Year end pay out changes at MS

bad news for mikebutler.

Tell us something we didn’t already know.

[quote=Elvis]if your producing less than 300k you will start to be squeezed. [/quote]

How could that be? We already fired all those people months ago, from what I've read here.

Seriously, "squeezed" is so loose a prediction that you'll be able to claim you were right no matter what happens. My guess is the penalty box will move up, but not to 300K and payout will not change at that level.

[quote=Elvis]if you are doing 1 million or better there will be good incentives to stay! [/quote]

Hasn't that always been true? A couple of things were added last year, like the productivity bonus, that play into that.

[quote=Elvis]expect more trainees and slowing down on the recruiting! Dont say i didn't tell you![/quote]

Hmm, well, since there will be a new trainee program I would expect more trainees, but I doubt recruiting will slow down...

[quote=Helter Skelter]bad news for mikebutler. [/quote]

Too late for me, annuity-boy, they cut me six months ago when the sub-$300k guys were pushed out  

There's a Bloomberg blurb today about MS hiking bonuses to retain bankers and traders so I would not be surprised to see payouts cut in private client on under $300K.

More details please.

Thanks.

and what are these year-end payout changes at MS retail – are you just making predictions, or has something actually changed?

That link's messed up so just do this:

http://www.bloomberg.com

Key in MS (ticker symbol) then hit "news." You should be able to access it if even if you don't have Bloomberg (at least today).

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]

There’s a Bloomberg blurb today about MS hiking bonuses to retain bankers

and traders so I would not be surprised to see payouts cut in private client

on under $300K.

[/quote]

I think this is what you’re talking about, from yahoo;

link redacted



This was previously announced and doesn’t mention payouts. We’ll have to

see if the low end is cut in payouts at the expense of the top. You just never

know.

er, uh, should read “if the top payout is increased at the expense of the bottom…”

Thanks, Mike---I missed that one.

I haven't seen anything in writing yet on payouts being changed again in private client. If I do, I will post it.

300k for every LOE? What will the cutoff be? 8+?

[quote=fired?]300k for every LOE? What will the cutoff be? 8+?[/quote]

If you're asking me I'd say I seriously doubt a cut at 300k. That would simply affect far too many people. There's an outside chance, imho, that the penalty box payout level might be moved that high for very senior LOSs, but I doubt that as well. I think currently that's at 200k, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it move to 250k for LOS 8 or so and above.

lowering the penalty box

[quote=doneMS]lowering the penalty box[/quote]

Why would they lower it?

Mike…were you seriously cut or was that an attempt at humor?

[quote=frumhere]Mike...were you seriously cut or was that an attempt at humor?[/quote]

Was it that bad an attempt?

Of course it was a try at humor. Not only would the cut not have affected me, there wasn't any (long prodicted) cut. 

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=frumhere]Mike...were you seriously cut or was that an attempt at humor?[/quote]

Was it that bad an attempt?

Of course it was a try at humor. Not only would the cut not have affected me, there wasn't any (long prodicted) cut. 

[/quote]

Sales assistants don't get cut for production. They only get cut if they spill nail polish on their keyboards.

[quote=Helter Skelter][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=frumhere]Mike...were you seriously cut or was that an attempt at humor?[/quote]

Was it that bad an attempt?

Of course it was a try at humor. Not only would the cut not have affected me, there wasn't any (long prodicted) cut. 

[/quote]

Sales assistants don't get cut for production. They only get cut if they spill nail polish on their keyboards.

[/quote]

You sure have lots of time on your hands to post lame jokes and racial slurs, Dirk. Is it because  the regulators have shut you down?

It was lame, but it still was funny.

i hear there is a meeting tommorow mourning for the managers to discuss the new comp changes. the managers will then present it to the brokers.

i hope someone will post the news.

[quote=aldo63]

i hear there is a meeting tommorow mourning for the managers to discuss the new comp changes. the managers will then present it to the brokers.

i hope someone will post the news.

[/quote]

There's a "town meeting" with Gorman tomorrow. I'm sure managers will meet before it.

Anything…couldn’t attend

I guess they dont want to talk about it. Maybe still in shock.

