers should leave. Pick a firm that fits you, get paid and leave all the wachovia crap behind you. Is their really any difference in brokerage firms from a clients perspective?? They all have basically the same products, with the exception of bond inventories (their own inventories, not the garbage on bonddesk, municenter etc). It is the individual brokers that make the differenceThe skills needed in a bank brokerage are a little different then pcg.
Management skills and establishing yourself as a leader make that
distribution channel better business model than 40 guys in an office
bs’ing eachother waiting for the next resignation and hoping to inherit
free assets. If a pcg guy comes to ISG and is a team player, works
well with partners in bank, the odds of success is good. If a PCG guy
comes and claims to be an expert fisherman(like you), he will starve.
First I’m not a piker so don’t delude yourself - second, all you are is a walk-in receiver. The idea that you think talent is sucking up to your “partners” is pathetic. And the idea that you should get any bonus for being the recipient of walk in’s and your ability to suck up to in-house “partners” is even more pathetic.
We build the boat, fuel the boat, steer the boat, do the fishing, build the business. We get relationships in that would have never been without us. All you do is fill out the paperwork for existing relationships. You are a glorified clerk with no talent other than to suck up to people who can steer more walk-ins your way.
And as for your thin minded conception of 40 guys in an office waiting for a re-assign; that would be typical of your frame and experience in this business - because all of your life your business has been predicated on one thing: Waiting for someone to hand you something. No, re-assigns are somewhat useless, I’d rather fight for new money from new people.
I think the retention, when it’s announced, will help clarify your place for you. We get new fresh money that would have never been without us - you catch walkins and fill out the paperwork for them. Who brings value to the company - new assets from new people or some clerk filling out paperwork for walk-ins? They way I see it, you should be paying them retention.
Reading the last several posts, I am thinking that a retention of around 200% of T12 is reasonable and justifiable for FiNet brokers. Good luck to you all in the coming days…weeks.
Funny…
You are a piker. It is obvious. My guess is you trail less than 350k which will be 250k next year. You are one of those guys in the middle offices who think the corner office guys or anyone else successful either got lucky or lacks something as compared to your superior skills....you on the other hand are a REAL advisor. Any other model or style is something less than. I was a top quintile broker at PCG...The model at ISG attracted me, I have since had in-bound ACATS north of 200 million(in a rural area), from people like you. At ISG I have been over a million my first year and every year for years....oh, not from what you might think, I am 60% annuitized. If that's a clerk, than, cool, I am a clerk. I guess, UBS, Smith Barney and Merrill, agree with me, since they all have offered me their top deal and Danny has until next week to otherwise, UBS's 265% with 165% up front, will get this clerk. As for retention, regardless to your opinion, ISG will actually be recognized and receive the most standard deal. Not that the other channels will not, it's just that there is already a bunch of money out there, so the retention will subtract all those unforgiven EFL balances. It is obviously difficult for the folks at PCG. Especially if your from AGE and a large producer, your EFL balance is high. To move now in this market and with balances so high, the deal from the competition once adjusted for paying back the balance makes a move risky. I suspect Danny is fighting for all channels and I am happy to hear he got the job. I also suspect he is trying to see how he can take care of AGE folks and PCG even with the money still owed. Since these traits are usually a result of low self esteem I will forgive your arrogant assumptions. While you keep making references to buidling boats, fishing etc., I will be on my boat.I don’t understand why the Wachovia reps would get paid more than the AGE reps. Didn’t the Pru guys get paid retention when Wachovia bot Pru? Yes we just got paid several months ago. This is a new deal with a new firm everyone should get the same regardless if we just got paid or not. I have lost 5 million in assets because of the Wachovia name. I think i should be paid. I would have probably gained 10 million in assets if I was still at AGE right now. Maybe I just don’t get it. Can someone tell me why I am wrong?
BULL SHIT. Be a man. Wachovia didnt cost you any accounts. The market and your own ineptitude cost you business. To blame Wachovia is a loser's mentality.
The difference between the Pru merger and the AGE merger is YOU are under contract, the Pru brokers were NOT. Great you think you should be paid and thats fine but blaming the firm for losing assets when the market is down 40% Please, remove your head from your arse
AGE brokers should get paid big time. AGE employees had their benefits slashed at WS, and have seen their restricted stock and options go to basically zero for reasons beyond their control. AGE stock would have been up just as much as Stifels if not for this merger. I wonder how much long term damage has been done to the average legacy AGE broker because of this merger?? I am sure Danny will get paid, even though his “universal bank” model has been a disaster.
Frankly, Im getting really sick of you legacy AGE people. You got the highest retention in the history of wall street you are evidently too stupid to know the difference between the bank and the brokerage firm and you blame PCG for what happened to the bank. Danny heads the BROKERAGE and JUST LIKE YOU, has little to do with the bank. Stop having a Fu*(*ing pitty party for yourself you think that somehow legacy pru guys didnt have the SAME experience with there DC????
There is a reason the majority of AGE brokers do 250 or less....Stop blaming the brokerage firm for something THEY did not do, had NO control over and open your F 'ing eyes and be a man and take responsibility for your OWN business. You lose an account because of what YOU did not the firm. That is unless YOU dont own the relationship so which is it pal?
Futures and margined securities are not covered by SIPC. Wachovia did cost me accounts due to constantly being in the news, but only the really big ones that contributed a big chunk of my production.
Futures and margined securities are not covered by SIPC. Wachovia did cost me accounts due to constantly being in the news, but only the really big ones that contributed a big chunk of my production.
BULL!!! Either YOU own the relationship your you dont. If you own the relationship your client takes your advice if you have any common sense you were dialing down the risk as the market started eroding in October of 2007. Or you were taking advantage of the situation in those marktes to profit from the headlines so spare me the it was the firms fault crap. I had the same headlines to deal with that you did. I didn't lose account because of the firm so man up. In fact I do not know of a single guy in our downtown office (pru office) who I have EVER heard say they lost an account because of the headlines
Again you, LIKE MOST PEOPLE, REFUSE to take accountability for your own actions preferring to blame others.
Its YOUR business and to blame a firm unless they were DIRECTLY sabotaging YOUR business (manager meeting with your clients trying to talk them into moving accounts to other brokers) is bull crap and you need to look in the mirror and place blame where it belongs. If you dont, this will keep happening to you until you are out of the business never understand what happened or why
[quote=Sam Houston] Futures and margined securities are not covered by SIPC. Wachovia did cost me accounts due to constantly being in the news, but only the really big ones that contributed a big chunk of my production.
BULL!!! Either YOU own the relationship your you dont. If you own the relationship your client takes your advice if you have any common sense you were dialing down the risk as the market started eroding in October of 2007. Again you, LIKE MOST PEOPLE, REFUSE to take accountability for your own actions preferring to blame others.
Its YOUR business and to blame a firm unless they were DIRECTLY sabotaging YOUR business (manager meeting with your clients trying to talk them into moving accounts to other brokers) is bull crap and you need to look in the mirror and place blame where it belongs. If you dont, this will keep happening to you until you are out of the business never understand what happened or why[/quote]
You are having quite an emotional reaction to something that has no impact on your life. He might own the relationship, but it appears that he also owns you.
[quote=Hank Moody]
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Sam Houston] Futures and margined securities are not covered by SIPC. Wachovia did cost me accounts due to constantly being in the news, but only the really big ones that contributed a big chunk of my production. [/quote]
BULL!!! Either YOU own the relationship your you dont. If you own the relationship your client takes your advice if you have any common sense you were dialing down the risk as the market started eroding in October of 2007. Again you, LIKE MOST PEOPLE, REFUSE to take accountability for your own actions preferring to blame others.
Its YOUR business and to blame a firm unless they were DIRECTLY sabotaging YOUR business (manager meeting with your clients trying to talk them into moving accounts to other brokers) is bull crap and you need to look in the mirror and place blame where it belongs. If you dont, this will keep happening to you until you are out of the business never understand what happened or why[/quote]You are having quite an emotional reaction to something that has no impact on your life. He might own the relationship, but it appears that he also owns you. [/quote]
??
Nope, I just am tired of hearing people refusing to take an accountability for anything in their lives. Its permeated every aspect of our society and Im sick of it. If you dont like the firm do something about it. Move to another firm or go independent. But blame the brokerage firm for something they had no control over? Blame the firm for losing an account??? Sell that to your friends who arent in the business but keep that trash off here because EVERYONE can see right through that kind of crap, its disgusting and offensive to our professionalism
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Hank Moody]
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Sam Houston] Futures and margined securities are not covered by SIPC. Wachovia did cost me accounts due to constantly being in the news, but only the really big ones that contributed a big chunk of my production. [/quote]
BULL!!! Either YOU own the relationship your you dont. If you own the relationship your client takes your advice if you have any common sense you were dialing down the risk as the market started eroding in October of 2007. Again you, LIKE MOST PEOPLE, REFUSE to take accountability for your own actions preferring to blame others.
Its YOUR business and to blame a firm unless they were DIRECTLY sabotaging YOUR business (manager meeting with your clients trying to talk them into moving accounts to other brokers) is bull crap and you need to look in the mirror and place blame where it belongs. If you dont, this will keep happening to you until you are out of the business never understand what happened or why[/quote]You are having quite an emotional reaction to something that has no impact on your life. He might own the relationship, but it appears that he also owns you. [/quote]
??
Nope, I just am tired of hearing people refusing to take an accountability for anything in their lives. Its permeated every aspect of our society and Im sick of it. If you dont like the firm do something about it. Move to another firm or go independent. But blame the brokerage firm for something they had no control over? Blame the firm for losing an account??? Sell that to your friends who arent in the business but keep that trash off here because EVERYONE can see right through that kind of crap, its disgusting and offensive to our professionalism[/quote]
You’ve only been here for 1.5 months and you can’t control your emotions? You sound weak. Why don’t you set an example by taking responsibility for showing up here, where you are exposed to people who blame others for their problems?
Whatever floats your boat dude
I call HIJACK!!!
[quote=BukiRob2]Whatever floats your boat dude[/quote]
See? You’re calming down. That’s good. Whenever you find yourself getting mad at a bunch of words on your computer screen, it’s time to step back and put things back into perspective.
Yup, we are way off topic. Hank needs to back off a little. We are all pretty amped up about things right now, but the purpose of this thread is for anybody to post something that they hear or know regarding RETAINER. I am a little tired of hearing about the loaves and fishes lines as well.
[quote=shredder]I call HIJACK!!![/quote]
It is a hijack, but one of our members is in emotional distress.
[quote=duster10]Yup, we are way off topic. Hank needs to back off a little. We are all pretty amped up about things right now, but the purpose of this thread is for anybody to post something that they hear or know regarding RETAINER. I am a little tired of hearing about the loaves and fishes lines as well.[/quote]
I apologize for my calm tone.
apology accepted.
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Sam Houston] Futures and margined securities are not covered by SIPC. Wachovia did cost me accounts due to constantly being in the news, but only the really big ones that contributed a big chunk of my production. [/quote]
BULL!!! Either YOU own the relationship your you dont.
Again you, LIKE MOST PEOPLE, REFUSE to take accountability for your own actions preferring to blame others.
I made the client money, had a good relationship, and got bought out without consultation by a firm that has since gone under. Who should I blame and why?
Its YOUR business and to blame a firm unless they were DIRECTLY sabotaging YOUR business (manager meeting with your clients trying to talk them into moving accounts to other brokers) is bull crap and you need to look in the mirror and place blame where it belongs. I never said anyone directly, purposefully sabotaged my business. But my business was hurt be factors out of my control by a firm that has a meeting every other hour to set up the next conference call, cut yields to my cash clients for the firms own profit, stopped paying me for cash, is about to roll out fees up the arse to any account under $250K, was constantly in the news, cut my benefits, fired every competant back office employee or moved them to a different area (try getting an question answered), and made it quite obvious that the firm was most important, to hell with the broker if they didn't drink the kool-aid. If you dont, this will keep happening to you until you are out of the business never understand what happened or why[/quote]
I hate the word Wachovia. It makes me sick. I think I should be paid for every “UMMMMM” I hear. Since we are in a black out for info Im sure the “ummms” will be flying like sheit beetles before we know it.
There is no doubt in my mind that some have lost account because of WAC-f,ing-Chovia. I've had people tell me at least 20 times while cold calling they would never do business with 'wachovia'. NEVER heard that about AGE.******************** BACK ON TOPIC ***********************
1. Is the announcement going to be tomorrow (12/15) on retention? 2. If the deal is similar or worse than ML, what % of FCs walk? 3. What firms are the major beneficiaries of a mass exodus from Wachovia?2. A Tiny, Tiny fraction of those who will “threaten” to.
3. What mass exodus? See #2.
BukiRob2 I can’t understand why you are so harsh with your comments. Try and relax. I have lost 3 clients that I have had for 15 years this year. I can count on two hands how may clients I have lost in the previous 15 years. I have been overly conservative for so long and it is finally paying off. My clients are extremely frightened that Wachovia is the next company to go down. For some stange reason they can’t understand that the American Funds they own have nothing to do with Wachovia. It is probably somehow my fault. But I did everything I could to retain the assets they just thought they were going to loose everything. You know with banks going under and such. I never had to answer any of those types of questions at A.G. Edwards. I don’t really think the universal bank model and global platforms mean a whole heck of a lot to my average joe six pack clients. My only reason for writing the previous post was to have someone enlighten me on the retention package and why there should be different packages for the legacy age brokers and the legacy wachovia brokers. We are all one firm now so we all should be treated equally since this is a new transaction. Am I wrong?
Timetogo…thanks for your articulate response to sellhigh re ISG. We have a lot of guys like you in ISG around the country. Sellhigh you seem so bitter and angry. Why is that?? Are you a disgruntled AGE FA?
Other sources here say the deal will be announced tomorrow. Reliable info or not who knows? Regardless its going to be announced between tomorrow and 12/23.
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=mnbondguy]
AGE brokers should get paid big time. AGE employees had their benefits slashed at WS, and have seen their restricted stock and options go to basically zero for reasons beyond their control. AGE stock would have been up just as much as Stifels if not for this merger. I wonder how much long term damage has been done to the average legacy AGE broker because of this merger?? I am sure Danny will get paid, even though his "universal bank" model has been a disaster.[/quote]Frankly, Im getting really sick of you legacy AGE people. You got the highest retention in the history of wall street you are evidently too stupid to know the difference between the bank and the brokerage firm and you blame PCG for what happened to the bank. Danny heads the BROKERAGE and JUST LIKE YOU, has little to do with the bank. Stop having a Fu*(*ing pitty party for yourself you think that somehow legacy pru guys didnt have the SAME experience with there DC????
There is a reason the majority of AGE brokers do 250 or less....Stop blaming the brokerage firm for something THEY did not do, had NO control over and open your F 'ing eyes and be a man and take responsibility for your OWN business. You lose an account because of what YOU did not the firm. That is unless YOU dont own the relationship so which is it pal?[/quote] . calm down tough guy....DANNY IS IN LOVE WITH THE UNIVERSAL BANK MODEL, SO YES HE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. HAVE YOU SEEN STIFELS STOCK LATELY, IT IS COMPLETE PROOF OF THE UNIVERSAL BANK MODELS FAILURE. IT WAS DANNY'S "DREAM" TO BE OWNED BY A BANK, SO YES I DO THINK HE IS RESPONSIBLE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THE CONSTANT NEWS ABOUT WACHOVIA BEING ON THE VERGE OF SEIZURE BY THE FDIC DIDNT SCARE CUSTOMERS AWAY?? "BE A MAN AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN BUSINESS"... Hey dumbass, trust me, I do more business then you ever will.
From your lips to gods ears.
I heard Danny is heading to a meeting tomorrow with a bunch of RM's. My hope is he is there to educate them and sell them on what WFC has agreed to pay. This week is the last week he has and still give everyone what is deserved...information! Since this is a forum...and we are all sick of waiting, I will give my prediction. Our managers will hear midweek and we will know friday. Waiting until the 23rd is insane. Anything past Friday, or better yet an announcement on Thursday for a call on Friday, I am out of here. TIMETOGO[quote=timetogo]From your lips to gods ears.
I heard Danny is heading to a meeting tomorrow with a bunch of RM's. My hope is he is there to educate them and sell them on what WFC has agreed to pay. This week is the last week he has and still give everyone what is deserved...information! Since this is a forum...and we are all sick of waiting, I will give my prediction. Our managers will hear midweek and we will know friday. Waiting until the 23rd is insane. Anything past Friday, or better yet an announcement on Thursday for a call on Friday, I am out of here. TIMETOGO [/quote] Sounds like you almost obsessed with the retention.."Waiting until the 23rd is insane" What if it comes mid Jan or early Fed, sounds like it would be a painful wait for you. I think the meeting next week is to go over the name change, WFC said last week nothing is imminent on retention.Maybe we could add a Table of Contents and sell this 21 page book we’ve created…
I don't think we're obsessed with a retention, it's the lack of ANY INFORMATION about it that is driving a lot of us crazy. It would be nice to be able to plan accordingly with ALL the information at our fingertips than to shoot in the dark with "what if" scenarios. It certainly DOES reflect on WFC how they view their FA's. They need to get this right the first time. Even though we may receive something $$ we'll always be cautious in light of the way we've been treated so far. I'm so glad that we were extremely HIGH on their priority list. I agree with the other posts on Danny's model. It doesn't work. Too many divided loyalties to make it work.< ="-" =“text/; =utf-8”>< name=“ProgId” =“Word.”>< name=“Generator” =“Microsoft Word 10”>< name=“Originator” =“Microsoft Word 10”><>
In response to timetogo:
You said: I have since had in-bound ACATS north of 200 million(in a rural area), from people like you…At ISG I have been over a million my first year and every year for years....oh, not from what you might think, I am 60% annuitized. .
Let’s see, you did a million in your rookie year, you’ve been here several years, and you’re doing a million this year but your say all that money is 60% annuitized? Let’s see 60% of 200million (inbound acats this year)…that’s 120million in assets annuitized for this year and incremental yearly production of 1.2myn every year up to now. Now you’ve been here several years so that’s 6myn total annuitized that would add up over 5 years so, given those numbers you’d be producing 6million dollars annually gracing us with your presence. but, you’re doing a million this year?
You’re ACAT’ing in 200myn this year alone! I’m not saying you’re lying, lets just say my calculator doesn’t work. Besides that – $2myn guys get 200% upfront and higher. If the money’s there, why not leave – why not?
Listen, I haven't shown under $270k a year in income (not commissions – $270k gross pay on the inside) in about a decade. Some years I've done a good amount more. That’s not great but not bad either. As for 3rd ID -- I’m not bitter at all – I’m happy as a matter of fact. I just have an opinion – what’s wrong with that? I share my opinion with timetogo – he / she gets all sensitive saying retail brokers are a bunch of slobs waiting around for reassigns.
Anyway, I love this place, I’ve been to others got paid huge
to move here. I built everything myself
and, outside of the lousy market, things are pretty good. So enough of the pissing contest - it's a waste of time.
Retention should be fine - I bet within a week. They can bounce the back end - pay it all up front with a note and have it seem really good even though it will be under the AGE total number. It will be interesting to see how they treat all the different business lines.
I am WS/PCG and in the top 10%. I have an offer from another firm which I consider an upgrade. The deal is more than double the BAC/MER package and they include my deferred comp. If I do not hear something from Danny by Friday and/or the deal is not as good or better than BAC/MER... I AM GONE! WS is turning into a joke and they are jerking us around by not telling us anything.
I am WS/PCG and in the top 10%. I have an offer from another firm which I consider an upgrade. The deal is more than double the BAC/MER package and they include my deferred comp. If I do not hear something from Danny by Friday and/or the deal is not as good or better than BAC/MER… I AM GONE! WS is turning into a joke and they are jerking us around by not telling us anything.
I've watched your posts recently. I get it. You're legit. You have an incredible book. You do incredible business. You have so much talent you could go anywhere.
So..... leave.
I'm so sick of people complaining about the business. Life sucks right now for all of us. Shut up and produce. If you want a check, go for it, champ. You're the greatest. I have my offers on the table as well but, I'm not shoving it down people's throats how bad life is. We are all in the same boat, son....
