Bank Brokers' Article in WSJ

or Register to post new content in the forum

19 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Oct 28, 2006 8:59 pm

today---NASD has concerns.


If anyone wants a copy, let me know. I don't have a link but can send you a scanned copy.


Awful weekend for me. Penn lost to Brown and those Oregon State Beavers upset my no longer ranked #3 Trojans.

Oct 29, 2006 1:57 am
ymh_ymh_ymh:

today---NASD has concerns.


If anyone wants a copy, let me know. I don't have a link but can send you a scanned copy.


Awful weekend for me. Penn lost to Brown and those Oregon State Beavers upset my no longer ranked #3 Trojans.



Can you give us one or two bullet points that capture the main points of the article?

Oct 29, 2006 1:24 am

How about the title of the article?


Here's some other headlines you will not want to read Sunday morning.


TROJAN BREAKS AFTER ENTERING EAGER BEAVER


TROJANS STOP STD's BUT NOT TD's IN BEAVERLAND


BEAVERS BUST BUSH-LESS TROJANS


BEAVERS MAKE BOOTY CALL ON BCS

Oct 29, 2006 5:44 am

Brown beating Penn hurt worse. I gave up 4 points!


I want Reggie Bush back almost as much as Pete Carroll does!


Page B4 of yesterday's Journal:


"Concern Over Brokers at Banks"


(NASD Worries That Risks Aren't Adequately Disclosed at Branches)


by: Jaime Levy Pessin

Oct 29, 2006 12:30 pm

The article might have had more merrit, 15-20 years ago.


Today it's generally drivel. All NASD related accounts come with piles of duplicate paperwork, it doesn't matter where the location. I'm sure there are bad people at some banks and some slick lawters ready to play up the "we were dupped at the bank" claims. I thought the article simpleminded. 


Oct 29, 2006 12:37 pm

Maybe the concern has more to do with bank brokers' clients being more naive and thinking their "investments" are insured by the FDIC rather than banker brokers having less experience/supervision than traditional brokerage firms' brokers.

Oct 29, 2006 12:57 pm

Another side of the story is about the NASD and its worries. Just another power grab for a disfunctional labor union for broker dealers dressed as a consumer protection group.


Worry is followed by rules which gratuitiously empowers themselves into power positions of all types. Banks have equal structures. Both are pathetic and clients and producers lose in most processes. My take on the article? NASD interests want more regulatory markup from banks selling investments. Clients and producers would end up paying.


It's regulatory markup that is out of control today, this is much larger than many of the headline scandals; revenue sharing, market timing etc. On the bigger issues like accounting abuses and CEO corruption or excess regulation itself the NASD is part of the problem not a solution. So the story, like so many others, is regulator make-believe to justify it's existence in the Arthur Levitt like tradition. The great strong arm of the 90's who missed Cendant, Enron, Internet crimes and fraud of fantastic sorts while focusing on CE credits of producers.


This isn't an endorsement of banks and the non-sense dealer programs they operate. The average client see the added greed and excess of most of the larger bank concepts. That's why after years and huge advantages they are stuck under 10% share.


Markets work, regulators add to most problems. It's very clear in our industry.





Oct 29, 2006 1:07 pm

I agree about all regulatory agencies (including my beloved NASD and new and improved SEC) "blowing it" 10 years ago. Part of the problem with the NASD not being able to be more proactive prior to this year is Robert Glauber. Thank G-d he's LONG GONE the NASD.


Mary Schapiro is pro Joe and Jill 6-pack retail investor. She's also pro honest/ethical financial services industry employee/principal.


It's too bad the 5% or so in every industry bend/break the rules so egregiously the rest of us end up paying for decades.


Oct 29, 2006 1:23 pm
ymh_ymh_ymh:

Maybe the concern has more to do with bank brokers' clients being more naive and thinking their "investments" are insured by the FDIC rather than banker brokers having less experience/supervision than traditional brokerage firms' brokers.


This is a very dated rehash. If regulators were concenred about bank clients the would study all the hidden charges banks use everyday. retail investments are the least of it.


Bank management, collectively, pretty blew the opportunity from day one. Rather than maintian standards they lowered them, as is in their culture and the chance to gain large market share was lost.







Oct 29, 2006 1:57 pm
ymh_ymh_ymh:

I agree about all regulatory agencies (including my beloved NASD and new and improved SEC) "blowing it" 10 years ago. Part of the problem with the NASD not being able to be more proactive prior to this year is Robert Glauber. Thank G-d he's LONG GONE the NASD.


