YouCanHateMeNow

or Register to post new content in the forum

43 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.
Dec 14, 2005 4:27 pm

This guy has some self-esteem issues.  He actually derives self worth from the NAME the firm he works for...sad really.


Ladies and gentlemen, he actually thinks he is a better broker than someone else because of who clears his trades. 


I bet you drive a BIG car to compensate for other things too huh???


LOL...thanks for giving me someone to laugh at today.

Dec 14, 2005 5:29 pm

Who are you talking about?


Dec 14, 2005 6:35 pm

He is talking about youcanhatemenow read the posts under HRBlock

Dec 17, 2005 6:28 pm

    I read his postings on the HRBlock thread and Youcanhatemenow makes a lot of sense.


    BankFC, I don't know if it is possible for you to be more ignorant, but every post I read of yours I am made dumber.  If you truly believe the posts you are writing, I had better break things down to their simplest form.


    There are those that can and those that can't in life.  Those that can't end up out of the business or at a bank or credit union.  Youcanhatemenow was right in saying that Banks and credit unions can't even manage a persons checking account correctly, so why on earth would a person go there to have their serious money managed?


    Third Tier for banks?  I would argue fourth tier.  first tier: independents and full service brokerages. second tier: small regional firms and typical insurance-centric firms like NW Mutual. third tier: prioprietary firms like Waddell and Reed and Thrivent. fouth tier: banks, credit unions, HRBlock.  Tell me how I'm wrong.  The only firm worse to work for is Primemerica.


    It is obvious that BankFC has let youcanhatemenow get under his/her skin.  Most of what he said was probably true.  Especially the part about being proud of where you work when you are introducing yourself.  BankFC, if you are "smiling ear to ear" whey you say you are from a credit union, you are truly a moron.

Dec 17, 2005 7:44 pm

Rankstocks,



You have no idea what you are talking about. I could

walk back into my old ML office tomorrow (I left on

great terms), or for that matter Morgan Stanley or UBS

or whoever...they would happily take me and my clients.

   



The thing you and Youcan just don't get is that I don't

become a better advisor because my office is at a

wirehouse versus a bank. I still manage money THE SAME

WAY. I still do the same business. The only thing

that would change is who prints the statements.



How does being at a wire make an experienced rep a

better? It doesn't. It only makes it somewhat harder

for me to get in front of HNW clients day in and day

out.



If you can't understand that you're an idiot.

Dec 17, 2005 8:32 pm

Here we go again. 

Dec 19, 2005 12:24 am

No point in arguing. The only diff is between say SmithBarney/CitiBank Banc/ Bank BofA has chosen to allow their advisors a shot at the bank side. If C wasn't so worried about the potential spin off they too would adopt the proper model. Use evey avail asset

Dec 19, 2005 7:24 am
BankFC:

I could walk back into my old ML office tomorrow (I left on

great terms), or for that matter Morgan Stanley or UBS

or whoever...they would happily take me and my clients.





I've seen many bank FCs take deals to jump over to wirehouses, only to have

about 10%-15% of their books follow. The typical bank client is not an ideal

fit for a wirehouse., or they would be there already. IMO.

Dec 19, 2005 9:10 am
skeedaddy:
BankFC:

I could walk back into my old ML office tomorrow (I left on
great terms), or for that matter Morgan Stanley or UBS
or whoever...they would happily take me and my clients.



I've seen many bank FCs take deals to jump over to wirehouses, only to have
about 10%-15% of their books follow. The typical bank client is not an ideal
fit for a wirehouse., or they would be there already. IMO.


I just heard through the grapevine about a fellow from my former branch who joined from Citi about 4 yrs ago.  He was a big producer at Citi, but in the end was struggling at the wire because he couldn't figure out how to drive new assets.  He just resigned and took a position covering 3-4 branches for HNW clients at Citi.


Nice guy, but draw your own conclusion.

Dec 19, 2005 11:38 am

If someone starts in a bank, i could see how it would be hard for them to prospect IF


1) they had never had to


2) the clients they brought over did not generate adequate referrals


Typically, banks don't hire rookies.  I know lots of nice guys who tried this business but didn't like prospecting.  Hell, i don't LIKE it, but when i was in a wire, I did it anyway.


Wires are a tough road...no doubt about it.

Dec 19, 2005 12:24 pm
BankFC:

Typically, banks don't hire rookies.  



Typically they hire guys that didn’t make it at wirehouses. They were called "rookies" back at the wirehouse before they left. They can't hire successful wirehouse guys because they won't take the cut in payout and the step-down in prestige and working conditions.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Dec 19, 2005 12:32 pm

Mike...where do you live, Guatemala?  All the banks around here are super nice, and most bank brokers i know HAVE offices, and go to branches by appointment...they don't sit in lobbies.  Maybe some do somewhere, but I don't and my friends don't.