[quote=mnbondguy] [quote=BukiRob2] [quote=mnbondguy]
calm down tough guy…DANNY IS IN LOVE WITH THE UNIVERSAL BANK MODEL, SO YES HE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. HAVE YOU SEEN STIFELS STOCK LATELY, IT IS COMPLETE PROOF OF THE UNIVERSAL BANK MODELS FAILURE. IT WAS DANNY’S “DREAM” TO BE OWNED BY A BANK, SO YES I DO THINK HE IS RESPONSIBLE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THE CONSTANT NEWS ABOUT WACHOVIA BEING ON THE VERGE OF SEIZURE BY THE FDIC DIDNT SCARE CUSTOMERS AWAY?? “BE A MAN AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN BUSINESS”… Hey dumbass, trust me, I do more business then you ever will. [/quote]
I seriously doubt that
not obsessed, just needing the money to finance their survival in the biz.
With regard to the freaking topic…
I heard that everyone 250k and over will get retention. For people on a deal alraedy (like me, coming over here from another wirehouse in 2007) or AGE guys, they essentially get bumped back to their original deal. The amount on your deal that has been forgiven is the same amount you are credited again. Similar to what happened for legacy Pru guys on deals when Wachovia bought them. Why do we all deserve a package? For me, and AGE guys, we signed contracts with Wachovia. Our end of the contract (which I have upheld) is to run an advisory practice, bring my clients over, do the same or more T-12 as last year and keep a clean U5. If I fink out on these the firm has a right to come after me for the money it paid me. Wachovia's end of the contract is to provide a platform for me to do said business on, provide me with back office support, custody, recordkeeping, and oh yes, to FREAKING STAY IN BUSINESS!. Wachovia was 1 day away from folding if it wasn't for the Citigroup merger, which then fed into the WFC merger. I kept my end of the bargain, WB didn't keep theirs. Wells Fargo is buying my business fresh. Pay up.[quote=skillopie]With regard to the freaking topic…
I heard that everyone 250k and over will get retention. For people on a deal alraedy (like me, coming over here from another wirehouse in 2007) or AGE guys, they essentially get bumped back to their original deal. The amount on your deal that has been forgiven is the same amount you are credited again. Similar to what happened for legacy Pru guys on deals when Wachovia bought them. Why do we all deserve a package? For me, and AGE guys, we signed contracts with Wachovia. Our end of the contract (which I have upheld) is to run an advisory practice, bring my clients over, do the same or more T-12 as last year and keep a clean U5. If I fink out on these the firm has a right to come after me for the money it paid me. Wachovia's end of the contract is to provide a platform for me to do said business on, provide me with back office support, custody, recordkeeping, and oh yes, to FREAKING STAY IN BUSINESS!. Wachovia was 1 day away from folding if it wasn't for the Citigroup merger, which then fed into the WFC merger. I kept my end of the bargain, WB didn't keep theirs. Wells Fargo is buying my business fresh. Pay up.[/quote] For the millionth time.... WB had ZERO impact on WS. WS is and was a stand alone LLC between WB and PRU. If WB had gone in recievership, it would not have impacted the brokerage in terms of ability to continue to conduct business. WS passed through after tax profits to both WB and PRU... If you recall, the original deal was that Citi was buying the bank and WS was going to continue to be a stand alone operation. Its the 15th, still no word on retention and nothing on infomax to indicate that there is or will be any announcement today or anytime in the near future.Nice post!
[quote=skillopie]With regard to the freaking topic…
I heard that everyone 250k and over will get retention. For people on a deal alraedy (like me, coming over here from another wirehouse in 2007) or AGE guys, they essentially get bumped back to their original deal. The amount on your deal that has been forgiven is the same amount you are credited again. Similar to what happened for legacy Pru guys on deals when Wachovia bought them. Why do we all deserve a package? For me, and AGE guys, we signed contracts with Wachovia. Our end of the contract (which I have upheld) is to run an advisory practice, bring my clients over, do the same or more T-12 as last year and keep a clean U5. If I fink out on these the firm has a right to come after me for the money it paid me. Wachovia's end of the contract is to provide a platform for me to do said business on, provide me with back office support, custody, recordkeeping, and oh yes, to FREAKING STAY IN BUSINESS!. Wachovia was 1 day away from folding if it wasn't for the Citigroup merger, which then fed into the WFC merger. I kept my end of the bargain, WB didn't keep theirs. Wells Fargo is buying my business fresh. Pay up.[/quote]WB was one day from being seized. WacSec is a separate LLC owned by WB and PRU.
Check check check yourself…WB doesn’t have anything to do with WS?
They own 2/3 of the company. My insurance is through their group plan, they administer that crummy 401k with WB stock as an investment option, not WS/Pru LLC. I know it's Ken/Bob in Charlotte, and Danny in STL and that they are separate, but WB is involved because they are the mother ship. If there's ZERO impact, why was I getting e-mails from Bob Steel saying we are doing great, etc.[quote=skillopie]Check check check yourself…WB doesn’t have anything to do with WS?
They own 2/3 of the company. My insurance is through their group plan, they administer that crummy 401k with WB stock as an investment option, not WS/Pru LLC. I know it's Ken/Bob in Charlotte, and Danny in STL and that they are separate, but WB is involved because they are the mother ship. If there's ZERO impact, why was I getting e-mails from Bob Steel saying we are doing great, etc.[/quote] Are you really this obtuse? If WB had gone into recievership it would have effected WS in absolutely no fashion with regards to WS ability to function and operate. The bank "closing its doors" has no impact on your business FUNCTIONALLY. I really tire of people using the bank as an excuse as to why they have lost business ect.ummmmmm…errrr…Buki, before you continue your rants, keep in mind about 10% of the producing work force actually WORK in the branch, so having the doors shut might have a slight impact on our “FUNCIONALLITY”, so I do really see it as an excuse. That said, I have not lost any clients due to the entire debacle, but I am sure somewhere,somebody has.
Once again, you a@@ clowns have taken us wayyyyyy off topic. I will be so happy once this is all benhind us so that I can erase my password to this site from my memory.I haven’t lost clients because of the bank’s problems either.
But it doesn't take away from the fact that as the bank $hit's the bed, I spend an awful lot of my time dealing with those issues and questions that clients have. I can't use the down market as an excuse not to produce what is expected of me. It's my job to produce and I do. WB has a job, to stay in business and at the very least maintain credibility. The bank folding would have an impact on what we do. I don't care if FCC is the custodian and not WB directly. They are the mother ship, it's their name, and they F'd up. Wells is getting the WHOLE company for a song.Buki,
Why are you so bitter about the possibility of your fellow colleague getting some extra money in this tough times. I mean does it matter to you if some piker in south dakota receive few hundred thousand for all the money that wells will be in the future? If you are not a big fan of retention will you give up yours and share it among the fa's on this forum?[quote=skbroker]Buki,
Why are you so bitter about the possibility of your fellow colleague getting some extra money in this tough times. I mean does it matter to you if some piker in south dakota receive few hundred thousand for all the money that wells will be in the future? If you are not a big fan of retention will you give up yours and share it among the fa's on this forum? [/quote] Wow you need to work on your reading comprehension skills there bud. There is a DISTINCT difference from being tired of hearing people using the "bank mess" as an excuse and being anti retention. I am in fact waiting on the announcement for retention to decide what I am going to do. In my mind if WFC low balls us on retention it paints a VERY clear picture of how little they value what we do. They got the bank and brokerage for less than 20B. Based on paying PRU 5B for its interest in WS they valued the brokerage at roughly 15B. Wells has huge tax write offs that will keep them from paying tax potentially for the next 5 years. If they low ball us, to me, it speaks volumes about what kind of organization they are and thus what they will be like to work under. I am anything but anti retention.I agree, BukackiRob. The bank has nothing to do with my business and you have not heard me crying about how bad business is. Business is great and clients have not left. I just happen to think that WFC is anti retention bonus and WS Management is not fighting hard enough for it. Because of that I am ready to hit the eject button and take every client with me. I have heard there are WS advisors are leaving left and right in California.
"Legacy AGE" or "legacy WS"?? I have heard on the AGE side that there is lots of movement, do not know a whole lot about the WS side. I can say the the WS brokers I know are fed-up!I agree, BukackiRob. The bank has nothing to do with my business and you have not heard me crying about how bad business is. Business is great and clients have not left. I just happen to think that WFC is anti retention bonus and WS Management is not fighting hard enough for it. Because of that I am ready to hit the eject button and take every client with me. I have heard there are WS advisors are leaving left and right in California.
Just our of curiosity, what, if any, effect would the sale of WB to WFC have on the AGE/WB retention package? Can the firm being sold create any opportunity for those “loans” to be forgiven at a more rapid rate, or even immediately?
[quote=BukiRob][quote=skillopie]With regard to the freaking topic…
I heard that everyone 250k and over will get retention. For people on a deal alraedy (like me, coming over here from another wirehouse in 2007) or AGE guys, they essentially get bumped back to their original deal. The amount on your deal that has been forgiven is the same amount you are credited again. Similar to what happened for legacy Pru guys on deals when Wachovia bought them. Why do we all deserve a package? For me, and AGE guys, we signed contracts with Wachovia. Our end of the contract (which I have upheld) is to run an advisory practice, bring my clients over, do the same or more T-12 as last year and keep a clean U5. If I fink out on these the firm has a right to come after me for the money it paid me. Wachovia's end of the contract is to provide a platform for me to do said business on, provide me with back office support, custody, recordkeeping, and oh yes, to FREAKING STAY IN BUSINESS!. Wachovia was 1 day away from folding if it wasn't for the Citigroup merger, which then fed into the WFC merger. I kept my end of the bargain, WB didn't keep theirs. Wells Fargo is buying my business fresh. Pay up.[/quote] For the millionth time.... WB had ZERO impact on WS. WS is and was a stand alone LLC between WB and PRU. If WB had gone in recievership, it would not have impacted the brokerage in terms of ability to continue to conduct business. WS passed through after tax profits to both WB and PRU... If you recall, the original deal was that Citi was buying the bank and WS was going to continue to be a stand alone operation. Its the 15th, still no word on retention and nothing on infomax to indicate that there is or will be any announcement today or anytime in the near future. [/quote] You're right Buki....in marketing there would be no real effect, right? I can just see it now: I can't understand why Dr. Joseph Mengola Jr., who is a really fine dentist by the way, isn't getting any business. I mean really, just b/c he is related to the famed Nazi, Dr Death, I can't see what the big deal is? In marketing, perception is reality and it CAN hurt, whether there is an implication or not. Correct me if I am wrong, are you saying you spent no time explaining the whole conveluted relationship to clients?? ooohhh and I call HIJACK on myself![quote=BukiRob][quote=skillopie]With regard to the freaking topic…
I heard that everyone 250k and over will get retention. For people on a deal alraedy (like me, coming over here from another wirehouse in 2007) or AGE guys, they essentially get bumped back to their original deal. The amount on your deal that has been forgiven is the same amount you are credited again. Similar to what happened for legacy Pru guys on deals when Wachovia bought them. Why do we all deserve a package? For me, and AGE guys, we signed contracts with Wachovia. Our end of the contract (which I have upheld) is to run an advisory practice, bring my clients over, do the same or more T-12 as last year and keep a clean U5. If I fink out on these the firm has a right to come after me for the money it paid me. Wachovia's end of the contract is to provide a platform for me to do said business on, provide me with back office support, custody, recordkeeping, and oh yes, to FREAKING STAY IN BUSINESS!. Wachovia was 1 day away from folding if it wasn't for the Citigroup merger, which then fed into the WFC merger. I kept my end of the bargain, WB didn't keep theirs. Wells Fargo is buying my business fresh. Pay up.[/quote] For the millionth time.... WB had ZERO impact on WS. WS is and was a stand alone LLC between WB and PRU. If WB had gone in recievership, it would not have impacted the brokerage in terms of ability to continue to conduct business. WS passed through after tax profits to both WB and PRU... If you recall, the original deal was that Citi was buying the bank and WS was going to continue to be a stand alone operation. Its the 15th, still no word on retention and nothing on infomax to indicate that there is or will be any announcement today or anytime in the near future. [/quote] What??? Under the Citi deal, what was left of the parent co of WSllc would have been stuck with 10billion in preferred stock to pay dividends on, you don't think that would have had an impact on the brokerage firms ability to stay viable?? If WB would have been siezed, it would have impacted WSllc. WSllc is an asset of WB, at bankruptcy, the assets of WB would have been liquidated, including their share of WSllc.look at Stifels stock performance...how do they do it without retail bank deposits funding them?? The universal bank model is a failure, just as the investment bank proprietary trading model is a failure. The investment banks are converting to commercial banks so they can fund their proprietary trading with cheap stable retail deposits. Neither model provides any value to retail brokers or their customers.not obsessed, just needing the money to finance their survival in the biz.
buki
obvious you are not age legacy and looking in from the outside. My advice is to let the guys vent a little without being criticized espcially in this environment.WS as a stand alone was a scary thought. Did not know what the balance sheet looked like exactly but knew the pfds would eat up most of the potential profit. Then the market gets worse. Maybe they eat up all of the profit... and more. Then Prudential exercises their put. Did anyone notice that they did that? Wonder how that works if WS was a stand alone.
I have explained the joint venture thing to clients until I am blue in the face. We are not the bank. But when it comes to conference calls, My Time , Money market alternatives that are a ripoff, Client fees, no research department, call centers for margin, iras etc, complexing, productivity managers, Oscar procurment center, Silly 401K options, etc. We sure weren't AG Edwards any more. How about accounts full of research department recommendations and then we let all the analysts go. That was kind of tough to deal with and not very client centered.[quote=skbroker]buki
obvious you are not age legacy and looking in from the outside. My advice is to let the guys vent a little without being criticized espcially in this environment. [/quote]That is VERY obvious...but I guess you cant blame a WS lifer for loving the Bank...they don't have any idea what it was like to work for a firm liek AGE was....I wish everyone had that opportunity and am glad I did for as long as I was.
Nestegg,
Are we going to hear Danny "UM" it up or will he deliver some good news with clarity??What I don’t get is why you AGE guys aren’t rioting for another retention bonus like we are at WS/PCG. Is it because you are under contract? I am not which is why I will leave. This thread is about retention or lack thereof, right?
I absolutely agree Sam Houston. We never had to apologize or make excuses to clients at AGE. One clarification, futures accounts were not held at Wachovia but with Pru instead. Even then, the funds are segregated and held at the exchange for the sole benefit of the client. Futures guys don’t trust the banks or the government.
Danny,
I want retention as much as you, they HAVE to play ball on this one..if it is end game with WFC then they pay up to see it through.[quote=Tincup]Nestegg,
Are we going to hear Danny "UM" it up or will he deliver some good news with clarity??[/quote]ummmm ummmm ummmmm I dont know lol
i’m pretty sure, all my retention bonuses (sorry, just had to ) arrived as an e-mail from our RM, or it was the ‘headline’ on infomax. either way, i’m pretty sure we’re not gonna hear it in the key of ‘ummmmm’.
lastly, i'll weigh in on this just for fun.......EVERYONE will receive something in the form of retention[quote=YHWY] Just our of curiosity, what, if any, effect would the sale of WB to WFC have on the AGE/WB retention package? Can the firm being sold create any opportunity for those “loans” to be forgiven at a more rapid rate, or even immediately?
[/quote]
Because they paid next to nothing for the bank, have massive tax credits they cant really use the excuse they cant afford to pay retention because they over reached on the purchase of the bank. IE they have the money. If they dont pay it wont be because they dont have the capital. They were forced to take Tarp money they didn’t really want. Big difference between saying you can’t pay as a risk measure and saying you wont pay because you’re predisposed against paying retention. I do not want to work with a owning entity that thinks that way.
[quote=nestegg]
[quote=skbroker]buki
obvious you are not age legacy and looking in from the outside. My advice is to let the guys vent a little without being criticized espcially in this environment. [/quote]That is VERY obvious…but I guess you cant blame a WS lifer for loving the Bank…they don’t have any idea what it was like to work for a firm liek AGE was…I wish everyone had that opportunity and am glad I did for as long as I was.[/quote]
Im was with Pru. But thanks for making the mindless assumption
ok. now everything makes sense now
how you can you criticize legacy fa’s if have never worked for AGE. someone has been drinking the koolaid too long.
Tuesday night. No word on any call that I have heard of. Complete silence. The bigshots are in St. Louis and arrived yesterday. The real question is…is WFC that stupid. If we were not getting a standard deal, what would the delay be? I imagine that the deal is done and the powers that be are putting the final touches on the retention. The company is quite complex. The merger with AGE and retention, the smaller retention to legacy PCG and the ISG channel and all the new recruits that have hired in the past year or so from other major firms wondering why they came here. The plan has to satisfy a ton of people. The EFL’s are all over the place and I suppose they are trying to see how to compensate brokers in spite of the handcuffs that are in place. The AGE deal was far reaching all the way down to smaller producers. The MER/BAC deal was considered too top heavy. I know brokers there who produce between 500-750 and 25% in cash and 25% in a growth award(because that is so easy in this market) is not the kind of retention that will prevent middle of the pack brokers to leave.
I think that the top end is where is should be. 100pct. From there down, some where that will pay and retain the bread and butter 500k broker. For those between 350-500, a smaller deal, based on where this business has gone. Danny has an obligation to all of us to bring closure to this fiasco. JPM did. Even BAC did it already. 11 weeks later, the silence has brought brokers to ponder whether we are relevant. Danny has always said that the broker comes first and we are his clients. I would never have been able to get to where I am now if I treated my clients the way we are being treated. GET IT DONE so we can all make good decisions and prepare for the challenges and opportunities that come in 2009.[quote=timetogo]Tuesday night. No word on any call that I have heard of. Complete silence. The bigshots are in St. Louis and arrived yesterday. The real question is…is WFC that stupid. If we were not getting a standard deal, what would the delay be? I imagine that the deal is done and the powers that be are putting the final touches on the retention. The company is quite complex. The merger with AGE and retention, the smaller retention to legacy PCG and the ISG channel and all the new recruits that have hired in the past year or so from other major firms wondering why they came here. The plan has to satisfy a ton of people. The EFL’s are all over the place and I suppose they are trying to see how to compensate brokers in spite of the handcuffs that are in place. The AGE deal was far reaching all the way down to smaller producers. The MER/BAC deal was considered too top heavy. I know brokers there who produce between 500-750 and 25% in cash and 25% in a growth award(because that is so easy in this market) is not the kind of retention that will prevent middle of the pack brokers to leave.
I think that the top end is where is should be. 100pct. From there down, some where that will pay and retain the bread and butter 500k broker. For those between 350-500, a smaller deal, based on where this business has gone. Danny has an obligation to all of us to bring closure to this fiasco. JPM did. Even BAC did it already. 11 weeks later, the silence has brought brokers to ponder whether we are relevant. Danny has always said that the broker comes first and we are his clients. I would never have been able to get to where I am now if I treated my clients the way we are being treated. GET IT DONE so we can all make good decisions and prepare for the challenges and opportunities that come in 2009.[/quote] Think you're missing something. JPM bought Bear (brokerage firm), BAC bought Merrill (brokerage firm)..WFC bought Wachovia Bank (Bank) (the brokerage just came with it)..Stumpf has said he NEVER had any intention in the past to buy a brokerage firm. Pretty simple and straighforward in my eyes, not a word has come out, brokers have already left in droves, if you wanted to stop the exodus you would at least say something the effect "that retention package is coming shortly." Whole thing is crystal clear to me, wonder what others are seeing.What would the best case scenario be in this situation that would make staying put a slam-dunk? I seriously would like to hear some scenarios that would make this just hunky-dory for AGE/WB folks.
What would it take to make it slam dunk to stay?? Let me take a shot at answering what is obviousally an antagonistic question. I would think about 40% in some type of upfront deal. My rational is based on the fact that A) the market is down, therefore my prodution will most likely not be duplicated next year B) that is roughly 40% of what I would get in a cash upfront deal (maybe a little less than that, but close) C) I have actually enjoyed my time at WS up until the last few months, and at the end of the day, nobody likes change.
That’s a great answer, duster, and probably very realistic. No antagonism intended.
If they would 100% vest the deferred comp portion of the original deal and 30%-50% in some upfront I would be pleased.
If they just talked with us, I’d be pleased…in some fashion
I think you are on the something. Vest the backend, and pay the same upfront % retention you got last time based on current T12 minus the amount rec'd last time. If you got a retention with backend, you get something. If you have increased your business, you get more retention. Of course this only really works for AGE. Any thoughts?If they would 100% vest the deferred comp portion of the original deal and 30%-50% in some upfront I would be pleased.