Mary Schapiro is pro Joe and Jill 6-pack retail investor. She's also pro honest/ethical financial services industry employee/principal.


It's too bad the 5% or so in every industry bend/break the rules so egregiously the rest of us end up paying for decades.



They're still stuck in the 70's; regulate prices lower, focus on little stuff while missing elephants in the room. Most recent things that have gone wrong were firm/large interest driven and only strengthen my point about license options away from the contradicted platitude of a dealer association protecting the public. The NASD protect dealers, not clients or most producers.


Oct 29, 2006 5:00 pm
ymh_ymh_ymh:

Maybe the concern has more to do with bank brokers' clients being more naive and thinking their "investments" are insured by the FDIC rather than banker brokers having less experience/supervision than traditional brokerage firms' brokers.


That could be, but banks are usually petty good with their "Not, Not May" (NOT FDIC insured, NOT a bank product and MAY lose value) dsclourses. It's written on almost everything a client sees AND there's a massive sign to that effect in the bank broker's office, usually on the desk a foot in front of the client.

Oct 29, 2006 6:24 pm
mikebutler222:
ymh_ymh_ymh:

Maybe the concern has more to do with bank brokers' clients being more naive and thinking their "investments" are insured by the FDIC rather than banker brokers having less experience/supervision than traditional brokerage firms' brokers.


That could be, but banks are usually petty good with their "Not, Not May" (NOT FDIC insured, NOT a bank product and MAY lose value) dsclourses. It's written on almost everything a client sees AND there's a massive sign to that effect in the bank broker's office, usually on the desk a foot in front of the client.



When they first broke into the industry the leadership of the bank B/Ds actually had discussions among themselves on how to disguise that sign--a common suggestion was to place it on the desk but with a potted plant sitting between the sign and the chair where the customer woudl be mostly likely to sit.


That made two potted plants in the room, the one on the desk and the one sitting at that desk smiling at everybody who walked by.

Oct 29, 2006 7:53 pm

Anyone who gets confused between the difference in owning a CD and a mutual fund should be shot for stupidity.

Oct 29, 2006 8:38 pm
bankrep1:

Anyone who gets confused between the difference in owning a CD and a mutual fund should be shot for stupidity.


Do you think SMART people let children at banks to things with their money?

Oct 29, 2006 9:17 pm

I didn't want to start a bank brokers versus brokerage firms' brokers war over here but appreciate the comments (pro and con).


The weekend wasn't a total wash. The Chicago Bears remain undefeated!

Oct 29, 2006 10:29 pm

My weekend was great...the Cardinals win the world series and my Colts went in to Denver and beat the Broncos to remain undefeated also!


...and the bears, as good as they looked, would have a bit more trouble defending against Peyton Manning...just ask the Broncos who had given up a total of 26 points in their previous five games before Peyton came to town and put 34 on them...

Oct 30, 2006 4:04 am

Your Colts looked really good.


Next weekend should be better for me. USC plays Stanford and if they can't win against those Cardinals, it might be time for Pete Carroll to take Charlie Weis lessons.


I watched 60 Minutes last night (a rare event for me). Charlie Weis was interviewed. That guy cusses worse than any junk bond trader I ever met. I think he missed his calling in life!

Oct 30, 2006 10:44 am
mikebutler222:
ymh_ymh_ymh:

Maybe the concern has more to do with bank brokers' clients being more naive and thinking their "investments" are insured by the FDIC rather than banker brokers having less experience/supervision than traditional brokerage firms' brokers.


That could be, but banks are usually petty good with their "Not, Not May" (NOT FDIC insured, NOT a bank product and MAY lose value) dsclourses. It's written on almost everything a client sees AND there's a massive sign to that effect in the bank broker's office, usually on the desk a foot in front of the client.



An inverse relationship exist between loses and cognitive recognition of warning disclosures. The higher the loses the lower the recognition factor. Lawyers are really good at explaining this to arbitrators or jurys.



Oct 30, 2006 11:11 am
ymh_ymh_ymh:

I didn't want to start a bank brokers versus brokerage firms' brokers war over here but appreciate the comments (pro and con).


The weekend wasn't a total wash. The Chicago Bears remain undefeated!



Good point I'll second it, I see NASD Newbie under his new handle starting that tired process.