You obviously are worried about prestige, as you seem to derive your self worth from your firm.


We've already discussed payout (on par).


Are you ever right?

Dec 19, 2005 12:36 pm

Banks Vs wirehouses Vs regional  VS independants. Having spent most of my career at a major wirehouse I can dispell any notion that they offer a better quality of advise. The firm I was with poked proded and extorted it's reps to sell the products it wanted sold. From what I could see, the quality of advise offered by reps at that firm was directly proportional to their ability to resist that pressure.


As for banks, in the begining all bank reps were failed wirehouse reps. That was a long time ago and I'm sure banks have moved beyond this model. Also, what caused these reps to flunk out of wirehouse programs was their inability to find the money. Many, at least the ones I know, are fine advisors. Going to a bank solved their primary problem, finding the money, and in progressive programs, where the bank allowed freedom they've excelled.


Unfortunately some bank programs are run by people from the banking side who just don't get it. one of my friends worked for a small regional that was sold to a large bank. he was  allowed to continue on as regular full service broker operating seperately from the bank. A short time after the merger the bank came out with a program that mandated that brokers GIVE their million dollar plus accounts to the high net worth division at the bank. This is a group of bank brokers who are politically connected to upper management. There was no payment for this: No commission or fee split. In return the High net worth guys were suppose to hand over sub million dollar accounts. Of course this shows how screwed up the banks thinking is. But they pushed it, so my friends forked over a few million dollar accounts. No one was surprised when nothing came back. The bank suits then said they wanted all their million dollar accounts given to the high net worth humps. My friends veto'd that assinine request with their feet and moved to another firm.

Dec 19, 2005 12:46 pm
BankFC:

Mike...where do you live, Guatemala?  All the banks around here are super nice, and most bank brokers i know HAVE offices, and go to branches by appointment...they don't sit in lobbies. 



Yeah, the really lucky ones have a cute little cubicle next to the guy that opens checking accounts and the mortgage guys. Really classy digs 


BankFC:

You obviously are worried about prestige, as you seem to derive your self worth from your firm.



This is where the bank guys usually run in this debate. If you recall, way back when you had your first hissy-fit about some mean old guy explaining where you ranked in the world, I told you, be happy if you're happy where you are. Now, would someone who "needs" a prestigious firm tell you that? But no, you had to push the issue and pretend your bank lobby was the same as a ML office.... 


BankFC:

We've already discussed payout (on par).



As with so many parts of this debate, you simply assert things that aren't true. 35% is NOT "on par", neither is your top out of 40%.

Dec 19, 2005 12:48 pm
tjc45:

 one of my friends worked for a small regional that was sold to a large bank. he was  allowed to continue on as regular full service broker operating seperately from the bank. A short time after the merger the bank came out with a program that mandated that brokers GIVE their million dollar plus accounts to the high net worth division at the bank. This is a group of bank brokers who are politically connected to upper management. There was no payment for this: No commission or fee split. In return the High net worth guys were suppose to hand over sub million dollar accounts. Of course this shows how screwed up the banks thinking is. But they pushed it, so my friends forked over a few million dollar accounts. No one was surprised when nothing came back. The bank suits then said they wanted all their million dollar accounts given to the high net worth humps. My friends veto'd that assinine request with their feet and moved to another firm.



Very, very common. And when your friend left, he took very, very few clients with him.

Dec 19, 2005 12:52 pm

Mikey,


I'm done with you.  I've showed you for a fool.  You have resorted to simply not believing anything that isn't as you wish it was.  So that's where this debate ends.


You lose.

Dec 19, 2005 12:56 pm
BankFC:

Mikey,


I'm done with you.  I've showed you for a fool.  You have resorted to simply not believing anything that isn't as you wish it was.  So that's where this debate ends.


You lose.



OK, lol, I lose because, well, you said so. BTW, no need to correct the errors you made in explaining the Hartford annuity you brought up, everyone here knows now you were blowing smoke.


Say hi to the tellers for us. 

Dec 19, 2005 1:03 pm

Show us the "error."

Dec 19, 2005 1:08 pm
BankFC:

Show us the "error."



Go back to that thread and you'll see.

Dec 19, 2005 1:12 pm

sorry, you're wrong.  i used a general term "living benefit' which encompasses various accumulation and income riders.


the best you can do is ineptly try to mince words to discredit me???


once again, another example of your stupidity.