In our region we were told that. Couple of weeks ago Danny told stated to a group of brokers that he could not imagine xmas coming w/o announcement. he finally got the job friday. that leaves this week and maybe next.
wfc was never interested before, but now has the 2nd largest firm in the usa. he likes money and WS as a combined unit is a money tree. they will pay.at the broker meetings in stl yesterday Danny said dont expect anything until after the 1st of the year - they are still working on the retention. This comes directly from someone that was in the meeting.
Also rumors are that a few of the largest producers in the firm have left......have not gotten confirmation thought. UBS and Morgan Stanley still paying the most at 2.5+ for the larger producers.at the broker meetings in stl yesterday Danny said dont expect anything until after the 1st of the year…
Think if they wait until Mid year 2009 they wont have pay nearly as much in retention, looks like someone at the top is using his head to save a few schillings.on a scale of 1 to 10, how reliable is your source in the STL meetings?
did your source give any other details?heard some reliable chatter today from bom…
"wachovia fa's should expect a more generous package than the age guys, simply due to how recent the age fa's were 'retained'.i am absolutely blown away by the lack of communication. whether isg, pcg, age, finet…this is poor mgmt in a crisis.
My business is still holding up in this market, so I'm not going to move because of retention, or lack thereof. But if large numbers of quality brokers bail from all divisions, the already poor back office support may even get worse as the firm won't have the $$$ to improve it. I may have to leave as the firm becomes a shell of it's current shell.Is Danny going to ‘freakin’ elaborate? What? I’ve never seen such stupidity!
This is getting really old. I’ve been told by about 3 different layers of management that we’d hear something before Christmas. Now soemone’s saying first of the year. Most of the FA’s I’ve talked to would prefer to stay put but the longer we wait, the longer it looks like its not going to be that good. Our manager keeps telling us its coming , that it won’t be 100%- even for larger producers, and that ISG will be the largest package . Danny has made the comment a few times that ISG will be impacted the most and that they are trying to figure out how to deal with paying teams. People keeping saying that the sticking point is the PR around writing a big check in this environment but ML didn’t seem to get too much bad press for their deal.
I think you are on the something. Vest the backend, and pay the same upfront % retention you got last time based on current T12 minus the amount rec'd last time. If you got a retention with backend, you get something. If you have increased your business, you get more retention. Of course this only really works for AGE. Any thoughts?[/quote][quote=Tincup]If they would 100% vest the deferred comp portion of the original deal and 30%-50% in some upfront I would be pleased.
I think it's funny how you guys keep using the word 'backend'. Is there any 'reacharound' in the 'package'?
[quote=timetogo]on a scale of 1 to 10, how reliable is your source in the STL meetings?
did your source give any other details?[/quote] 20[quote=kowachovia][quote=timetogo]on a scale of 1 to 10, how reliable is your source in the STL meetings?
did your source give any other details?[/quote] 20[/quote] many other details but nothing of significance. I believe that Danny should come out and explain what the hold up is, what the structure might look like broadly, and what the likely time frame is. This is the only firm I have worked for - that may change based on what happens in the next few months. Id prefer to stay, but cant ignore the upfront $. Never before have I had to defend where I worked to my clients. Granted its an industry wide issue, but its still an issue. Independence is an option, but am concerned that the Independents lack deep pockets if the crap hits the fan.I honestly and sincerely apologize, but I can’t resist this anymore:
Have any of you ever heard the story of the “Broker(Boy) Who Cried
WachFargo(Wolf)?” It’s about a person who, over and over makes false
warnings (in one case, about impending danger, in the other, about
impending departure). After many repetitions of this, no one took the
Broker(Boy) seriously anymore when REAL trouble became apparent.
whether we like it or not Wells is driving the ship at this point and calling the shots. I believe that Danny has our best interests at heart, but he may be a little league player completely outmatched in the world series.
I believe that Danny is the one crying wolf and that if there isnt "regretted attrition" Carroll and Wells wont take Danny seriously.... you've got the right story just the wrong people in the leading roles.I honestly and sincerely apologize, but I can’t resist this anymore: Have any of you ever heard the story of the “Broker(Boy) Who Cried WachFargo(Wolf)?” It’s about a person who, over and over makes false warnings (in one case, about impending danger, in the other, about impending departure). After many repetitions of this, no one took the Broker(Boy) seriously anymore when REAL trouble became apparent.
I honestly and truly hope so. I have lots of friends at (AGE)WB…still.
all my isg and pcg friends doing between 600-1mm are sitting on offers to move, but are waiting to hear what the deal is from wells. if no deal announced by the new year, at least half are gone like the wind. those deals at 200% won’t just sit around indefinitely.
i'm absolutely perplexed by the lack of communication.[quote=YHWY] I honestly and sincerely apologize, but I can’t resist this anymore:
Have any of you ever heard the story of the “Broker(Boy) Who Cried
WachFargo(Wolf)?” It’s about a person who, over and over makes false
warnings (in one case, about impending danger, in the other, about
impending departure). After many repetitions of this, no one took the
Broker(Boy) seriously anymore when REAL trouble became apparent.
[/quote]
Really Rob, what does it take for you to mind your own fucking business? You don’t work for Wachovia. Move along.
Danny needs to say something - it may not be what we want to hear, but he has to ummmm, ummmmm address ummmm the troops.
[quote=fritz] at the broker meetings in stl yesterday Danny said dont expect anything until after the 1st of the year…
Think if they wait until Mid year 2009 they wont have pay nearly as much in retention, looks like someone at the top is using his head to save a few schillings.[/quote]
I dont buy it. I was told today by the market manager in our sales meeting that the announcement is going to be made BEFORE christmas
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=fritz] at the broker meetings in stl yesterday Danny said dont expect anything until after the 1st of the year…
Think if they wait until Mid year 2009 they wont have pay nearly as much in retention, looks like someone at the top is using his head to save a few schillings.[/quote]
I dont buy it. I was told today by the market manager in our sales meeting that the announcement is going to be made BEFORE christmas[/quote] I hope you're right, and my source is wrong...I have to imagine they are working on getting this done, and communicating to Wells the importance of acting sooner rather than later.
All this wild ass speculation reminds me of the threads when we were waiting for the AGE retention package a year ago. Turns out that no one had inside info and many of the contributors to the threads were trolls and people trying to shit disturb. Seriously, we will know when we know.
agreed.All this wild ass speculation reminds me of the threads when we were waiting for the AGE retention package a year ago. Turns out that no one had inside info and many of the contributors to the threads were trolls and people trying to shit disturb. Seriously, we will know when we know.
Did anyone hear that Carrol had heart surgery and that has pushed things back a few weeks?
BOM also said our regional told us before or right after Christmas, same guy who said before Thanksgiving.I am one of those in PCG between 750 - 1MM that is sitting on a deal. You can count me and my clients GONE if nothing comes down by Jan 1. This has to be one of the biggest jerk offs in brokerage history. Not only does Danny have no power he can’t even speak. Someone should set an over/under on how many “ummm’s” comes out of this dudes mouth the next time he wastes 30 minutes of our time.
I like the speculation about “nothing until next year”. Don’t they plan on closing by the end of the year? Who is going to sign their U-4 over to WFC without seeing a retention package? I am not. Let’s see a show of hands who will sign before they show us something.
[quote=JamesF]Did anyone hear that Carrol had heart surgery and that has pushed things back a few weeks?
BOM also said our regional told us before or right after Christmas, same guy who said before Thanksgiving.[/quote] That was the reason the market manager gave for the delay.Lack of communication due to no new news is malpractice if we did that to our clients. Can you imagine not communicating with your clients since October???
They are communicating. Just today I recieved an email on severance pay. That is soothing!!
In reference to the severence package email…I could not believe that came out the way that it did. Did the AGE guys get it?? Unreal!!
Severance? Really? I haven’t heard…details please.
Just a blast email to EVERYBODY (or so I thought), detailing how the new company will have overlap, blah blah blah, and that everybody who is let go will get a severence package based on their LOS with WB/WFC, and based upon their BEC (Benefits Eligable Compensation). There was just no warning of this, and a lot of people thought htta this was their notification that they got pink slipped. Very poorly done.
Where is George Bailey when you need him.
He’s living in St. Louis wondering how he ever let Bob Bagby (playing an exceptionally fine Potter) take his once fine firm and drive it into the ground.
DL is definitely Uncle Billy
Yes AGE guys got it as well. Very poorly done indeed.
i just called HR and ripped into them on my drive home…it DID make me feel better. for the mergers i’ve been through (first union, wachovia, wachovia/ prudential, ag edwards, wfc) and of which i’ve stayed put, i have NEVER received an e-mail like this.
this time every single employee in the firm did get the e-mail, though. maybe they plan to cut the bottom 5-10% of producers as well as support staff.Got the feeling nobody at WB even knew the email was being sent out. For you out there that are wondering about retention, how can they have spent any time on that when this has probably taken a couple months by itself. Am curious if 100 people out here care, how many actually think there is any retention coming?
WS certainly did not know it was coming and YES there will be retention, what form or size, I do not know but spoke w/ someone in "Sr. Management" and they said it IS coming "soon". Tried to get more details but to no avail....fyiGot the feeling nobody at WB even knew the email was being sent out. For you out there that are wondering about retention, how can they have spent any time on that when this has probably taken a couple months by itself. Am curious if 100 people out here care, how many actually think there is any retention coming?
Well they fucked the new guys that earned the 25K debit card but good. I guess the firm will hear how it’s somehow a good deal in the AM.
[quote=Gaddock]Well they fucked the new guys that earned the 25K debit card but good. I guess the firm will hear how it’s somehow a good deal in the AM. [/quote]
Did they take it away from you? Did you spend any of it, yet? Sorry dude.
It's gone on the 31st and changing to the type of program an older broker can take X out before taxes. Problem, the allowable amounts and projects make it not very practicle (sarcasm) Example no more that $4 for a promotional item. No more more than $25 expenses per client per year. Rules on "marketing" are what is allowed to be deductible per IRS tax return rules etc. etc. A thousand miles from the "reward" for hard work and good production.
Oh yeah … you have to pay in advance and cross your fingers they will agree on reimbersements.
[quote=Gaddock]Oh yeah … you have to pay in advance and cross your fingers they will agree on reimbersements.[/quote]
Yep. You’re screwed. Sorry.
[quote=Gaddock]
It’s gone on the 31st and changing to the type of program an older broker can take X out before taxes. Problem, the allowable amounts and projects make it not very practicle (sarcasm) Example no more that $4 for a promotional item. No more more than $25 expenses per client per year. Rules on “marketing” are what is allowed to be deductible per IRS tax return rules etc. etc. A thousand miles from the “reward” for hard work and good production.
[/quote]You need to be creative. Most of the brokers i know can do that before there first cup of coffee.
Perhaps, but, we shouldnt have to scheme, scam and pay in advance for a bonus that was earned. It’s more the spirit and trend taking shape that concerns me. Not only will I (we?) not get a retention deal but they’ve already piked out on 25k that was part of my package.
[quote=Danny Isadouche]
I am hearing WFC will have to go to the TARP for the retention bonus money. You think the press will have some fun with that one. I have been around long enough to know that whatever it is it will be PATHETIC. This is why I am packing my bags[/quote] You started on the 9th...Are you done packing yet? Or still putting away the toothpaste and deodorantThey also cancelled the Presidents council Ski trip, but giving a cash amount instead.
I was supposed to go to Cancun. I guess $4500 is better than nothing.
[quote=JamesF]I was supposed to go to Cancun. I guess $4500 is better than nothing. [/quote]
$4500 is also better than going to Cancun.
No kidding. for 4500 I could go to Cabo and have sex with multiple hookers that look like models.
I spoke with the lady who arranges these trips 4 weeks ago to get info for flight and activities in Cancun and Ritz. I asked her what the taxable value of the trip would be and she sad for you and spouse $7,500. $4,500 cash value falls short but at this point I’ll take bird in hand.
Why did they cancel the trips?
Technically they didn’t cancel, said they would pay flight and accomodations however no meals, transportation or activities…I think it has to do with AIG heat. Or take cash in lieu (details mentioned above)
[quote=Gaddock]
It's gone on the 31st and changing to the type of program an older broker can take X out before taxes. Problem, the allowable amounts and projects make it not very practicle (sarcasm) Example no more that $4 for a promotional item. No more more than $25 expenses per client per year. Rules on "marketing" are what is allowed to be deductible per IRS tax return rules etc. etc. A thousand miles from the "reward" for hard work and good production.
[/quote] cmon, now---dont blow it out of proportion.... Thats not exactly the deal....yes its a bitch that the card goes away Jan 1, but if you made a call, you'd know that it has zero to do w/ WS...AND, their working on a replacement.... Nothing else w/ the award changed. no one said anything about reduced limits r any of that crap. quit being so damn negative.I asked the question about taxable value of the trip and that is the exact answer I got. Look I took the cash and I’m fine about it, as for limits what are you referring to? I’m talking about the production trips not a card. I’m on the AGE Legacy side
I see you were talking to the group a page back, the late response through me off
look at my quote, bro---I was replying to Gaddocks post about the card-- I feel you on the trip--been hearing about it in the branch for 2 wks...saving face in the light of AIG's scotsdale trip appearantly. btw--age also. Bladerunner is on SciFi right now---killer movie.I asked the question about taxable value of the trip and that is the exact answer I got. Look I took the cash and I’m fine about it, as for limits what are you referring to? I’m talking about the production trips not a card. I’m on the AGE Legacy side
sorry --slow to reply- missed your post.I see you were talking to the group a page back, the late response through me off
I am packed and ready to roll (and cash a big upfront check). I owe it to my clients and myself to see what the dirt bags at WFC offer. I have a feeling they are going to try to get us to sign a U4 over to WFC without any deal. That will be be the day that I turn in my resignation and go to a firm that has respect for those that produce revenue. The guys at Bear and Lehmann had a sweet retention in front of them within days. HAS ANYBODY HEARD ANYTHING?
Anybody else hearing about a meeting at the Four Seasons in Texas right now??
I know that Danny and a group where in the “Twin Cities” the last couple of days with there Wells “Merger Partner”. Not sure if they are back today. No new incite on “When” it will be announced, but know it will!?!?
<SPAN =SubSuber>All-Associate Call at 1:00 p.m. ET on Friday, December 19 - Monthly Update with Danny Ludeman
Thu Dec 18 5:37 PM ETTime:1:00 p.m. ET (12:00 p.m. CT)
Dial-in: 877-790-0534
International: 706-634-0882
Conference ID: 78890535
Call Replay information:
Dial-in: 800-642-1687
Int'l: 706-645-9291
Conference ID: 78890535
Darn It! I have a lunch meeting with Smith Barney. Can someone keep track of the number of “ummms” that come out of DL’S mouth and post the results here. WFC slapped investment banking in the face by cutting their bonus 90%, how do you think they are going to treat us?
WFC has been clear that they are not interested in investment banking so cutting their bonus is no surprise. How they really feel about the brokerage business is still a mystery. So far they have treated it like a hungry kid treats the toy in a Happy Meal - It gets tossed aside while the kid grabs the fries and mumbles, “Yeah that’s neat, but I’ll get around to it later.”
This is RIDICULOUS we wont know anything until mid January!? Just what in god’s name has management been doing? We were supposed to know around thanksgiving… now who knows. Words can not express how disappointed I am in management. This comes off as management having zero clue as to what they are doing and/or they simply dont give a rats ass. WTF even bother with a conference call if all you are going to say is nothing???
On the bright side he compared us to soldiers in the trenches during WWII.
On the bright side he compared us to soldiers in the trenches during WWII.
The problem is management is the ones shooting at us!
[quote=Reggin] On the bright side he compared us to soldiers in the trenches during WWII.
The problem is management is the ones shooting at us![/quote]
I have an idea...why don't you get back to building your business and not worry about what management is doing. Whatever it is, it won't be in your favor. Deal with it. Either leave or get back to work.
This is bull in every way. He’s going to START working for us after the holidays? Good grief Charlie Brown
For those of us who watch NASCAR only for the crashes - please expound on the conference call/pep rally/wake today
[quote=Hank Moody]
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Reggin] On the bright side he compared us to soldiers in the trenches during WWII.[/quote]
The problem is management is the ones shooting at us![/quote]I have an idea…why don’t you get back to building your business and not worry about what management is doing. Whatever it is, it won’t be in your favor. Deal with it. Either leave or get back to work. [/quote]
I have a better idea why dont you worry about your business instead of mine.
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Hank Moody]
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Reggin] On the bright side he compared us to soldiers in the trenches during WWII.[/quote]
The problem is management is the ones shooting at us![/quote]I have an idea…why don’t you get back to building your business and not worry about what management is doing. Whatever it is, it won’t be in your favor. Deal with it. Either leave or get back to work. [/quote]
I have a better idea why dont you worry about your business instead of mine.[/quote]
My job is to worry about those who are prone to violent emotional reactions to shapes and symbols on their computer monitors. You fit the bill.
[quote=Hank Moody]
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Hank Moody]
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Reggin] On the bright side he compared us to soldiers in the trenches during WWII.[/quote]
The problem is management is the ones shooting at us![/quote]I have an idea…why don’t you get back to building your business and not worry about what management is doing. Whatever it is, it won’t be in your favor. Deal with it. Either leave or get back to work. [/quote]
I have a better idea why dont you worry about your business instead of mine.[/quote]My job is to worry about those who are prone to violent emotional reactions to shapes and symbols on their computer monitors. You fit the bill. [/quote]
Listen zippy, mind your own business and stay out of mine. Clear enough for you ? The only real flaw on this site is there isnt an ignore button. You fit that candidacy very, very well
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Hank Moody]
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Hank Moody]
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Reggin] On the bright side he compared us to soldiers in the trenches during WWII.[/quote]
The problem is management is the ones shooting at us![/quote]I have an idea…why don’t you get back to building your business and not worry about what management is doing. Whatever it is, it won’t be in your favor. Deal with it. Either leave or get back to work. [/quote]
I have a better idea why dont you worry about your business instead of mine.[/quote]My job is to worry about those who are prone to violent emotional reactions to shapes and symbols on their computer monitors. You fit the bill. [/quote]
Listen zippy, mind your own business and stay out of mine. Clear enough for you ? The only real flaw on this site is there isnt an ignore button. You fit that candidacy very, very well[/quote]
When you put your business on the internet, it becomes all of our business.
If it makes you feel any better, my payout is 90% on securities and 100% on everything else. Also, my destiny is in MY hands and not those of “management.”
Did anybody get an “ummmm” count on that stammering YES man?
Now its mid Jan to find out??? Earlier this week it was right after new years, That to me means by like Jan 5. NOT JAN 25.!!! Better be over 75% at this point for 500k producers. There wont be any deals by mid Jan to take. Maybe is best to take the 200% now and at least you know.
[quote=3rd ID]Now its mid Jan to find out??? Earlier this week it was right after new years, That to me means by like Jan 5. NOT JAN 25.!!! Better be over 75% at this point for 500k producers. There wont be any deals by mid Jan to take. Maybe is best to take the 200% now and at least you know.
[/quote]
50% for the big guys at best. I’m saying it now, tell me I’m dead wrong later IF I am. I’ll come in and eat crow in that event.
This is going to go down and most overplayed and underwhelming “retention” deal in recent years. It’s going to be fairly flat. Relatively small for the big producer and decent for the small guys.
I did hear that they are making progress. Danny said today that he thinks it might go past the holiday. I was also told that it is possible for the 23rd. Either way, the deals all are getting to the point that you have to sh*t or get off the pot. If your day comes and you stay you are subject to the consequence of the offer getting discounted. Tough choices. I have to think that a material retention is coming. In St Louis, Jim Hayes even went so far as to say that the offer is geared towards higher production and will be net after subtracting any current unforgiven efl balances. If after all this time has passed, the offer comes out and is less than the deals that were offered at merrill and the other firms people with real a real practice will leave. Not just for the check, but for the statement that a less than deal will represent. WFC may not have wanted a brokerage firm, but they have one now and they will not only have to show us the money, but do damage control and make us feel that they want us. At this point, no communication from WFC like "welcome or we repect what you do or we want you and need you." The window is closing and their opportunity to make things right is too. I still believe the deal will be offered. If not Wachovia Securities or Wells Fargo Advisors will lose their best talent. Think about it...80 percent of the business is done by 20 percent of the brokers. They will pay. Not becasue they want to, but because they have to. If not, you and hundreds more are gone within weeks.