Wrong…nothing came of it–a big non-event.

ms usually waits to the last minute to make changes. the fiscal year ends in november. It will be a happy thanksgiving meeting. In 2001, they raised the minimum from 150 to 300 on dec 21st. MERRY CHRISTMAS! If you we not at 300k, you started the next year out at 25% payout. I dropped trades under another broker to get him to the level. Others were too far away to get it done in a few days time.

Remember this is was the second year of the collapse and everyone was hurting for business.

[quote=Cowboy93]Wrong...nothing came of it--a big non-event.[/quote]

Yep. No lay-offs, increased payout levels near the bottom, more to follow...

[quote=aldo63]

 In 2001, they raised the minimum from 150 to 300 on dec 21st. MERRY CHRISTMAS! If you we not at 300k, you started the next year out at 25% payout. [/quote]

When did they change that from the $300k you mentioned to the $200k it is now?

This was taken from a recent IN article (10/5 I think)...not sure what is meant, but I thought it might be relevant to the topic as long as it survives...

A top wirehouse executive is calling for renewed ruthlessness in eliminating low-end stock brokers from broker-dealers because they serve as a drag on corporate profits and reputations, according to a Dow Jones press report.

"We are defined by the bottom half," said James Gorman, president of Morgan Stanley's global wealth management group in his keynote address to colleagues at the Security industry Association's sales and marketing conference today.

"You've got to be brutal in defining the bottom half of your organization," he added.

they changed it to 200k in april of the next year becuase they were losing people

The question really is not weather you are doing 200k or 300k, to determine you have a job. Bottom line you must up your game. If you listend to Gorman, we will be training again 1200 in 2007, which is in line with everyone else. Does MikeButler have a real job in managment or is he low hanging fruit?

QUOTE=betterdays]

The question really is not weather you are doing 200k or 300k, to determine you have a job. [/question]

Very insightful, since that's a proposal that no one here’s advanced. The only time the 200k/300k number has come up in this thread was over the issue of the “penalty box” 25% payout for higher LOSs, and not whether or not you‘d have continued employment at MS at those production levels.

There’s that reoccurring rumor that everyone below $300k was to be cut, but that continues to look like a baseless talking point.

[quote=betterdays]

Bottom line you must up your game. [/quote]

I wouldn’t disagree with that, otoh, increasing the payout at lower levels and the productivity bonus appear to show that management will be using a carrot and not the rumored stick to get people there

[quote=betterdays]

If you listend to Gorman, we will be training again 1200 in 2007, which is in line with everyone else. [/quote]

I must have missed him putting out that number. At what point did he do that?

[quote=betterdays]

Does MikeButler have a real job in managment or is he low hanging fruit?

[/quote]

Neither.

ugh... take two....

[quote=betterdays]

The question really is not weather you are doing 200k or 300k, to determine you have a job. [/quote]

Very insightful, since that's a proposal that no one here’s advanced. The only time the 200k/300k number has come up in this thread was over the issue of the “penalty box” 25% payout for higher LOSs, and not whether or not you‘d have continued employment at MS at those production levels.

There’s that reoccurring rumor that everyone below $300k was to be cut, but that continues to look like a baseless talking point.

[quote=betterdays]

Bottom line you must up your game. [/quote]

I wouldn’t disagree with that, otoh, increasing the payout at lower levels and the productivity bonus appear to show that management will be using a carrot and not the rumored stick to get people there

[quote=betterdays]

If you listend to Gorman, we will be training again 1200 in 2007, which is in line with everyone else. [/quote]

I must have missed him putting out that number. At what point did he do that?

[quote=betterdays]

Does MikeButler have a real job in managment or is he low hanging fruit?

[/quote]

Neither.

I agree with mikey that if anything takes place with the lower producers, relative to their LOS, it will simply be a lower payout and a relegation into the penalty box so that the owness is on the producer to step things up. 

did they changed anything or not? was there a comp meeting?

[quote=BrokerRecruit]

I agree with mikey that if anything takes place with the lower producers, relative to their LOS, it will simply be a lower payout and a relegation into the penalty box so that the owness is on the producer to step things up. 

[/quote]

Onus is the correct spelling.  What a shameful sack of human biowaste you must be BrokerRecruit. 