At this point, I suspect that if a WB/WCF official were to personally walk into every AGE/WB broker’s office and spit directly into his/her face, many would wipe it off and decide to “stay put, wait and see what happens”.
[quote=timetogo]
I did hear that they are making progress. Danny said today that he thinks it might go past the holiday. I was also told that it is possible for the 23rd. Either way, the deals all are getting to the point that you have to sh*t or get off the pot. If your day comes and you stay you are subject to the consequence of the offer getting discounted. Tough choices. I have to think that a material retention is coming. In St Louis, Jim Hayes even went so far as to say that the offer is geared towards higher production and will be net after subtracting any current unforgiven efl balances. If after all this time has passed, the offer comes out and is less than the deals that were offered at merrill and the other firms people with real a real practice will leave. Not just for the check, but for the statement that a less than deal will represent. WFC may not have wanted a brokerage firm, but they have one now and they will not only have to show us the money, but do damage control and make us feel that they want us. At this point, no communication from WFC like "welcome or we repect what you do or we want you and need you." The window is closing and their opportunity to make things right is too. I still believe the deal will be offered. If not Wachovia Securities or Wells Fargo Advisors will lose their best talent. Think about it...80 percent of the business is done by 20 percent of the brokers. They will pay. Not becasue they want to, but because they have to. If not, you and hundreds more are gone within weeks.
[/quote] " better not be less than the deal at Merrill" Are you kidding? From sources at Wells, far far less than ML. They are still trying to figure out a way for nothing. Deals will get smaller going forward, so the 80/20 split will be somewhat meaningless in 2009. Big Guys/Teams still be ok, but guys heading towards 500K in gross are going to have limited choices next year. Bank America today came out 350K and under get 15% grid next year, that is amazing, but B of A is setting the standard, look for that grid to make its way to ML for 2010.The home office employees had their bonuses cut by 80%, and for many of the traders and top level management employees, the bonus made up a significant portion of their total pay. Those people have also had their restricted stock/options basically go to zero. Many of those people have also really been through the grinder in the last year thanks to the "univeral bank" model. Atleast as producers, you have a little more control over your compensation, home office employees got screwed for things they had no control of.
I am going to offer a “macro-” perspective. Let the slings and arrows fly:
WB aqcuired AGE for about $6.7 bil (as of the announcement date). The purchase included about $2 bil that AGE held in cash, and NO debt (which was eerily similar in value of the retention package that was paid to retained brokers). It also included roughly 2 million sq. ft. of bought and paid for prime office space in St. Louis, which WS promptly occupied as it’s Securities HQ. All of this was Before the recent unpleasantness. What comperably assets is Wells aqcuiring in the new deal that can even compare to that as it pertaind to the securities divsion of WB?
What is the difference between the old AGE and SF? SF stock is up over 30% this year.
Someone asked me today why AGE had to sell. I started to give the "size and scope" bs line that we've heard ad nauseum, then just stopped myself because I didn't even believe the words coming out of my mouth.I’m thinking there will be NO retention package at all. Like it or not we went from AGE to WB and then bankrupt in short order. Pru wants it’s cash and at the end of the day where you going to go? They’ve sent out a ‘your soon to be fired’ letter out just before Chistmas. I think they very much did it to make a point. The bonus for the Christmas season holiday prospecting / production is $25 of WB memorabelia!! Can you f-ing believe it? TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS !!! YEAH That makes me want to run to work the day after Christmas and be away from my kids. I might win a WB key chain or t-shirt. IF I got any WB memorabelia I would toss it in the air and blast it with two barrels of 00 buck. They ought to give out Bagby & Danny dart boards.
[quote=Gordon Gekko]
What is the difference between the old AGE and SF? SF stock is up over 30% this year.
Someone asked me today why AGE had to sell. I started to give the "size and scope" bs line that we've heard ad nauseum, then just stopped myself because I didn't even believe the words coming out of my mouth. [/quote] employees of SF own over 50% of the companies stock, and AGE employees didn't. I don't believe that Stifel has as lucrative a retirement plan or other benefits that AGE had, and Stifel does have a small amount of debt and preferred stock outstanding I think, away from that, I think the philosophy is about the same. Stifels CEO referred to the "scale and scope" argument as "hogwash".Agree the email of your getting fired very soon was basically the same as you are not getting any retention.. But for those who believe, one question...What do you think will happen first, 10,000+ get layed off from Wachovia or $1.00 of retention being given out???I’m thinking there will be NO retention package at all. Like it or not we went from AGE to WB and then bankrupt in short order. Pru wants it’s cash and at the end of the day where you going to go? They’ve sent out a ‘your soon to be fired’ letter out just before Chistmas. I think they very much did it to make a point. The bonus for the Christmas season holiday prospecting / production is $25 of WB memorabelia!! Can you f-ing believe it? TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS !!! YEAH That makes me want to run to work the day after Christmas and be away from my kids. I might win a WB key chain or t-shirt. IF I got any WB memorabelia I would toss it in the air and blast it with two barrels of 00 buck. They ought to give out Bagby & Danny dart boards.
Again, “macro-” observation:
I believe the entire Wells Fargo’s retail brokerage force consists of about 3500 FC’s. What would be the only really practical way to integrate an additional brokerage force of about 12,000, or whatever WS has today?
It seems to me that the real question may be, IF Wells wants to maintain a retail brokerage or not, rather than how to properly compensate that potential new brokerage force.
It’s not WB absorbing 3500 FC’s, it’s Wells potentially absorbing @12,000.
I heard (and I think the call confirmed it) that the retention had to wait for Danny to be appointed as CEO so he could present it to WFC for approval. I’ve heard that is happening within a week or two. So I understand announcement is before the end of the year or the first week of January.
I also understand it is a good retention package - much better than ML - and was going to paid quickly - all upfront with 5 year forgiven loans. Wachovia lost at least one big big team recently in my area that I know of and I don’t think they want to see any more attrition.
Danny - to me - has had a vision for a close knit company or team of brokers representing one of the biggest financial services firms in the world with the best pay package, the best technology, and a kind of family feel to it. He’s had this vision right along.
So, to me anyway, everyone was one board with this and reasonably content. The he acquired AG Edwards and then many of that group seemed very cynical. They were sold out by their CEO so who could blame them.
WB then flares out and the bottom falls out of his vision but, soon enough, Wells picks us up, and things start to get stable and back in line with what he wanted to accomplish.
5 years ago he said that only a couple of big firms would remain and they would be backed by banks offering the whole universal bank model. Well, he was right. A year or so ago he predicted MS and many small regional firms could be extinct or merged, right again.
He wanted to build one of the biggest firms on the street - he did it. He wanted the highest payout - he did it. He’s also built the only wirehouse offering an independent and semi-independent channel with few restricitons involved switching over to it. Now, the retention could come through and deliver a lot of happy brokers - which I think it might.
So, you have to give this individual a lot of credit for his vision, for being right, building the firm that he envisioned years ago, and being a nice, honest, and approachable leader.
Do you think they got this degree of concern and candor at MS / ML / UBS / Citgroup? Hell no they don’t. UBS marked down the Auction Rate PFD’s in client accounts without telling the brokers! Danny had weekly calls on how he was personally tackling the ARP problem! Another firm had an internal memo recommending pounding the ARP’s into client accounts so they wouldn’t be left holding them! ML basically gave older brokers under 400K a gentle nudge out the door! Danny raised the payout.
And. from my experience you’d be lucky to ever meet one of the leader of the other big firms even once in your life. Danny had us over to his house for a barbeque and to meet the family! He later had us down to St. Louis to describe his vision and directly answer any questions that anyone had.
So even though he goes on a bit with his concern, I believe it’s honest and sincere. I also listen closely to his advice because he’s been absolutely accurate about the direction of the industry for as long as I can remember. He couldn’t do much about the bank - now it’s like he’s recovering from an almost fatal car crash but he seems to be getting back to normal.
When you think about it he’s accomplished the size, scale, payout, and stability parts of his vision now he just has to get the brokers back on board - which might happen with a decent retention.
So, yes from what I’ve heard there is retention and it is good. And Ludemann has been honest and accurate right along so why doubt his word at this point.
So you think the Ludeman model has been a success? WB $5.66 a share, BAC $13.80, ubs $12.57. ms $15.47. Employee bonuses have been slashed, brokers have had their payouts cut, clients have seen their fees rise....How does this compare to Ed Jones, RJ, Baird, Stifel?? WB merger with Pru was a disaster, and the merger with AGE was a disaster for the employees and the shareholders. US Bank is one of the best managed banks around, and they quickly spun off Piper realizing their mistake. Maybe Wells will give WS autonomy and it will work out, but make no mistake, Wells didn't want to be in the brokerage business, they took it to get the bank assets they wanted on the east coast, and the price was right.I heard (and I think the call confirmed it) that the retention had to wait for Danny to be appointed as CEO so he could present it to WFC for approval. I’ve heard that is happening within a week or two. So I understand announcement is before the end of the year or the first week of January.
I also understand it is a good retention package - much better than ML - and was going to paid quickly - all upfront with 5 year forgiven loans. Wachovia lost at least one big big team recently in my area that I know of and I don’t think they want to see any more attrition.
Danny - to me - has had a vision for a close knit company or team of brokers representing one of the biggest financial services firms in the world with the best pay package, the best technology, and a kind of family feel to it. He’s had this vision right along.
So, to me anyway, everyone was one board with this and reasonably content. The he acquired AG Edwards and then many of that group seemed very cynical. They were sold out by their CEO so who could blame them.
WB then flares out and the bottom falls out of his vision but, soon enough, Wells picks us up, and things start to get stable and back in line with what he wanted to accomplish.
5 years ago he said that only a couple of big firms would remain and they would be backed by banks offering the whole universal bank model. Well, he was right. A year or so ago he predicted MS and many small regional firms could be extinct or merged, right again.
He wanted to build one of the biggest firms on the street - he did it. He wanted the highest payout - he did it. He’s also built the only wirehouse offering an independent and semi-independent channel with few restricitons involved switching over to it. Now, the retention could come through and deliver a lot of happy brokers - which I think it might.
So, you have to give this individual a lot of credit for his vision, for being right, building the firm that he envisioned years ago, and being a nice, honest, and approachable leader.
Do you think they got this degree of concern and candor at MS / ML / UBS / Citgroup? Hell no they don’t. UBS marked down the Auction Rate PFD’s in client accounts without telling the brokers! Danny had weekly calls on how he was personally tackling the ARP problem! Another firm had an internal memo recommending pounding the ARP’s into client accounts so they wouldn’t be left holding them! ML basically gave older brokers under 400K a gentle nudge out the door! Danny raised the payout.
And. from my experience you’d be lucky to ever meet one of the leader of the other big firms even once in your life. Danny had us over to his house for a barbeque and to meet the family! He later had us down to St. Louis to describe his vision and directly answer any questions that anyone had.
So even though he goes on a bit with his concern, I believe it’s honest and sincere. I also listen closely to his advice because he’s been absolutely accurate about the direction of the industry for as long as I can remember. He couldn’t do much about the bank - now it’s like he’s recovering from an almost fatal car crash but he seems to be getting back to normal.
When you think about it he’s accomplished the size, scale, payout, and stability parts of his vision now he just has to get the brokers back on board - which might happen with a decent retention.
So, yes from what I’ve heard there is retention and it is good. And Ludemann has been honest and accurate right along so why doubt his word at this point.
Also, by smooth talking Bagby into selling out ,he ruined the lives of hundreds of AGE employees. And quite a few in Richmond as well.
Sell High…good points. I agree with the meeting a major CEO bit. I have been in meetings with him 2x now. Never met Komansky when I was at ML. And I know a good number of FA’s who did go to his home and were treated extremely well and DL was very engaging with all. These were not all million $ producers either. He and his wifes hospitality extended to folks in the 500k plus levels as well. It was well appreciated. I guess we have to extend the benefit of the doubt for a little longer. Not much else we can do. Except leave of course, if thats the best business decision for an individual to make.
[quote=AGE2RIA]Also, by smooth talking Bagby into selling out ,he ruined the lives of hundreds of AGE employees. And quite a few in Richmond as well.[/quote]
Would that it could be laid at one man’s feet like that. The fact is that the “smooth talk” was in the form of a dollar-per-share-amount and the recipient of the “smooth talk” was mutual fund managers. Too late to lay blame there, I’m afraid.
So you think the Ludeman model has been a success? WB $5.66 a share, BAC $13.80, ubs $12.57. ms $15.47. Employee bonuses have been slashed, brokers have had their payouts cut, clients have seen their fees rise....How does this compare to Ed Jones, RJ, Baird, Stifel?? WB merger with Pru was a disaster, and the merger with AGE was a disaster for the employees and the shareholders. US Bank is one of the best managed banks around, and they quickly spun off Piper realizing their mistake. Maybe Wells will give WS autonomy and it will work out, but make no mistake, Wells didn't want to be in the brokerage business, they took it to get the bank assets they wanted on the east coast, and the price was right.[/quote] B of A came out today and announced 15% payout for guys 350K and under for 2009..How is WFC going to give this type of production a retention?? Please explain something that makes sense to me, one does not care if the guy leaves and the other gives the guy a bonus for staying[quote=Sell High]I heard (and I think the call confirmed it) that the retention had to wait for Danny to be appointed as CEO so he could present it to WFC for approval. I’ve heard that is happening within a week or two. So I understand announcement is before the end of the year or the first week of January.
I also understand it is a good retention package - much better than ML - and was going to paid quickly - all upfront with 5 year forgiven loans. Wachovia lost at least one big big team recently in my area that I know of and I don’t think they want to see any more attrition.
Danny - to me - has had a vision for a close knit company or team of brokers representing one of the biggest financial services firms in the world with the best pay package, the best technology, and a kind of family feel to it. He’s had this vision right along.
So, to me anyway, everyone was one board with this and reasonably content. The he acquired AG Edwards and then many of that group seemed very cynical. They were sold out by their CEO so who could blame them.
WB then flares out and the bottom falls out of his vision but, soon enough, Wells picks us up, and things start to get stable and back in line with what he wanted to accomplish.
5 years ago he said that only a couple of big firms would remain and they would be backed by banks offering the whole universal bank model. Well, he was right. A year or so ago he predicted MS and many small regional firms could be extinct or merged, right again.
He wanted to build one of the biggest firms on the street - he did it. He wanted the highest payout - he did it. He’s also built the only wirehouse offering an independent and semi-independent channel with few restricitons involved switching over to it. Now, the retention could come through and deliver a lot of happy brokers - which I think it might.
So, you have to give this individual a lot of credit for his vision, for being right, building the firm that he envisioned years ago, and being a nice, honest, and approachable leader.
Do you think they got this degree of concern and candor at MS / ML / UBS / Citgroup? Hell no they don’t. UBS marked down the Auction Rate PFD’s in client accounts without telling the brokers! Danny had weekly calls on how he was personally tackling the ARP problem! Another firm had an internal memo recommending pounding the ARP’s into client accounts so they wouldn’t be left holding them! ML basically gave older brokers under 400K a gentle nudge out the door! Danny raised the payout.
And. from my experience you’d be lucky to ever meet one of the leader of the other big firms even once in your life. Danny had us over to his house for a barbeque and to meet the family! He later had us down to St. Louis to describe his vision and directly answer any questions that anyone had.
So even though he goes on a bit with his concern, I believe it’s honest and sincere. I also listen closely to his advice because he’s been absolutely accurate about the direction of the industry for as long as I can remember. He couldn’t do much about the bank - now it’s like he’s recovering from an almost fatal car crash but he seems to be getting back to normal.
When you think about it he’s accomplished the size, scale, payout, and stability parts of his vision now he just has to get the brokers back on board - which might happen with a decent retention.
So, yes from what I’ve heard there is retention and it is good. And Ludemann has been honest and accurate right along so why doubt his word at this point.
guys its friday. give it a rest
Danny is our advocate. I give him credit for trying.
I dont believe DL had anything to do with demise of WB.....circumstances beyond his control. Thompson buying Golden West created the problems we endured this past year. As far as I know DL has run WS as a very profitable securities firms (present year excluded). hopefully a nice retention announced soon!!You're spot on. Nice post. Glad to see that not everybody on this site is a victim that assumes everybody is out to get them. As far as the universal bank model is concerned, I guess the jury is still out. However, my production has benefited from the mortgages and asset lines that I've referred to the Affluent Banking unit. Something that didn't happen at Edwards.I heard (and I think the call confirmed it) that the retention had to wait for Danny to be appointed as CEO so he could present it to WFC for approval. I’ve heard that is happening within a week or two. So I understand announcement is before the end of the year or the first week of January.
I also understand it is a good retention package - much better than ML - and was going to paid quickly - all upfront with 5 year forgiven loans. Wachovia lost at least one big big team recently in my area that I know of and I don’t think they want to see any more attrition.
Danny - to me - has had a vision for a close knit company or team of brokers representing one of the biggest financial services firms in the world with the best pay package, the best technology, and a kind of family feel to it. He’s had this vision right along.
So, to me anyway, everyone was one board with this and reasonably content. The he acquired AG Edwards and then many of that group seemed very cynical. They were sold out by their CEO so who could blame them.
WB then flares out and the bottom falls out of his vision but, soon enough, Wells picks us up, and things start to get stable and back in line with what he wanted to accomplish.
5 years ago he said that only a couple of big firms would remain and they would be backed by banks offering the whole universal bank model. Well, he was right. A year or so ago he predicted MS and many small regional firms could be extinct or merged, right again.
He wanted to build one of the biggest firms on the street - he did it. He wanted the highest payout - he did it. He’s also built the only wirehouse offering an independent and semi-independent channel with few restricitons involved switching over to it. Now, the retention could come through and deliver a lot of happy brokers - which I think it might.
So, you have to give this individual a lot of credit for his vision, for being right, building the firm that he envisioned years ago, and being a nice, honest, and approachable leader.
Do you think they got this degree of concern and candor at MS / ML / UBS / Citgroup? Hell no they don’t. UBS marked down the Auction Rate PFD’s in client accounts without telling the brokers! Danny had weekly calls on how he was personally tackling the ARP problem! Another firm had an internal memo recommending pounding the ARP’s into client accounts so they wouldn’t be left holding them! ML basically gave older brokers under 400K a gentle nudge out the door! Danny raised the payout.
And. from my experience you’d be lucky to ever meet one of the leader of the other big firms even once in your life. Danny had us over to his house for a barbeque and to meet the family! He later had us down to St. Louis to describe his vision and directly answer any questions that anyone had.
So even though he goes on a bit with his concern, I believe it’s honest and sincere. I also listen closely to his advice because he’s been absolutely accurate about the direction of the industry for as long as I can remember. He couldn’t do much about the bank - now it’s like he’s recovering from an almost fatal car crash but he seems to be getting back to normal.
When you think about it he’s accomplished the size, scale, payout, and stability parts of his vision now he just has to get the brokers back on board - which might happen with a decent retention.
So, yes from what I’ve heard there is retention and it is good. And Ludemann has been honest and accurate right along so why doubt his word at this point.
I am assuming the Danny fans are all legacy WS brokers lol!
I don’t think we think anyone is out to get us…just that we can see where thinsg are headed…more fees for clients, less services, lower payouts for brokers and much worse service from the home office…ahhhhh scale and scope gotta love it!
[quote=nestegg]
I am assuming the Danny fans are all legacy WS brokers lol!
I and much worse service from the home office…ahhhhh scale and scope gotta love it!
[/quote]
Same home office you have had for years. A few new names sprinkled in.
[quote=Hydeho]
[quote=nestegg]
I am assuming the Danny fans are all legacy WS brokers lol!
I and much worse service from the home office…ahhhhh scale and scope gotta love it!
[/quote]
Same home office you have had for years. A few new names sprinkled in.
[/quote]
Same home office in location not in staff…we never had automated messages and menus to try to talk to someone until WS…and the people we talk to now are not nearly teh same caliber that we had two years ago…alot of good home office people left and went other places…and there were some layoffs that did not make the headlines…the replacements seem to be of a much lower level…it is night and day…even ol Danny keeps mentioning service issues…we NEVER had those issues before. I realize you guys have no way of knowing all this.
Just like researh…almost all the good analysts…the ones that consistently were award winners are gone… the best investment strategy people are gone as well.
Kind of like Ben Edwards used to say…people are our business…without them all we have is a bunch of buildings…seems Wachovia/WF now has a bunch of buildings…most of teh good people they “bought” are gone.
I have noticed the changes in the home office. Menu’s, disgruntled attitudes, phone ringing and ringing at the bond desk. For sure it is not like it was a couple years ago.
BUT… I’ve also noticed that within the past couple months it is starting to take a turn. Home office people are starting to become more efficient. I get callbacks and the phone is getting answered.
Let’s face it, it will never be just like AGE but I can see they are on the right path finally.
I think it’s more a function of fear for their job than a magical turn around in efficiency. Fear is a great motivation.
Either way, it’s working
Well, I stewed over this all weekend, and I have a question. We (WS/AGE) have been making the comments of “the new firm must not think much of us if there has been no retention info”, and after listening to Danny’s call on Friday, and finding out that they have not even GIVEN the numbers to Wells, who’s the real problem?? Danny, or Wells, or neither??
On a side note, listening to the THOUSANDS of hang-ups during the call on Friday was comical!!!The problem is you and I do not know what Wells is saying to WS management. It may be that Wells is telling Danny L that they are not ready to talk about retention. I have a very difficult time believing that DL "dropped the ball" on this. It would be so out of character that I just dont believe that happened.
Just another day to follow the “bouncing ball”
Danny sent a letter to ME!! He said happy holiday and he knows it's been tough. Since he's thinking of ME I feel great .... Wait ????????
Everybody got one
[quote=Gaddock]
Danny sent a letter to ME!! He said happy holiday and he knows it’s been tough. Since he’s thinking of ME I feel great … Wait ???
Everybody got one
[/quote]Mine had naked picture of his wife inside.
I think the reason we have not been told about the retention is because there isn’t any. There is no good way to tell us that. My question would be where is it better? I don’t have other options locally (No MS, ML, SmithBarney, UBS). I guess I don’t know where it would be better. I am happy with our new pay plan, I don’t like the little fees, but if that is bad is it will get it doesn’t seem that bad. I don’t want to go Independant, I like that we have a parent that bailed us out of the MARS, even if the told us they were liquid. I guess if I was to move it would just be for the check and I don’t know if that is enough of a reason to move. I like Danny, he doesn’t make my skin crawl like Bagby. I think he is doing all he can for us, it seems like WFC is holding all the cards and there is nothing Danny can do. I could be wrong, but I believe that he is trying.
I think the reason we have not been told about the retention is because there isn’t any. There is no good way to tell us that. My question would be where is it better? I don’t have other options locally (No MS, ML, SmithBarney, UBS). I guess I don’t know where it would be better. I am happy with our new pay plan, I don’t like the little fees, but if that is bad is it will get it doesn’t seem that bad. I don’t want to go Independant, I like that we have a parent that bailed us out of the MARS, even if the told us they were liquid. I guess if I was to move it would just be for the check and I don’t know if that is enough of a reason to move. I like Danny, he doesn’t make my skin crawl like Bagby. I think he is doing all he can for us, it seems like WFC is holding all the cards and there is nothing Danny can do. I could be wrong, but I believe that he is trying.
LOL there is absolutely no way.... NO WAY there is not a retention package. Well that is unless your production is below the level that retention is granted.
[quote=JamesF]I think the reason we have not been told about the retention is because there isn’t any. There is no good way to tell us that. My question would be where is it better? I don’t have other options locally (No MS, ML, SmithBarney, UBS). I guess I don’t know where it would be better. I am happy with our new pay plan, I don’t like the little fees, but if that is bad is it will get it doesn’t seem that bad. I don’t want to go Independant, I like that we have a parent that bailed us out of the MARS, even if the told us they were liquid. I guess if I was to move it would just be for the check and I don’t know if that is enough of a reason to move. I like Danny, he doesn’t make my skin crawl like Bagby. I think he is doing all he can for us, it seems like WFC is holding all the cards and there is nothing Danny can do. I could be wrong, but I believe that he is trying.[/quote]
I wouldn’t go to any of those you mentioned…however I would seriosuly look at RayJay and Stifel…both great firms and good people…and less BS
What Im really wondering now is if there is a retention, what period of time will they be using to measure t-12?
Smith Barney came out tonight and said anyone under 300k 20% ++ any account under 75K gross does not even hit the grid. How can there be retention when these places are forcing guys out at 300K??? And next year 300K is like doing 400-500K in 2008.[quote=JamesF] I think the reason we have not been told about the retention is because there isn’t any. There is no good way to tell us that. My question would be where is it better? I don’t have other options locally (No MS, ML, SmithBarney, UBS). I guess I don’t know where it would be better. I am happy with our new pay plan, I don’t like the little fees, but if that is bad is it will get it doesn’t seem that bad. I don’t want to go Independant, I like that we have a parent that bailed us out of the MARS, even if the told us they were liquid. I guess if I was to move it would just be for the check and I don’t know if that is enough of a reason to move. I like Danny, he doesn’t make my skin crawl like Bagby. I think he is doing all he can for us, it seems like WFC is holding all the cards and there is nothing Danny can do. I could be wrong, but I believe that he is trying.[/quote]
LOL there is absolutely no way… NO WAY there is not a retention package. Well that is unless your production is below the level that retention is granted.
There will be significant, if not vast “retention” by Wells (assuming they choose to retain the WB Securities unit), regardless of whether or not they write a single check.
Posted: Today at 8:13pm By YHWY There will be significant, if not vast "retention" by Wells (assuming they choose to retain the WB Securities unit), regardless of whether or not they write a single check. What does that mean?
[quote=YHWY]There will be significant, if not vast “retention” by Wells (assuming they choose to retain the WB Securities unit), regardless of whether or not they write a single check.
[/quote]
LOL, sad but true…
[quote=3rd ID]What Im really wondering now is if there is a retention, what period of time will they be using to measure t-12? [/quote]
Good question. Because of what has happened in the market there would probably be a big difference in the numbers using the end of Sept when the deal was announce vs now. WWA theory is that WFC is waiting untill the shareholder vote to announce a retention. They need all the votes they can get. The source in management that I spoke with (off the record) guessed that AT BEST it would be the BAC/MER deal LESS what the FA was given in retention for the AGE merger. The attitude is "do you see what is going on over there? take the big check and have fun. the retention bonus will not be in the ballpark". We will see but I concur that WFC wants the shareholder vote over and then drop the bad news on WS/AGE. It doesn't look good. I am sitting on options; but what to do?!
I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything.
[quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything. [/quote]
At this point we need to face the facts…whether you think Danny is the second coming or not, he doesnt run this show anymore…even if he wants a great retention package…which I doubt anyway…it likely will not happen. I can’t see them doing nothing…but I think it will be small or back end loaded and top heavy. I think for the avg producer it will be underwhelming at best. If you want a good package your best bet is not staying at WS/WFC…this is also true if you want less BS, and better payout…my suggestion would have something in place sooner rather than later…there will be more brokers wanting out of WS, SB, ML etc soon than there will be places willing or able to take them
I am a 1.2 mill broker and yes I also look forward to "Retention", but lots of pesimism. We will get same deal as Merrill. WFC is taking their time just like they took their time to buy us. They bought us when THEY were ready and they will produce retention when THEY are ready
So does this mean you are staying no matter what?
[quote=AGE Forever]
I am a 1.2 mill broker and yes I also look forward to "Retention", but lots of pesimism. We will get same deal as Merrill. WFC is taking their time just like they took their time to buy us. They bought us when THEY were ready and they will produce retention when THEY are ready
[/quote] Not sure you were following it that close, they bought Wachovia Bank, they wanted the branches back east.I am a 1.2 mill broker and yes I also look forward to “Retention”, but lots of pesimism. We will get same deal as Merrill. WFC is taking their time just like they took their time to buy us. They bought us when THEY were ready and they will produce retention when THEY are ready
On that same note, the WFC deal was better for shareholders than the Citi deal. Just because they are taking time does not exclusively mean that they are going to screw the producers
I don't think he is the second coming and never thought he ran the show. Fact is what you and I think is all speculation at this point. Whether its about what the retention will be and how many people will leave nothing is certain at this point. We will know when we know. WW[quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything. [/quote]
At this point we need to face the facts…whether you think Danny is the second coming or not, he doesnt run this show anymore…even if he wants a great retention package…which I doubt anyway…it likely will not happen. I can’t see them doing nothing…but I think it will be small or back end loaded and top heavy. I think for the avg producer it will be underwhelming at best. If you want a good package your best bet is not staying at WS/WFC…this is also true if you want less BS, and better payout…my suggestion would have something in place sooner rather than later…there will be more brokers wanting out of WS, SB, ML etc soon than there will be places willing or able to take them
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don't even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE's 401k to Wachovia's. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention.I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything.
Well, lets look at it this way. If you are a million dollar producer and you left you would have to pay back 58 months (About 60% of 70% upfront). So if your lucky to get 150% upfront somewhere else you are moving for 90%. If Wells pays 50% on the high end you would be moving for 40% difference. You will probably lose that in clients staying put in this environment.
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don't even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE's 401k to Wachovia's. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention. [/quote][quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything.
You are already stuck to your desk, vis-a-vis your prior retention contract. Get back to work like you've been paid to do.
AGEForever…Danny, is that you?
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don't even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE's 401k to Wachovia's. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention. [/quote][quote=ryedog123][quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything.
You are already stuck to your desk, vis-a-vis your prior retention contract. Get back to work like you've been paid to do.
[/quote] Nope. Eating Christmas cookies at my desk waiting for my retention check. Happy Holidays!
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don't even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE's 401k to Wachovia's. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention. [/quote][quote=Hank Moody] [quote=ryedog123][quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything.
You are already stuck to your desk, vis-a-vis your prior retention contract. Get back to work like you've been paid to do.
[/quote] Nope. Eating Christmas cookies at my desk waiting for my retention check. Happy Holidays![/quote]
You have a sales assistant named "Christmas Cookies"?
I think Wells is in a pretty good position to either lowball the retention if they offer any at all. Where are people going to go? We have seen the new payouts at ML/BAI and SB and those are terrible, and AGEFOREVER summed it up pretty well, you will lose money leaving.
I am curious why you think you are getting or even deserve a retention bonus
Maybe the answer is to flood Danny’s email box with these concerns rather than on an outside forum. If he received 14,600 emails of similar kind…it would let him know how serious this is. Then on a conference call he couldn’t use the retention subject like “O by the way…” and brush it off. It’s not a topic within a conference call Danny, it’s the headliner for the conference call - .
Follow the bouncing ball once again...Perhaps the question to be asking is the following; Where will my valued clients be treated best? The rest gets pretty easy after that.
That seems to be the question that is not being answered -What will the WFC platform ultimately offer my clients in terms of product, services, and fees. That would seem to be an easy one to answer - if they intended to keep the brokerage at all, which I have my doubts about.[quote=WSxAG]Perhaps the question to be asking is the following; Where will my valued clients be treated best? The rest gets pretty easy after that.
[/quote]Sounds to me like that's the way ole' Ben himself would have addressed the issue.
You guys are spending a lot of time speculating about the 'yield' on this deal to you....time that could be spent securing your relationships with clients, or doing business, or talking to prospects.
I'm not trying to antagonize y'all, just pointing out what might be obvious to some.....but not all.
Good luck. I wouldn't want to be dealing with all the cr*p y'all have been through in the last 12 months.
So if they don't intend to keep the brokerage at all....who do you think they'd sell it to? How long before a retention with the new owner??
Why wouldn't they want to keep WS? They got it for a steal. Heck, they got the bank for pennies, and the brokerage was a bonus.
If they decide not to do anything, "You can't cure stupid."
They wanted East Coast bank deposits - they ridded themselves of Piper years ago, b/c at the end of the day - though you and I may believe the brokerage business is a viable business entity - They don’t. Actions speak louder than words, and from what I’ve seen, thus, far they (WFC) are woefully short on both counts.
[quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything.
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don’t even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE’s 401k to Wachovia’s. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention. [/quote]
I think if you believe that WFC isn’t going to prorate your retention you are fooling yourself. You SIGNED a contract and there is the difference. Legacy WS did not sign a contract and received no money up front. Here is the difference and there are several presidencies for this. Have a former co worker who left to take over a relatives business with Advest who was within 6 months purchased by Merrill. This particular individual absolutely despised M.L. Not only did he NOT get a retention bonus ( he was under contract with Advest) but, he was not able to leave Advest without having to pay back the prorated portion of his contact. It wasn’t his choice to stay with M.L. AND he was not compensated for being acquired.
I do not know what WFC is or is not going to do with legacy AGE brokers who are under contract but I would (were I a legacy AGE broker) be think the best case scenario would be a prorated amount… I think you are kidding yourselves if you are going to get identical retention to a guy who isn’t currently under contract
They wanted East Coast bank deposits - they ridded themselves of Piper years ago, b/c at the end of the day - though you and I may believe the brokerage business is a viable business entity - They don’t. Actions speak louder than words, and from what I’ve seen, thus, far they (WFC) are woefully short on both counts.
Clearly you do not know much about WS then. WS is unique among the national scale firms. The break even point is about 450,000 for ML that is precisely why the pay out for brokers doing under 300 drops off so steeply. It really amazes me how little people in this business seem to understand how compensation and why firms set grids the way they do. It is also why Wachovia is much closer in pay out grid to regionals verse the SB, UBS, MS and ML of the world. A broker at WS doing 250 IS PROFITABLE to the firm at ML, SB, UBS and MS they are not.
You cant compare Piper to a firm that is #2 in head count. Its apples and oranges in comparison. None of WS main competitors is even remotely close in terms of profitability... not even same zip code close. If WFC was so dead set against brokerage business they wouldn't have nearly 3500 brokers as a part of the bank.
Frankly, if they didn't want the brokerage they would have structured the offer similar to Citi.... its pretty clear you didn't think this through or you do not work for WFC or WS.
WFC wanted the entire firm and knew they were getting it for a song and dance. The bank is HIGHLY profitable once the mtg debacle is factored out of the equation.
Wells has a MASSIVE tax credit, paid next to nothing for the entire bank and was forced to take TARP money. They are in a very good position financially and I simply do not see the circumstances by which they low ball producers. It serves no positive purpose to drive people out. The firm is highly profitable and it would be a very, very poor decision to blow up the firm it simply makes no sense to toss away a highly profitable division of the bank.
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=ryedog123] [quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything. [/quote]
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don't even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE's 401k to Wachovia's. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention. [/quote]
I think if you believe that WFC isn't going to prorate your retention you are fooling yourself. You SIGNED a contract and there is the difference. Legacy WS did not sign a contract and received no money up front. Here is the difference and there are several presidencies for this. Have a former co worker who left to take over a relatives business with Advest who was within 6 months purchased by Merrill. This particular individual absolutely despised M.L. Not only did he NOT get a retention bonus ( he was under contract with Advest) but, he was not able to leave Advest without having to pay back the prorated portion of his contact. It wasn't his choice to stay with M.L. AND he was not compensated for being acquired.
I do not know what WFC is or is not going to do with legacy AGE brokers who are under contract but I would (were I a legacy AGE broker) be think the best case scenario would be a prorated amount... I think you are kidding yourselves if you are going to get identical retention to a guy who isn't currently under contract [/quote] I don't disagree with you. I do expect the retention to prorated for AGE reps under contact. My point it is not right for the retention to be prorated b/c this is a seperate transaction. Other AGE reps have said the same thing. Plus, it works out better for me if it isn't prorated. Hopefully, Danny sees it my way.
Tick, tock . . .
"WFC wanted the entire firm and knew they were getting it for a song and dance. The bank is HIGHLY profitable once the mtg debacle is factored out of the equation. "
Uh, huh. . . Just like GM is highly profitable once you factor out legacy pension and health benefits.Merger approved. Next order of buisiness – rebranding and retention.
Happy Holidays!! WW[quote=WSxAG] "WFC wanted the entire firm and knew they were getting it for a song and dance. The bank is HIGHLY profitable once the mtg debacle is factored out of the equation. "
Uh, huh. . . Just like GM is highly profitable once you factor out legacy pension and health benefits.[/quote]
What a poor comparison. The mtg issue isn’t a perpetual cost and secondly, the write downs will prove to be over done and there will be a massive recapitalization of those write downs.
But, whatever floats your boat.
Now instead of GM you are talking about Disneyland. They are not even in the third inning of writedowns.
Now instead of GM you are talking about Disneyland. They are not even in the third inning of writedowns.
really? You might want to rethink that. The numbers for homes going into forclosure have been steadily dropping over the last 3-4 months....
This is an EXCELLENT read on just how wrong the Moodies and rating agencies projections on the mtg situation really is.
http://bankstocks.com/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=5436&ArticleTypeID=2
You have not mentioned commercial loans, credit cards, auto loans etc… Unfortunately it is not even the loans but what the banks did when they securitized and levereaged these loans. JPM has over 10 trillion in just the credit derivatives.
Retention will be here by early to mid January so lets assume January 23rd. In just 31 more days all of this specualtion will be over. All this talk of prorated retention is nonsense. Wells Fargo is buying Wachovia Securities IN ADDITION to Wachovia bank which is not what they HAD to do. My prediction after being back at corporate for two meetings is same deal as Merrill with a few more bones thrown to lower producers which Merrill left off.
[quote=AGE Forever]
Retention will be here by early to mid January so lets assume January 23rd. In just 31 more days all of this specualtion will be over. All this talk of prorated retention is nonsense. Wells Fargo is buying Wachovia Securities IN ADDITION to Wachovia bank which is not what they HAD to do. My prediction after being back at corporate for two meetings is same deal as Merrill with a few more bones thrown to lower producers which Merrill left off.
[/quote][quote=Blue2] Now instead of GM you are talking about Disneyland. They are not even in the third inning of writedowns.
really? You might want to rethink that. The numbers for homes going into forclosure have been steadily dropping over the last 3-4 months....
This is an EXCELLENT read on just how wrong the Moodies and rating agencies projections on the mtg situation really is.
http://bankstocks.com/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=5436&ArticleTypeID=2
[/quote]
Aren't those the same guys that said AIG LEH and all the others were ok, and didnt even downgrade them before collapse....consider the source
[quote=WSxAG]They wanted East Coast bank deposits - they ridded themselves of Piper years ago, b/c at the end of the day - though you and I may believe the brokerage business is a viable business entity - They don’t. Actions speak louder than words, and from what I’ve seen, thus, far they (WFC) are woefully short on both counts.[/quote]
US Bank owned Piper not Wells!
jpm's credit derivative exposure has been blown out of proportion for over a decade. their actual exposure is minimal, kind of like a bookie holding bets on both teams in the same game. also, wfc scoured wb's books while citi drooled over them. wfc's conservative underwriters valued the loan portfolio at .74/dollar. indeed, this company was stolen by wfc with a 70+bil tax credit to boot. there is no question that as of today we are part of the strongest financial firm in the industry. it'll take a while for it all to come together, but by y/e 2010, this will be one incredible money making machine. lastly, for the negative bs isg gets from the misinformed, it mints money. nearly fully staffed by former wirehouse guys, average production exceeds 500m with about 50% fees/trails and a constant flow of referrals taking acats from ml, sb, ubs (NOT BANK ASSETS)...throw in the va and fund haircuts the firm takes off the top and isg's numbers blew wfc's mind wfc ran a bs bank brokerage and likely had no interest in ws until they learned we had a better solution. they took the whole firm with the clarity to avoid interfering with something that works - look who's running the show - monday sits on wfc's board and ludeman's still our ceo retention is coming and i'd gladly take a bunch of wfc common stockYou have not mentioned commercial loans, credit cards, auto loans etc… Unfortunately it is not even the loans but what the banks did when they securitized and levereaged these loans. JPM has over 10 trillion in just the credit derivatives.
[quote=fritz][quote=AGE Forever]
Retention will be here by early to mid January so lets assume January 23rd. In just 31 more days all of this specualtion will be over. All this talk of prorated retention is nonsense. Wells Fargo is buying Wachovia Securities IN ADDITION to Wachovia bank which is not what they HAD to do. My prediction after being back at corporate for two meetings is same deal as Merrill with a few more bones thrown to lower producers which Merrill left off.