Tell me now BrokerRecruit, is your mommy proud of her biggest mistake?  How do you live with yourself knowing what an embarassment you are to your gene pool?

[quote=aldo63]did they changed anything or not? was there a comp meeting?[/quote]

Geez, I'm away for a couple weeks and the primordial ooze ends up getting all over the place.  I'm not even going to waste my time on this prime example of evolutionary hubris.

at least dennis miller is funny.

Shut up aldo63.  You're not welcome here.  Migrant workers have no place as Financial Advisors.

accounts under 80K I think broker gets "0."  Thats right nothing..makes sense, what a fucing joke this place is.

[quote=fritz]

accounts under 80K I think broker gets "0."  Thats right nothing..makes sense, what a fucing joke this place is.

[/quote]

I assume you mean households, not accounts, under $80k. That would be news, where did you see that?

HH I hope too…Have it believe it is, but it was unclear.

[quote=fritz]HH I hope too...Have it believe it is, but it was unclear.[/quote]

And again, where did you hear this news you're so quick to believe?

My friend who was our branch manager who got pushed back into production during office politics last year when the region got realligned.  He said the account raising, or household raising was the worst of it.  And some a 1% bumpup on grid in the 350-400 range.

I didn't ask him to raise his right hand and swear by this, but it is what he said. 

[quote=fritz]

My friend who was our branch manager who got pushed back into production during office politics last year when the region got realligned.  He said the account raising, or household raising was the worst of it.  And some a 1% bumpup on grid in the 350-400 range.

I didn't ask him to raise his right hand and swear by this, but it is what he said. 

[/quote]

I heard the new household limit is going to be 50k (up from 35k).  I also heard the rumor that the grid is going to be increased for those over the 300k level.  Really good news for a change.  I don't think they are doing anything to the penalty box. 

Of course, it's all rumor at this point. We'll know for sure in a few weeks.

No bump up for 300-400. Let get real, Why should they? they are in the 3rd to 4th quartile. Why reward the lower half? No bump unless doing million plus. These are the people the firm wants, the most profitable one. Business 101.

[quote=Elvis]No bump up for 300-400. Let get real, Why should they? they are in the 3rd to 4th quartile. Why reward the lower half? No bump unless doing million plus. These are the people the firm wants, the most profitable one. Business 101. [/quote]

First of all, 300 - 400 is not 3rd to 4th quartile.  MS doesn't want FA's that do less than 300, so they are going to give FAs an incentive to get up to that range. They also want to reduce attrition.

[quote=Elvis]No bump up for 300-400.  [/quote]

Too late, already been announced....

[quote=fritz]

accounts under 80K I think broker gets "0."  Thats right nothing..makes sense, what a fucing joke this place is.

[/quote]

Fritz, seriously, you're the most negative person I've ever encountered who's passed a Series 7 and is still in the business. You bite on, believe and then rant about every negative rumor that gets floated. You can’t be happy, why do you; 1) Stay at the firm you’re at if you hate it so much or 2) stay in the business if you hate it so much?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

This job is too hard, hell, life is too hard to do things you hate. Surely you have other options either in firms or other professions.

How about Gorman's comments about lower producers, the writing is on the wall... I spoke with a MS rep the other day, only 9% of the companies revenue comes from the retail side. They might want to rid themselves of the liability/costs and focus on Investment Banking and HNW.

http://www.investmentnews.com/article.cms?articleId=56064

[quote=NHrep]

How about Gorman's comments about lower producers, the writing is on the wall... [/quote]

It's been on the wall since last year when 500 of them went away. That was the stick, the bump in payouts and the bonuses for production above $300k is the carrot. Read the article about the tiny books, 5MM, and how the trainee program is being changed. Gorman's also talked about the bottom half of clients and how they account for the vast majority of litigation costs.

[quote=NHrep]

I spoke with a MS rep the other day, only 9% of the companies revenue comes from the retail side. They might want to rid themselves of the liability/costs and focus on Investment Banking and HNW.

http://www.investmentnews.com/article.cms?articleId=56064

[/quote]

They might, some day, but the drive now is to unify the two parts that never really merged fully under Purcell. We'll see...