[/quote] Which meetings were you at? I can say you were not at the WFC meetings. They are saying something else from what you have heard. I am shocked by how anyone can say what they are hearing from the WS side, they are not cutting the checks.[/quote] Fritz, I know you think you have the inside scoop on retention thru your WFC contacts but I have a funny feeling things will not be as dire as you project. WFC is run by relatively smart people (at least right now, we can say that about most bankers until we look thru the glaring light of hindsight...) that bought a business they may not have wanted for .01 on the $. Either they pay up and let Danny and his minions run the show (which means retention) or they control things from SF with a tight purse string. My understanding is that they let their seperate business units run with a fair degree of autonomy. WS is profitable and a valuable commodity, maybe not near as valuable now as it was 6 mo's ago, but still a viable and profitable business unit. Most corp. exec will not jettison a profitable entity in this type of economic enviroment especially at these depressed prices. So, my prediction: 1. We are called Well Fargo Advisors/Investmetns 2. If they name us anything other than WF ___ we are on the block for sale at the first 'uptick' 3. We get a retention pkg north of MER. . 4. If we don't get anything, as you forecast, WS will have about 7000 advisors working for it in 2010. Whether we find out in 10 days or 30 doesn't matter anymore...worry about what you can control...."what is, is, what isn't, isn't."[quote=WSxAG]Perhaps the question to be asking is the following; Where will my valued clients be treated best? The rest gets pretty easy after that.
That seems to be the question that is not being answered -What will the WFC platform ultimately offer my clients in terms of product, services, and fees. That would seem to be an easy one to answer - if they intended to keep the brokerage at all, which I have my doubts about.[/quote]Ahh Hahhh!!! I smell the scent of wisdom! "Where will my valued client's be treated best?" That is the real question. That is real "retention bonus" in my eyes, because that is ultimately what will retain or repulse our team. If I get paid a lot to stay, but my clients would be happier elsewhere, then I am a dishonest, shortsighted, and greedy fool. If I go where my clients will have the best experience, then I will make far more money than anyone will think of paying me in the form of a retention check. If my clients are happier, they stay, they send thier friends, and they bring me more of thier wallet. If my clients are not happy, then the check the firm gives me is the only thing I have.
Now, I just need to figure out the question of where my client's will be happiest....unfortunately that is not an easy task.
[quote=shredder][quote=fritz][quote=AGE Forever]
Retention will be here by early to mid January so lets assume January 23rd. In just 31 more days all of this specualtion will be over. All this talk of prorated retention is nonsense. Wells Fargo is buying Wachovia Securities IN ADDITION to Wachovia bank which is not what they HAD to do. My prediction after being back at corporate for two meetings is same deal as Merrill with a few more bones thrown to lower producers which Merrill left off.
[/quote] Which meetings were you at? I can say you were not at the WFC meetings. They are saying something else from what you have heard. I am shocked by how anyone can say what they are hearing from the WS side, they are not cutting the checks.[/quote] Fritz, I know you think you have the inside scoop on retention thru your WFC contacts but I have a funny feeling things will not be as dire as you project. WFC is run by relatively smart people (at least right now, we can say that about most bankers until we look thru the glaring light of hindsight...) that bought a business they may not have wanted for .01 on the $. Either they pay up and let Danny and his minions run the show (which means retention) or they control things from SF with a tight purse string. My understanding is that they let their seperate business units run with a fair degree of autonomy. WS is profitable and a valuable commodity, maybe not near as valuable now as it was 6 mo's ago, but still a viable and profitable business unit. Most corp. exec will not jettison a profitable entity in this type of economic enviroment especially at these depressed prices. So, my prediction: 1. We are called Well Fargo Advisors/Investmetns 2. If they name us anything other than WF ___ we are on the block for sale at the first 'uptick' 3. We get a retention pkg north of MER. . 4. If we don't get anything, as you forecast, WS will have about 7000 advisors working for it in 2010. Whether we find out in 10 days or 30 doesn't matter anymore...worry about what you can control...."what is, is, what isn't, isn't."[/quote][quote=CommonSense] [quote=WSxAG]Perhaps the question to be asking is the following; Where will my valued clients be treated best? The rest gets pretty easy after that.
That seems to be the question that is not being answered -What will the WFC platform ultimately offer my clients in terms of product, services, and fees. That would seem to be an easy one to answer - if they intended to keep the brokerage at all, which I have my doubts about.[/quote]Ahh Hahhh!!! I smell the scent of wisdom! "Where will my valued client's be treated best?" That is the real question. That is real "retention bonus" in my eyes, because that is ultimately what will retain or repulse our team. If I get paid a lot to stay, but my clients would be happier elsewhere, then I am a dishonest, shortsighted, and greedy fool. If I go where my clients will have the best experience, then I will make far more money than anyone will think of paying me in the form of a retention check. If my clients are happier, they stay, they send thier friends, and they bring me more of thier wallet. If my clients are not happy, then the check the firm gives me is the only thing I have.
Now, I just need to figure out the question of where my client's will be happiest....unfortunately that is not an easy task.
[/quote] maybe this could help to clarify... ml and bac merger is like lindsay lohan and brittany spears getting together...an epic trainwreck in motion...it'll be best to observe from the outside at usb, you'll have to explain the irs agent in the room during client meetings ms is in decent shape, but mitsubishi's presence could be an issue. i guess the regionals are there, but those platforms have limitations. we'll all soon find that though we all endured a bit of hell in '08, this is the best place to be.
[quote=CommonSense]
[quote=WSxAG]Perhaps the question to be asking is the following; Where will my valued clients be treated best? The rest gets pretty easy after that.
That seems to be the question that is not being answered -What will the WFC platform ultimately offer my clients in terms of product, services, and fees. That would seem to be an easy one to answer - if they intended to keep the brokerage at all, which I have my doubts about.[/quote]Ahh Hahhh!!! I smell the scent of wisdom! "Where will my valued client's be treated best?" That is the real question. That is real "retention bonus" in my eyes, because that is ultimately what will retain or repulse our team. If I get paid a lot to stay, but my clients would be happier elsewhere, then I am a dishonest, shortsighted, and greedy fool. If I go where my clients will have the best experience, then I will make far more money than anyone will think of paying me in the form of a retention check. If my clients are happier, they stay, they send thier friends, and they bring me more of thier wallet. If my clients are not happy, then the check the firm gives me is the only thing I have.
Now, I just need to figure out the question of where my client's will be happiest....unfortunately that is not an easy task.
[/quote]
+1 to all that...where will clients be treated best...no nuisance fees, good home office support and marketing, and a name they can trust..right now we have not alot of any of these. Second, how do they treat employees, benefits, payouts, retention....
as it stands now...there are a few options scoring highly in all of teh above and WS /WFC is not one....unless WFC changes the tide back to the way things were at AGE...I already know my answer.
[quote=go_huskies][quote=CommonSense] [quote=WSxAG]Perhaps the question to be asking is the following; Where will my valued clients be treated best? The rest gets pretty easy after that.
That seems to be the question that is not being answered -What will the WFC platform ultimately offer my clients in terms of product, services, and fees. That would seem to be an easy one to answer - if they intended to keep the brokerage at all, which I have my doubts about.[/quote]Ahh Hahhh!!! I smell the scent of wisdom! "Where will my valued client's be treated best?" That is the real question. That is real "retention bonus" in my eyes, because that is ultimately what will retain or repulse our team. If I get paid a lot to stay, but my clients would be happier elsewhere, then I am a dishonest, shortsighted, and greedy fool. If I go where my clients will have the best experience, then I will make far more money than anyone will think of paying me in the form of a retention check. If my clients are happier, they stay, they send thier friends, and they bring me more of thier wallet. If my clients are not happy, then the check the firm gives me is the only thing I have.
Now, I just need to figure out the question of where my client's will be happiest....unfortunately that is not an easy task.
[/quote] maybe this could help to clarify... ml and bac merger is like lindsay lohan and brittany spears getting together...an epic trainwreck in motion...it'll be best to observe from the outside at usb, you'll have to explain the irs agent in the room during client meetings ms is in decent shape, but mitsubishi's presence could be an issue. i guess the regionals are there, but those platforms have limitations. we'll all soon find that though we all endured a bit of hell in '08, this is the best place to be.[/quote]
Can you name the limitations of the Regionals vs...WS?
Just curious..I agree with all the other competitors and would never consider the Wirehouses.
They are limited in their exposure to the housing market, exotic investment products, and government bailouts.
[quote=Gordon Gekko]They are limited in their exposure to the housing market, exotic investment products, and government bailouts. [/quote]
Agreed…nice one GG!
Now that the deal has been approved…what’s next? The actual closing of the deal on the 31st? Do you think we’ll know shortly about retention? I have a deal all set and ready to go, but I’m holding on to find out from WS. Let’s just get this over with so we all can get back to business.
Haven’t all of you WB(WS)/AGE folks wised up enough to simply defer
to Feh-ris Bee-yu-ler’s opinion on this topic yet? When will you learn?
P.S. Merry Christmas! Enjoy every minute!
regionals limitations are not over the top, but there are issues to consider
unless you're located near the firms hq, name recognition is non-existent. most people in my area think janney is a law firm and lpl is an insurance company - if they even know they exist. economies of scale (i know sore subject for the age guys). the incoming regulation tidalwave can cripple the regional ops. ws ops is a mess, but the resources are there to improve it and to deal with the impending challenges i'm not completely familiar with all the separate account platforms, but several of the managers i use are not available at lpl, amongst others.[quote=Vet20]Now that the deal has been approved…what’s next? The actual closing of the deal on the 31st? Do you think we’ll know shortly about retention? I have a deal all set and ready to go, but I’m holding on to find out from WS. Let’s just get this over with so we all can get back to business. [/quote]
there is NO WAY they will give us the info right after the first…Conversion is mid Feb and as such there is a two week freeze on ACATS coming in and out of AGE/WS…dont you think they will wait until at least mid Jan so if you are planning on leaving you can’t or won’t…they know how to play the game.
on the money with that one...[quote=Gordon Gekko]They are limited in their exposure to the housing market, exotic investment products, and government bailouts. [/quote]
Agreed…nice one GG!
[quote=go_huskies]
regionals limitations are not over the top, but there are issues to consider
unless you're located near the firms hq, name recognition is non-existent. most people in my area think janney is a law firm and lpl is an insurance company - if they even know they exist. economies of scale (i know sore subject for the age guys). the incoming regulation tidalwave can cripple the regional ops. ws ops is a mess, but the resources are there to improve it and to deal with the impending challenges i'm not completely familiar with all the separate account platforms, but several of the managers i use are not available at lpl, amongst others. [/quote]Well having been at AGE for 8 years or so I can tell you there is not really anything avail at Wachovia we didnt have at AGE...in fact we added products to Wachovia...like Russell etc.
Name recognition goes both ways..can be good or bad....if you have a a good story like AGE had or SF has now, it is not a big deal...I loved having to explain why AGE was different and why that was a good thing...much different then defending who you wrk for and why your company did something. I am finding more and more that Scale and Scope is an arguement used by large companies to make you think that there are all these things that they have that others don't..having seen both sides it just ain't true...the only thing there is more of is computer systems that are hard to use, more layer of mgmt, and more beauracracy.
what regional lack…does this sound familiar?
Diseconomy of scale From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Diseconomies of scale) Jump to: navigation, search The rising part of the long-run average cost curve illustrates the effect of diseconomies of scale. Beyond Q (ideal firm size), additional production will increase per-unit costs.Diseconomies of scale are the forces that cause larger firms to produce goods and services at increased per-unit costs. They are less well known than what economists have long understood as "economies of scale", the forces which enable larger firms to produce goods and services at reduced per-unit costs.
Research that focused explicitly on the forces behind corporate diseconomies of scale is Canbäck (2002).
Contents [hide] 1 Causes 1.1 Cost of communication 1.2 Duplication of effort 1.3 Top-heavy companies 1.4 Isolation of decision makers from results of their decisions 1.5 Slow response time 1.6 Inertia (unwillingness to change) 1.7 Cannibalization 1.8 Large market share / portfolio 1.9 Public and government opposition 1.10 Other effects related to size 2 Solutions 2.1 Examples 3 References 4 External links//
[edit] CausesSome of the forces which cause a diseconomy of scale are listed
[edit] Cost of communicationIdeally, all employees of a firm would have one-on-one communication with each other so they know exactly what the other workers are doing. A firm with a single worker does not require any communication between employees. A firm with two workers requires one communication channel, directly between those two workers. A firm with three workers requires three communication channels (between employees A & B, B & C, and A & C). Here is a chart of one-on-one communication channels required:
Workers Communication Channels 1 0 2 1 3 3 4 6 5 10 nThe one-on-one channels of communication grow more rapidly than the number of workers, thus increasing the time, and therefore costs, of communication. At some point one-on-one communications between all workers becomes impractical; therefore only certain groups of employees will communicate with one another (salespeople with salespeople, production workers with production workers, etc.). This reduced communication slows, but doesn't stop, the increase in time and money with firm growth, but also costs additional money, due to duplication of effort, owing to this reduced level of communication.
[edit] Duplication of effortA firm with only one employee can't have any duplication of effort between employees. A firm with two employees could have duplication of efforts, but this is improbable, as the two are likely to know what each other is working on at all times. When firms grow to thousands of workers, it is inevitable that someone, or even a team, will take on a project that is already being handled by another person or team. General Motors, for example, developed two in-house CAD/CAM systems: CADANCE was designed by the GM Design Staff, while Fisher Graphics was created by the former Fisher Body division. These similar systems later needed to be combined into a single Corporate Graphics System, CGS, at great expense. A smaller firm would neither have had the money to allow such expensive parallel developments, or the lack of communication and cooperation which precipitated this event. In addition to CGS, GM also used CADAM, UNIGRAPHICS, CATIA and other off-the-shelf CAD/CAM systems, thus increasing the cost of translating designs from one system to another. This endeavor eventually became so unmanageable that they acquired Electronic Data Systems (EDS) in an effort to control the situation. A smaller firm would have chosen a single off-the shelf CAD/CAM system, with no need to combine or translate between systems.
[edit] Top-heavy companiesThe more employees a firm has, the larger percentage of the workforce will be "management". A company with a single worker doesn't need any managers (this refers to managers of people, as opposed to managers of other resources). A firm with five employees might employ one as a manager and the other four as workers. If that manager does nothing other than manage the workers under them, then the productivity of the firm has been reduced by 20%. A firm with 21 employees might have 16 workers, 4 supervisors, and 1 manager. If neither the manager nor supervisors do anything but manage the people under them, then we now have reduced productivity by 5/21 or 23.8%. Thus, the larger the firm, the lower the percentage of "line workers". To be sure, companies with higher worker-to-manager ratios and that have "working managers" (who perform other important tasks in addition to managing the people under them) will have their productivity less negatively impacted by growth, but the effect is still there. Managers are necessary to manage a large, complex company, but should be considered a "necessary evil" as they also reduce overall productivity. Also note that higher level managers get higher level pay, often despite poor performance, and thus cost the company more than their numbers would indicate. For example, a company with 16 workers at $10/hr, 4 supervisors at $20/hr and 1 manager at $30/hr is spending $270/hr, $110/hr (41%) of which is on management.
[edit] Isolation of decision makers from results of their decisionsIf a single person makes and sells donuts, and decides to try jalapeño flavoring, they would likely know that day whether their decision was good or not, based on the reaction of customers. A person at a huge company that makes donuts may not know for many months if such a decision worked out or not. By that time, they may very well have moved on to another division or company, and thus see no consequences from their decision. This lack of consequences can lead to poor decisions. This causes an upward facing marginal cost curve.
[edit] Slow response timeIn a reverse example, the single worker donut firm will know immediately if people begin to request healthier offerings, like whole grain bagels, and be able to respond the next day. A large company would need to do research, create an assembly line, determine which distribution chains to use, plan an advertising campaign, etc., before any change could be made. By this time smaller competitors may well have grabbed that market niche.
[edit] Inertia (unwillingness to change)This will be defined as the "we've always done it that way, so there's no need to ever change" attitude (see appeal to tradition). An old, successful company is far more likely to have this attitude than a new, struggling one. While "change for change's sake" is counter-productive, refusal to consider change, even when indicated, is toxic to any company, as inevitably changes in the industry and market conditions will demand changes in the firm, in order to remain successful. A recent example is Polaroid Corporation's refusal to move into digital imaging until after this lag adversely affected the company, ultimately leading to bankruptcy.
[edit] CannibalizationA small firm only competes with other firms, but larger firms frequently find their own products are competing with each other. A Buick is just as likely to steal customers from another GM make, such as an Oldsmobile, as it is to steal customers from other companies. This may help to explain why Oldsmobiles were discontinued after 2004. This self-competition wastes resources that should be used to compete with other firms.
[edit] Large market share / portfolioA company with only 1% of the market share could easily double sales in a year. A company with 90% market share can't hope to do so well. They can diversify into other markets or industries, but this means they will lose many of the economies of scale specific to the old market or industry.
A small investment fund can potentially return a larger percentage because it can concentrate its investments in a small number of good opportunities without driving up the price of the investment securities.[1] Conversely, a large investment fund like Fidelity Magellan must spread its investments among so many securities that its results tend to track those of the market as a whole.[2]
[edit] Public and government oppositionSuch opposition is largely a function of the size of the firm. Behavior from Microsoft, which would have been ignored from a smaller firm, was seen as an anti-competitive and monopolistic threat, due to Microsoft's size, thus bringing about public opposition and government lawsuits.
[edit] Other effects related to sizeLarge firms also tend to be old and in mature markets. Both of these have negative implications for future growth, as well. Old firms tend to have a large retiree base, with high associated pension and health costs, and also tend to be unionized, with associated higher labor costs and lower productivity (due to inability to fire incompetent employees). Mature markets tend to only offer the potential for small, incremental growth. Everybody might go out and buy a new invention next year, but it is unlikely they will all buy cars next year, since most people already have them.
[edit] SolutionsSolutions to the diseconomy of scale for large firms involve changing the company into one or more small firms. This can either happen by default when the company, in bankruptcy, sells off its profitable divisions and shuts down the rest, or can happen proactively, if the management is willing. Returning to the example of the donut firm, each retail location could be allowed to operate relatively autonomously from the company headquarters, with employee decisions (hiring, firing, promotions, wage scales, etc.) made by local management, not dictated by the corporation. Purchasing decisions could also be made independently, with each location allowed to choose its own suppliers, which may or may not be owned by the corporation (wherever they find the best quality and prices). Each locale would also have the option of either choosing their own recipes and doing their own marketing, or they may continue to rely on the corporation for those services. If the employees own a portion of the local business, they will also have more invested in its success. Note that all these changes will likely result in a substantial reduction in corporate headquarters staff and other support staff. For this reason, many businesses delay such a reorganization until it is too late to be effective.
[edit] ExamplesThe independently controlled donut firm locations may choose to offer higher wages and charge higher prices if they are in an affluent area. In October, when fresh apple cider is available at bargain prices from local farmers, they may choose to market a cinnamon donut/hot apple cider combo promotion. A single large, centrally controlled firm may lack the flexibility to offer such customizations.
[edit] References ^ Blodget, Henry (2002-01-02). "The Wall Street Self-Defense Manual". Atlas Books / Slate. Retrieved on 2002-01-03. ^ Wherry, Rob (2006-09-27). "The Harder They Fall". SmartMoney. [edit] External links Do diseconomies of scale impact firm size and performance: A theoretical and empirical overview Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomy_of_scale" Category: Economics of production Views Article Discussion Edit this page History Personal tools Log in / create account if (window.isMSIE55) fixalpha(); Navigation Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Search < id=search =/wiki/Special:Search> < id=search title="Search Wikipedia alt-f" =f name=search autocomplete="off"> < =search id=searchGo title="Go to a page with exact name if one exists" =submit value=Go name=go> < =search id=mw-search title="Search Wikipedia for text" =submit value=Search name=fulltext> Interaction About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia Donate to Wikipedia Help Toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this page Languages Español Italiano עברית 中文 This page was last modifiedwow, MNbondguy…right out of my old MBA courses!
i figured the economies of scale comment would get a response, but man o’man…
the intended point is that ws/wfc is a better alternative to the wirehouses[quote=Ferris Bueller] [quote=YHWY]
Haven’t all of you WB(WS)/AGE folks wised up enough to simply defer
to Feh-ris Bee-yu-ler’s opinion on this topic yet? When will you learn? P.S. Merry Christmas! Enjoy every minute!
[/quote]
Seem like someone should be mentioning our good friend Adolf about now…
Probably the most accurate post in the last 2 months. Thank you for your clarity and optimism
[quote=nestegg] [quote=go_huskies][quote=CommonSense] [quote=WSxAG]Perhaps the question to be asking is the following; Where will my valued clients be treated best? The rest gets pretty easy after that.
That seems to be the question that is not being answered -What will the WFC platform ultimately offer my clients in terms of product, services, and fees. That would seem to be an easy one to answer - if they intended to keep the brokerage at all, which I have my doubts about.[/quote]Ahh Hahhh!!! I smell the scent of wisdom! "Where will my valued client's be treated best?" That is the real question. That is real "retention bonus" in my eyes, because that is ultimately what will retain or repulse our team. If I get paid a lot to stay, but my clients would be happier elsewhere, then I am a dishonest, shortsighted, and greedy fool. If I go where my clients will have the best experience, then I will make far more money than anyone will think of paying me in the form of a retention check. If my clients are happier, they stay, they send thier friends, and they bring me more of thier wallet. If my clients are not happy, then the check the firm gives me is the only thing I have.
Now, I just need to figure out the question of where my client's will be happiest....unfortunately that is not an easy task.
[/quote] maybe this could help to clarify... ml and bac merger is like lindsay lohan and brittany spears getting together...an epic trainwreck in motion...it'll be best to observe from the outside at usb, you'll have to explain the irs agent in the room during client meetings ms is in decent shape, but mitsubishi's presence could be an issue. i guess the regionals are there, but those platforms have limitations. we'll all soon find that though we all endured a bit of hell in '08, this is the best place to be.[/quote]
Can you name the limitations of the Regionals vs...WS?
Just curious..I agree with all the other competitors and would never consider the Wirehouses.
[/quote] I am considering Janney. Love the culture. However, they don't have the following which I use: 1.contact management system. 2.DSIP or anything similar (clients love receiving those DSIP letters announcing div increases). 3.CE fund priority list with email updates. 4.asset line of credit. 5.mortgages 6.lord abbett in their money manager platform. 7.millburn ridgefield global macro trust managed futures fund My point is the regionals do lack in what they can offer. However, despite what they lack, I am still considering Janney b/c of it's culture and because it is privately owned helping it prevent a hostile takeover.
Guess what....Smartstation doesnt have one either...we lose Broker Vision....most Wireouses use ACT or Outlook, AGE was unique in that we had our own program
2.DSIP or anything similar (clients love receiving those DSIP letters announcing div increases).
This is true...however there are similar programs out ther...and did you know that Carol is no longer managing teh mgd version...that program will die if she retires/leaves, and they have already made changes.
3.CE fund priority list with email updates.-Janney may not have this....but other firms do...check out Stifel
4.asset line of credit- again check out Stifel
5.mortgages-Again check out Stifel, Ray Jay offers this as well
6.lord abbett in their money manager platform.-don;t use them so I cant say about other firms
7.millburn ridgefield global macro trust managed futures fund same as above...but Stifel does have Managed futures
[quote=go_huskies]i figured the economies of scale comment would get a response, but man o’man…
the intended point is that ws/wfc is a better alternative to the wirehouses[/quote] you gotta admit, WB is a prime example of diseconomies of scale. It fits every bullet point on that page right down to the solutions tab, the bank was a phone call away from being siezed by the fdic. This explains why wirehouses have lower payouts and higher fees than regionals, more levels of beaurocracy to pay for.[quote=nestegg]
1.contact management systemGuess what....Smartstation doesnt have one either...we lose Broker Vision....most Wireouses use ACT or Outlook, AGE was unique in that we had our own program
2.DSIP or anything similar (clients love receiving those DSIP letters announcing div increases).
This is true...however there are similar programs out ther...and did you know that Carol is no longer managing teh mgd version...that program will die if she retires/leaves, and they have already made changes.
3.CE fund priority list with email updates.-Janney may not have this....but other firms do...check out Stifel
4.asset line of credit- again check out Stifel
5.mortgages-Again check out Stifel, Ray Jay offers this as well
6.lord abbett in their money manager platform.-don;t use them so I cant say about other firms
7.millburn ridgefield global macro trust managed futures fund same as above...but Stifel does have Managed futures
[/quote] Will have to check out Stifel. Sounds like they have a lot to offer. Regarding the contact management system, I heard that all of WS will receive an amped up version of brokervision upon conversion. Thanks for the input.
I have now looked back at posts from November. 63% claim we will be happy with retention, 31% unhappy, 6% no retention, so very optimistic. 1 mill+ 75%, 500-1 mill 50%,
250-500 25%, under that 0. Agree, disagree???[quote=ryedog123][quote=nestegg]
1.contact management systemGuess what....Smartstation doesnt have one either...we lose Broker Vision....most Wireouses use ACT or Outlook, AGE was unique in that we had our own program
2.DSIP or anything similar (clients love receiving those DSIP letters announcing div increases).
This is true...however there are similar programs out ther...and did you know that Carol is no longer managing teh mgd version...that program will die if she retires/leaves, and they have already made changes.
3.CE fund priority list with email updates.-Janney may not have this....but other firms do...check out Stifel
4.asset line of credit- again check out Stifel
5.mortgages-Again check out Stifel, Ray Jay offers this as well
6.lord abbett in their money manager platform.-don;t use them so I cant say about other firms
7.millburn ridgefield global macro trust managed futures fund same as above...but Stifel does have Managed futures
[/quote] Will have to check out Stifel. Sounds like they have a lot to offer. Regarding the contact management system, I heard that all of WS will receive an amped up version of brokervision upon conversion. Thanks for the input.[/quote]
NP, from my research SF is as close to the OLD AGE that you will find...STL based, client and broker friendly, huge research dept, in fact about 10 of the analysts are names you will remember from AGE, good investment banking, and from what I can tell good home office support. They have things like Russell and all the fund familes we are used to. They have their own mgd accts like CAAP, PFA etc, they also have Mortgage and business lending etc...very very similar to AGE but on a smaller scale...my prediction is that they will double in size and be close to what AGE was in the next few years
I’ll agree with the claim about name recognition at the regional level. If the wirehouses were in better shape, that might have been a concern for me. It boils down to the relationships you have with clients, not XYZ Corp’s logo on the statement. If you move to a regional, get ready to repeat your “who is ABC regional firm” over and over.
Obviously you didnt bother to read the article of follow the math and instead made sweeping assumptions. Had you read the article and done the math you would see that the assumptions that the rating agencies (who have been under enormous critizism) are rediculous and the math shows, clearly that they are wrong[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Blue2] Now instead of GM you are talking about Disneyland. They are not even in the third inning of writedowns.[/quote]
really? You might want to rethink that. The numbers for homes going into forclosure have been steadily dropping over the last 3-4 months…
This is an EXCELLENT read on just how wrong the Moodies and rating agencies projections on the mtg situation really is.
http://bankstocks.com/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=5436&ArticleTypeID=2
[/quote]
Aren’t those the same guys that said AIG LEH and all the others were ok, and didnt even downgrade them before collapse…consider the source
The analysts were so wrong WFC got all of WB for “a song and dance”, after the the US Treasury begged C to take them before they collapsed. Does anyone really doubt that had Ben been running the show, AGE would still be the King of the Hill today?
Thanks for the USB correction on the Piper divestment. It was RagenMcKenzie that they acquired. From my relationships with those who left after the acquisition, if that's any indication of who Wells operates a brokerage, I'd start dusting off the resume.If they met Dec 1st, what was the outcome, or are they still "digesting"So as far as we (WS) know, Danny and David are taking their retention proposal to WFC this monday, Dec 1st. WFC will then digest the plan, and we hope to hear something by mid Dec. Anybody hearing the same thing or something different?? (Ferris, I clearly stole your “hijack” line, hope you don’t mind).
Hey Fritz, thanks for reminding us. I hope Santa takes a dump down your chimney.
If they met Dec 1st, what was the outcome, or are they still "digesting"[/quote][quote=duster10]So as far as we (WS) know, Danny and David are taking their retention proposal to WFC this monday, Dec 1st. WFC will then digest the plan, and we hope to hear something by mid Dec. Anybody hearing the same thing or something different?? (Ferris, I clearly stole your “hijack” line, hope you don’t mind).
Maybe they had hartburn..send Danny and Stumpf some Pepto
If they met Dec 1st, what was the outcome, or are they still "digesting"[/quote][quote=fritz][quote=duster10]So as far as we (WS) know, Danny and David are taking their retention proposal to WFC this monday, Dec 1st. WFC will then digest the plan, and we hope to hear something by mid Dec. Anybody hearing the same thing or something different?? (Ferris, I clearly stole your “hijack” line, hope you don’t mind).
Maybe they had hartburn..send Danny and Stumpf some Pepto
[/quote] Could be, maybe they saw the 1st quarter 2009 fee's that are going to hit soon.
You think Danny and Bob got the 'soon to be fired' letter?
What happens if an FA has to declare BK?? I can see that as becoming more problematic.
That is funny, but only because I over heard 3 guys in the office talking about the exact thing..two of the guys were dead serious. Both guys did about 750K this year but dont think the will do 300K next year and have big expenses, one guy is already 60 days behind on a 3mm mortgage.What happens if an FA has to declare BK?? I can see that as becoming more problematic.
being behind on a 3mm mortgage when you did 750k and dropped to 300k?
I don’t feel the least bit sorry for that dude.
part of being an advisor is to not only implement solutions for clients but to educate them about the dangers of leverage and concentrations in one asset class (like real estate).
duh!
There will be a lot of BK’s by FA’s. This biz is a bitch to survive in. Some of us had to use equity to survive the 2001 to 2003 period. I did. And many here did also. There was no other option. My production is good now, over 500k. But in the northeast, as the sole provider for 4, that aint major bucks. I have blue collar clients making as much as me in their union jobs. Guys wont admit it but thats the real reason why the retention is so important to many. Its a lifeline to make it through this down cycle. Without it many of us will be toast. The home equity is gone. The credit cards are maxed out or have had limits drastically reduced. Im not talking about supporting extravagant living either. Reasonable mortgage, utils, cars, gas, food, clothes, insurance, etc etc. Before you know it the paycheck is gone. Spent just to pay your bills with nothing left over but more bills. There is an awful lot of FA’s wondering how the heck they will survive the business next year. At least a retention will give many of us a fighting chance.
[quote=3rd ID]There will be a lot of BK’s by FA’s. This biz is a bitch to survive in. Some of us had to use equity to survive the 2001 to 2003 period. I did. And many here did also. There was no other option. My production is good now, over 500k. But in the northeast, as the sole provider for 4, that aint major bucks. I have blue collar clients making as much as me in their union jobs. Guys wont admit it but thats the real reason why the retention is so important to many. Its a lifeline to make it through this down cycle. Without it many of us will be toast. The home equity is gone. The credit cards are maxed out or have had limits drastically reduced. Im not talking about supporting extravagant living either. Reasonable mortgage, utils, cars, gas, food, clothes, insurance, etc etc. Before you know it the paycheck is gone. Spent just to pay your bills with nothing left over but more bills. There is an awful lot of FA’s wondering how the heck they will survive the business next year. At least a retention will give many of us a fighting chance.
[/quote]
100% honest perfect post…I am in the same boat, the gross sounds great, but by the time it gets sliced into the check its not much if you have a house and family in most areas of the country. Being in the west, the gross most of us looking at, if you have a family and mortgage it is gone quick…With most non dillusional people seeing a tough tough period for 2009 at the very least, I see lots of guys in big trouble. And also like you say that is why people are so interested in retention here, not 44,000 views out of being curious. Many guys need the retention to ride it out…
Fritz wrote:
There will be a lot of BK’s by FA’s. This biz is a bitch to survive in.
Some of us had to use equity to survive the 2001 to 2003 period. I did.
And many here did also. There was no other option. My production is
good now, over 500k. But in the northeast, as the sole provider for 4,
that aint major bucks. I have blue collar clients making as much as me
in their union jobs. Guys wont admit it but thats the real reason why
the retention is so important to many. Its a lifeline to make it
through this down cycle…
Hey, there’s no better reason to go back to work. We got fat and happy in a good market, this type of miserable market is acutally the reality. We had 92, 93, 97, 98, 2004, 05, and 06 as good years. Everything else basically sucked. So next time you make $230,000 live like your making $50,000 a year.
Don’t forget that making over $153,583 means you are among the top 5% of income earners in the nation. Imagine how it feels for everyone else! And, you’d have to be in an extremely good union to make that type of money.
Next time around - keep everything in cash and live within 1/2 your means. Other people do. Imagine the guys that got deals and threw it all into the market! Or company stock! And you could have had your book run by Madoff or purchased a fund of funds! You could also take a deal now and find yourself back in this situation in 4 more years.
So, I’d just use this as an excuse to work like you did when you first started. That’s been my approach anyway. There’s opportunity in change and we’ve sure had change. I’d find something new to recommend and recommend it! Don’t look back - look forward.
Apparently Well is running the show on the retention announcement - perhaps mid January now. Still it’s the best payout of any major wirehouse. And you know all the surprises have been announced here - who knows what comes next at other firms.
And in my opinion you can’t afford to go bankrupt. You’d have to disclose it until your 95! Who would hire a bankrupt financial advisor? You just have to work your way out of the hole - I’m sure you’ve done it before.
I think the new name of the game is to pay everything off and hold plenty of liquidity for the future. I think old timers knew that was the name of the game all along - we’re just catching on now.
Nice post …totally agree. 20 years in the biz
Well I agree with the pay off everything and plenty of liquidity in the future statement for sure. Problem is our clients all want liquidity too and liquidity does not pay an FA’s salary. January 08 I recommended to clients that the mkt was going to get hammered and that we should go to cash, cd’s a little gold exposure etc. Did this in Assett Adviser. The gold bit me a little but the exposure was very minimal. For the most part I saved the clients between 25 and 50% losses in the mgd accts they were in. Now guess what? The firm wants to close the accts because their isnt enough activity to warrant the fee.!!! I saved the people a TON and the company is sending letters suggesting they are not getting max value out of the acct. YOU CANNOT WIN>!!!Any how Merry Christmas. No, Im not scrooge on here with nothing else to do LOL. Just have a few minutes while waiting for the prime rib to cool down for slicing. I cook the potatoes and meats and wife takes care of everything else.
For those of you who have been on vacation, you may not have seen that they (WS) are changing the compensation for Variable Annuities effective jan 5th for ISG. Looks like EVERYTHING will trail starting the 5th, but the big change is that a L Share no longer pays 3.25% with a trail in the 13th, it now pays 2.75% with the same trail. I guess this is a big deal due to the fact that probably 70% of ISG annuity business is L share like this, and we now get an additional 20% over the haircut we were taking before…awesome.
Trim here, Trim there… They will get everything cut down so far that they will only have us 1mm+ producers and then pay us 100k gross with minimal 401k match. Every firm will be about the same so the brokers in motion will slow down. When will it end?
Let’s see if we can do the math… L share, that pays 4%, firm only pays 2.75%, and of that, I get 40%. Hmmmm…4-2.75, carry the 4, and the 2…final payout=27.5% before taxes. WTF!!!
[quote=duster10]Let’s see if we can do the math… L share, that pays 4%, firm only pays 2.75%, and of that, I get 40%. Hmmmm…4-2.75, carry the 4, and the 2…final payout=27.5% before taxes. WTF!!![/quote]
Not to mention at AGE we would get 5+ % on alot of L shares…plus the 1% trail…just did one last week 5.25% L share 4 year w 1% trail
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11477
And they are starting to say its all coming down to wages and how they need to rise if the economy is to start growing again.
We work in one of the few industries where our wages seem to get cut every year. Less and less. I bet the industry is ripe for unionization. Not that I’m a fan of that nor fully understand the implications of unionization but who is watching our backs?? More gets taken away every damn year and nothing we can do about it. Yeah, I know…go inde. But that has a whole other set of issues I’m not ready or possibly even able to deal with right now.
You hit the nail on the head..talk about this with my buddies who get it all the time, this has to be the only business where EVERY single year you get something taken from you. Pay out cuts, ticket charges, small househould no payout, etc etc etc..I barely try to explain this to people I know that are outside of the business and they just stare at me, they cant even imagine what I am talking about. Doesnt matter what firm, everyone just sits there in a conference room and and takes the new "changes" every year with a blank look on their face or better yet a few comments from brokers saying "not too bad" as they are getting hosed again, for some guys probably for the 20th time. I feel like an idiot listening to this stuff all the time, I dont do enough gross to make a firm care what i say, but if I did the big numbers I would stand up walk out and tell them to put my grid or whatever to where it was before or I would tell them i am quitting the firm.Wages, It all gets down to wages. - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
And they are starting to say its all coming down to wages and how they need to rise if the economy is to start growing again.
We work in one of the few industries where our wages seem to get cut every year. Less and less. I bet the industry is ripe for unionization. Not that I’m a fan of that nor fully understand the implications of unionization but who is watching our backs?? More gets taken away every damn year and nothing we can do about it. Yeah, I know…go inde. But that has a whole other set of issues I’m not ready or possibly even able to deal with right now.
Go Indy.
Have any of you people ever actually worked for a living? Holy Shit, you’re in a business where you have the opportunity to make M.D.-type money, or better, with essentially no credentials. You don’t like how your “boss” firm compensated you? Seek your fortune elsewhere, either on an alternative platform in this business or in another field altogether.
Christ, some of us actually worked real, low paying, difficult jobs in our formative years in order to hope to get an opportunity like this.
I agree it does not take real brains or any skills to do this job so we are probably all over paid by society standards. But my opinion is this job has gotten more difficult to succeed in over the last 10 years...Discounters, Bank Brokers etc are all having an effect on the business. These firms blow money on so much garbage that you would think do something to help out the sales force...7.00 postage fee's, 100.00 account fees and all the other takeaways are not helping me. Not that easy to pick up and leave everytime you feel annoyed with stuff you can't control. I have left once and will not do it again, would set up a lemonade stand in the middle of death valley before I signed another contract.Have any of you people ever actually worked for a living? Holy Shit, you’re in a business where you have the opportunity to make M.D.-type money, or better, with essentially no credentials. You don’t like how your “boss” firm compensated you? Seek your fortune elsewhere, either on an alternative platform in this business or in another field altogether.
Christ, some of us actually worked real, low paying, difficult jobs in our formative years in order to hope to get an opportunity like this.
Fritz,
I’m honestly not trying to antagonize (this time anyway), but what relatively high-paying jobs have gotten easier and less competitive over the past ten years (Government NOT included)?
Agree with you..believe me there are positives about this job. But I thought this business was about building "your business," it just seems like it is really not your business when someone is putting up obstacles in your way a lot of the time. Just had to explain to 75 people about account fee's when their accounts are down. Or how the minimum commission goes up every other year, and then after 4-5 years of that than all of a sudden because the company decides, i do not even get paid on the elevated commission because the account is too small or the trade fell at 100.00 or less. Maybe i am the only one that feels this way...Fritz,
I’m honestly not trying to antagonize (this time anyway), but what relatively high-paying jobs have gotten easier and less competitive over the past ten years (Government NOT included)?
I’m with you Fritz. I think my new job will be to unionize the financial services industry. And to answer YHWY question; I have held some very physically and mentally tough and demanding jobs. Jobs I would not ever want to do again. I worked my way through college and also benefited from the GI Bill. I like my career now. I just hope it survives this recession/depression whatever you want to call it or whatever it becomes. I work my balls off and am a solid producer, but I’m a realist. This economic mess we are in will not get better for a long time. The industry is a mess and it will be survival of the fittest and smartest going forward.
teachers?? How about attorneys? Teachers make more then a lot of financial advisors when you figure benefits and hours worked. What is the failure rate in the teaching profession? This job is way too hard to do for under 150k a year, especially in metropolitan areas with high costs of living.Fritz,
I’m honestly not trying to antagonize (this time anyway), but what relatively high-paying jobs have gotten easier and less competitive over the past ten years (Government NOT included)?
bondguy,
Do you have the credentials to be an attorney? If so, and it really has become an easier job over the past ten years, why aren’t you an attorney? As for “teachers”, last I checked, the vast majority of teachers are employed by the Government. And, as the son of two career teachers, in their part of the country, at least, your compensation estimates are WAY off. Try again.
Am I the only one who is amazed that so many professionals who are selling themselves as financial advisors have managed their own finances so poorly? We are in an industry where our incomes are highly variable. The only prudent course of action is to live somewhat below my means so that when the occasional bear market comes along I have a cushion against the inevitable shocks to my income. If we cannot manage our own finances well, we have no business advising others.
Well… this thread is completely and hopelessly off topic…
[quote=illinoisrep]Am I the only one who is amazed that so many professionals who are selling themselves as financial advisors have managed their own finances so poorly? We are in an industry where our incomes are highly variable. The only prudent course of action is to live somewhat below my means so that when the occasional bear market comes along I have a cushion against the inevitable shocks to my income. If we cannot manage our own finances well, we have no business advising others.[/quote]
…and doctors who get colds ought to have their licenses yanked.
HIJACK !!!
So… When is retention and how much??
At least AGE Forever remembers the point of the thread. I will guess for Legacy AGE a step up in the deferred amount of our previous retention package. We will find out at the end of January.
The reason this thread is off topic is because many have thrown in the towel..my question is at what point does silence tell you all you need to know. Jan, Feb, March, Jan 2010? But with 40,000 plus views this thread should always continueAt least AGE Forever remembers the point of the thread. I will guess for Legacy AGE a step up in the deferred amount of our previous retention package. We will find out at the end of January.
What’s sad is that I started a thread that passed away - 43k views - on the same topic.
[quote=Vet20]HIJACK !!![/quote]
Gay!!!
[quote=Gordon Gekko]What’s sad is that I started a thread that passed away - 43k views - on the same topic. [/quote]
You’re still a good person.
The sad part is not that my beloved thread passed away, it's that another montrosity could be created and still no word from Walk-all-over-ya. Having left the firm and not having a dog in this fight, I still hope they treat the AGE guys fairly.
Let’s face it…the folks in this business who are successful are well compensated. So when someone on the outside gets wind of the income or even better yet the transition or retention packages paid it seems over the top. The truth is this business is ruthless and about two things, your crd and trailing 12…you can add what percentage is annuitized over the last 5 years. All firms still throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. That is the process of hiring talent. The reason retention and transition is what it is is because those who succeed do something almost everyone else who tries this cannot…not fail. The math works here to pay transition and retention because the firms make money net of paying us. They may provide the support and research, but we provide what counts most, the ability to generate revenue, year in and year out. This year at WS has been a complete disaster. First, the big move to St. Louis. We lost Rod and Michael, our managed money platform, esp fundsource, has sucked, calling the home office is a joke, WB blew up, the industry and markets became the story and the reason markets fell, we were on display to the country for days as WFC and C fought over who was getting us for a song and a dance and now we wait like street people wondering when and what retention will be. Those who think it is not of good character to expect a retention must be in a different business than me. When any of our names are mentioned within the business either inside this firm or from recruiters on the outside the question is, “What’s his/her trailing 12?” So with all due respect to the MD’s out there, and I have plenty of them as clients, what we do is as rare and we get the income because believe it or not we do what almost everyone else cannot. WFC will pay the industry standard. If not they will lose the best talent they have, because this first decision will be a window into what all future decisions will look like.
Danny seems like an honorable guy. He seems concerned for us and respects the job we do, even if at times he talks to us like our DAD. That being said, he has not once tried to lower out expectations about retention. I choose to believe that in the end, he is what he says. He might even be in a dog fight with WFC about how to offer AGE retention in addition to what was already paid out. Regardless, we will know soon. If WFC blows us off for whatever reason, this firm is done. They know that and that is why they will pay. We may not have gone to medical school, but give us some credit. If this was so easy, the compensation would not be what it is.Danny can go to bat for his troops all day long but WFC is now king and they make all the rules. They don't have to pay a retention. They know that the only reason any one would transition away from WB in this environment (or any environment) is because they are flat broke and if they do leave only taking 1/3 of book anyway. Remember, WFC bought Wachovia Bank, Wachovia Securities was like a free side order of beans with your burrito, nice, but you don't really need them.
timetogo,
A little reality check here. You, like all the rest of us, are a salesperson. Your clients may well buy the rest of that pitch (and maybe there’s a reason they should), but hey, we’re all in the club here You’re compensate exclusively on that which you are able to sell (period).
Tough job to succeed at? Sure, but to compare it to the “rarity” of skill and knowledge of practicing medical doctors…please.
As far as the direction of this thread…I say, great job, Duster, you began something that has interested people. This is where the debate, such as it is, is happening on Registered Rep. and since there doesn’t appear than there will be any new “retention” news any time soon, I say ride it. Or don’t.
I don't have the credentials to be an attorney, but most attorneys don't have the credentials to do my job either. But I do think their job has gotten easier. Do you remember the politicians (most of them are attorneys) making a big deal about 12b-1 fees a few years agoThink about it 25bps equals $25 per $10,000 invested and they consider that too much. I wish our industry would charge per phone call, and charge $3 per page for photocopying like attorneys do. What do teachers make per hour when you figure actual hours worked and benefets? How about professors at public universities with tenure? I am without a doubt in the top 1% of income earners in our profession, but most brokers I know are making 50-70k a year, working 50hr weeks and dealing with lots of b.s.. How much does a "career teacher" make? How many hours are they working a year?bondguy,
Do you have the credentials to be an attorney? If so, and it really has become an easier job over the past ten years, why aren’t you an attorney? As for “teachers”, last I checked, the vast majority of teachers are employed by the Government. And, as the son of two career teachers, in their part of the country, at least, your compensation estimates are WAY off. Try again.
bondguy,
Both of my parents retired with 30+ years in and Masters Degrees in their field of expertise and the most they ever made (their last year) was about $55k. They did get great health insurance and a pension, granted (provided by the government, which I stipulated have provided easier jobs the past 10 years) and did get about 10 weeks of vacation each year. Keep in mind, that’s all AFTER 30-35 years on the job. Starting salary in that neck of the woods is about $22k+.
If you’re going by an FC pay range of $50-70k per year, then your point is spot on. In fact, at those levels, those brokers you know will be asked/encouraged/forced to seek employment in another field before long.
Sorry, about ten weeks of SUMMER vacation each year, in addition to holiday breaks.
[quote=Wolfgang]
Danny can go to bat for his troops all day long but WFC is now king and they make all the rules. They don't have to pay a retention. They know that the only reason any one would transition away from WB in this environment (or any environment) is because they are flat broke and if they do leave only taking 1/3 of book anyway. Remember, WFC bought Wachovia Bank, Wachovia Securities was like a free side order of beans with your burrito, nice, but you don't really need them.
[/quote] Well the name on the door now or soon will read WF.You must have a son or daugher in medical school or are a child of a doctor. We can reduce our positions to sales people, fine, but the reason teachers, custodians, doctors, lawyers, mlb baseball palyers, truck drivers, factory workers, policeman, retail employees and on and on get paid what they get is based on the scarcity or lack of people who can do the job adequately as desired by the demand of the service provided. Doctors may be one rare exception to that fact and even then I have some as clients who are very successful and others who are not doing so well. They may have passed the exams, but a business it is.
As salepeople, some more successful than othere, this field is based on econ 101, supply and demand. There is a shortage of brokers who generate a certain level of pretictable revenue, the same way only so many guys rush for a 1000 yards or bat 300 or win 15 games. We may come from varied backrounds and some not the pedigree MD's have, but the math is simple. You get what your worth. We will see soon what WFC thinks of that. The market and price has long been set. They will pay what they feel we are worth. They will pay that not on cfp designations, or post graduate work, but on what counts in t his business, crd and t-12. I hope you and everyone who has sent a message to this bitchfest gets paid. We are worth it. Whether you need the money for next months mortgage or will just bank it and build wealth.[quote=timetogo]Let’s face it…the folks in this business who are successful are well compensated. So when someone on the outside gets wind of the income or even better yet the transition or retention packages paid it seems over the top. The truth is this business is ruthless and about two things, your crd and trailing 12…you can add what percentage is annuitized over the last 5 years. All firms still throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. That is the process of hiring talent. The reason retention and transition is what it is is because those who succeed do something almost everyone else who tries this cannot…not fail. The math works here to pay transition and retention because the firms make money net of paying us. They may provide the support and research, but we provide what counts most, the ability to generate revenue, year in and year out. This year at WS has been a complete disaster. First, the big move to St. Louis. We lost Rod and Michael, our managed money platform, esp fundsource, has sucked, calling the home office is a joke, WB blew up, the industry and markets became the story and the reason markets fell, we were on display to the country for days as WFC and C fought over who was getting us for a song and a dance and now we wait like street people wondering when and what retention will be. Those who think it is not of good character to expect a retention must be in a different business than me. When any of our names are mentioned within the business either inside this firm or from recruiters on the outside the question is, “What’s his/her trailing 12?” So with all due respect to the MD’s out there, and I have plenty of them as clients, what we do is as rare and we get the income because believe it or not we do what almost everyone else cannot. WFC will pay the industry standard. If not they will lose the best talent they have, because this first decision will be a window into what all future decisions will look like.
Danny seems like an honorable guy. He seems concerned for us and respects the job we do, even if at times he talks to us like our DAD. That being said, he has not once tried to lower out expectations about retention. I choose to believe that in the end, he is what he says. He might even be in a dog fight with WFC about how to offer AGE retention in addition to what was already paid out. Regardless, we will know soon. If WFC blows us off for whatever reason, this firm is done. They know that and that is why they will pay. We may not have gone to medical school, but give us some credit. If this was so easy, the compensation would not be what it is. [/quote] So many absurd comments in here I would not know where to start, so off base I would think your joking, but not sure you are. "If WFC blows us off this firm is done," what do you mean, as Wolfgang said they bought WB for the bank, If they are done you need to tell WFC CEO Sutmpf because I dont think he knows that yet. Also WFC will pay "industry standard," What is the industry standard, the industry has changed forever, the banks calling the shots. Was the "industry standard" for BAC to give ML brokers under 500k a bag of peanuts. Or is the industry standard the grid that BAC just came out with, Under 350K gross 15% payout..those are just a taste of the "new" industry standards. Danny is trying and has been trying for retention, but WFC has thown it into the hopper, Stumpf has recently said he has never had any desire to have a brokerage firm, never been interested in Investment banking or trading...Timetogo did Santa still come and give you some toys while you where sleeping??I always talk business with clients. Guess what, attorneys, doctors, plastic surgeons - they all tell me it’s all about selling in their lines as well.
If they don’t sell - no one walks in the door and the specialized college degree is as good as so much toilet paper.
Some lawyers don’t even make $50,000 a year. I understand many doctors make under $100,000 net. So make any analogy you want as to whether we should or shouldn’t get paid - bottom line is bottom line and good brokers make a large amount of money. So do good real estate agents - mortgage brokers - and independent business people selling anything from water purifiers to owing large furniture stores.
That’s why some unsuccessful brokers try and spend their time playing analyst - researching balance sheets - sitting on several hour conference calls - and many fail thinking as they are working when they aren’t - sales is what makes the money in any profession. Working is getting new clients and keeping people and their assets safe.
Everything is commoditized - legal advice - medical advice - everything. Sales is what differentiates the successful from the unsuccessful. Here’s a great statistic I found to further verify my opinion here…
In 2002, the median annual earnings of all lawyers was $90,290. The
middle half of the occupation earned between $61,060 and $136,810. The
lowest paid 10 percent earned less than $44,490; at least 10 percent
earned more than $145,600. Median annual earnings in the industries
employing the largest numbers of lawyers in 2002 are given in the
following tabulation.
That’s what we make - well we make more! Thank God they spent the $100,000 for law school to buy themselve a job. Of course, with that degree you have a reall shot at being a hero and making a ton of money. How are the hero’s made? Sales ability that bring clients in and now and then a bit of luck.
And, as for lower commission payouts - don’t bet on it. With firms willing to take only ten cents per dollar where as others are taking sixty cents per dollar - the competition is hot and heavy for someone to bring in those dollars. The technology - once the barrier to change from a wirehouse - is now not even an issue. It’s so good everywhere you hardly even need an assistant.
There will always, always, be someone willing to pay you $600,000 as long as they know you will pay them $600,000 for seven years - less the 40% they have to pay you per year. That deal will be made night and day summer, fall, winter, and spring. Let’s see - they lay out $600,000 and they are almost guaranteed to get $360,000 a year for seven years - I mean really - who wouldn’t make that deal? We’re the dopes for taking it!
So, as this becomes more and more clear - innovative firms like Schwabb start competing paying top payouts with the name and the technology - you think the wirehouses are going to cut back on payout? No way. They will continue to improve offerings and increase productivity through technology and pay as much as possible. Each $600,000 producer that lasts seven years means over two million in revenue! What type of business would turn that away?
In my opinion WFC is walking a tight line here with no news whatsoever. Nothing - radio silence. I have to assume they are going to pay on 2008 through December and that’s why they may have strung it out. I have to believe when they finally announce it - it will be a number to make you say - that ain’t great but… that ain’t bad!
I think one silver lining in this merger may be that mortgage compensation will go up big. Some people make a huge living selling mortgages for Wells. Many mortgage brokers have made much more than many of us make - that’s for sure. If we can add that business line and really get paid for it (not 1/2 point divided by three but get paid like the WFC mortgage brokers) it could be a huge pay raise for everyone.
timetogo,
My kids are 5 and 8 years of age and my parents were humble public school teahcers, so, not conflict of MD interest here.
Fact is, I know LOTS of successful salespeople; FCs, Realtors, Yacht Brokers, etc. and, the bottom line is, you sell or you leave. Firms are, of course, motivated to pay the very most successful of these salespersons more than the not-as-successful, no question. That is where the supply and demand issue starts and stops, however. My point began as; the more pedestrian among “us” (of which I am one) are HANDSOMELY compensated for what we do relative to our peers.
I have seen a lot of 200-300k brokers recruited by other firms, I don't think that will change. I beleive 250k producers are pretty profitable for regionals and indy's. I would rather hire a 250k producer with a clean record then a trainee. Trainees are expensive and the fail rate is high.bondguy,
Both of my parents retired with 30+ years in and Masters Degrees in their field of expertise and the most they ever made (their last year) was about $55k. They did get great health insurance and a pension, granted (provided by the government, which I stipulated have provided easier jobs the past 10 years) and did get about 10 weeks of vacation each year. Keep in mind, that’s all AFTER 30-35 years on the job. Starting salary in that neck of the woods is about $22k+.
If you’re going by an FC pay range of $50-70k per year, then your point is spot on. In fact, at those levels, those brokers you know will be asked/encouraged/forced to seek employment in another field before long.
I have seen a lot of 200-300k brokers recruited by other firms, I don't think that will change. I beleive 250k producers are pretty profitable for regionals and indy's. I would rather hire a 250k producer with a clean record then a trainee. Trainees are expensive and the fail rate is high.[/quote][quote=YHWY]bondguy,
Both of my parents retired with 30+ years in and Masters Degrees in their field of expertise and the most they ever made (their last year) was about $55k. They did get great health insurance and a pension, granted (provided by the government, which I stipulated have provided easier jobs the past 10 years) and did get about 10 weeks of vacation each year. Keep in mind, that’s all AFTER 30-35 years on the job. Starting salary in that neck of the woods is about $22k+.
If you’re going by an FC pay range of $50-70k per year, then your point is spot on. In fact, at those levels, those brokers you know will be asked/encouraged/forced to seek employment in another field before long.
I know for a fact that you are correct in your belief.
[quote=timetogo]Eleven weeks later…rumor is that Danny has the job and an announcement is coming Monday. All communication from management has been positive. WFC is aware that the brokerage unit is in need of standard retention. ISG and PCG will both get industry standard deals very big producer biased, but not so harsh on the middle of the pack like MER and BAC. The complications come from the amount of money already received by AGE and even the smaller amount rec’d by WS PCG brokers. An industry deal announced next week will subtract any EFL balance…If you are a new hire, there will most likely be a cuttoff on retention like the MER deal…ie 2006 or after.
Either way, the time that has passed is an indication the the priority this has had with WFC. Next week is the week it needs to be done. With retention that is less than the industry standard, tied to the 10-11 weeks we've been waiting will speak to the future of the NEW firm. Anything beyond that, I will assume we are screwed. It will be a complete disregard to us as we all try and salvage a sense of relief and peace and enjoy a few days for the holidays. Instead we will be forced to make tough decisions as deals to go other firms have expiration dates. Instead of eggnog, we will be preparing protocol lists for the acats. [/quote] I must have missed it, you said an "announcement is coming monday" this post was on Dec 13th...What did they end up doing??It's time to start turning this thing around. Get back on offense.
In my opinion WFC is walking a tight line here with no news whatsoever. Nothing - radio silence. I have to assume they are going to pay on 2008 through December and that’s why they may have strung it out. I have to believe when they finally announce it - it will be a number to make you say - that ain’t great but… that ain’t bad!
One last thing, as for Stumpf not wanting securities representation - here’s what he said Dec 10:
Stumpf said it was possible Wells would look for a large brokerage firm in the future.
Once Wells purchased Wachovia the bank became "a national company," he said. "And, as we look to build out our brand and build out our distribution, that's an important part of the company," he said.
This made a lot of sense to me. If you have the infrastructure to run 1,000 brokers - you could probably use it to run 25,000.
Say. as an example, you have a research department. Whether 1000 brokers get the research or 15,000 it doesn't cost a nickel more. Same with corporate actions, bond desks, and a whole lot of other areas. However, 15,000 brokers will bring in a lot more against the fixed costs to run things than 1000.
As you expand distribution and the profit made from it against the fixed costs of running these various areas - profitability moves higher and higher. And, so can payout.
So, from what I've read Stumpf has said exactly the opposite and, from a clear headed business perspective, it makes a lot of sense to expand distribution.
Thus I think Fritz is dead wrong.
illinois…your off base. A lot of us are great at managing other peoples “investments” not great at dealing with our own money. They say the same for many other professions. I have had a number of atty clients over the years who I discovered had no will. Shocking, but they never got around to it. Some of us have had to finance our survival in this business during lean times in ever ending quest to one day make it big enough to never have to worry again. Maybe you live in Mayberry where it all peaches and cream, and everything is just dandy. The rest of us have been in a bare knuckles brawl to make it in this business and sometimes the finances be damned. Whatever it takes to make it.
Did anyone see the Ny Times yesterday:
In a conference call on Dec. 19, Tim Sloan, a Wells Fargo executive who will head the global markets and investment banking unit, told a group of Wachovia bankers that they would not receive big bonuses. Instead, their allocated bonus money will be returned to shareholders.
He also said there would be no retention packages, according to a Wachovia employee who listened to the call. A Wells Fargo spokeswoman declined to comment
I hope he is talking about retention packages for the investment bankers and not the brokers.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/business/01pay.html
The key piece of this article:
In a conference call on Dec. 19, Tim Sloan, a Wells Fargo executive
who will head the global markets and investment banking unit, told a
group of Wachovia bankers that they would not receive big bonuses.
Instead, their allocated bonus money will be returned to shareholders.
He
also said there would be no retention packages, according to a Wachovia
employee who listened to the call. A Wells Fargo spokeswoman declined
to comment.
reality,” Mr. Sloan told the employees, as recounted by the
participant. “It just would have been irresponsible to the company’s
shareholders to do anything else.”
Given Sloans position within the Investment Banking group, I doubt his words here pertain to anyone or any piece of the brokerage at Wachovia. We shall see.
dismusbedaplace where the retention is gonna be announced at the 100th page…it certainly didn’t happen on the other thread…I am soooooo disappointed…
i have been using [url=http://www.nyescortoutcall.com]New York Escorts[/url] windows media player calssic
when you [url=http://www.nyescortoutcall.com]New York Escort[/url] select the full screen reoslution as 320 x200 i figured that even though it still uses 16bpp colour depth it might be easier [url=http://www.nyescortoutcall.com]New York Asian Escort[/url] to capture using debut screen cast from this lower resolution and then use virtual dub [url=http://www.nyescortoutcall.com]New York Asian Escorts[/url]
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/whats-firms/retentionplease-do-not-hijack