Skip navigation

Best firm for female .. ML or SSB?

or Register to post new content in the forum

28 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.
May 25, 2005 9:13 pm

[quote=stanwbrown]

A clue for you “Ma Bell”. The nickname has to do with size, not because any rational person doesn’t see the conflicts of interest between employer and employee (which btw, even exist in sainted regionals). BTW, the “evil” stuff is just so over the top.

[/quote]

Sure, "evil" is over the top.

And "mother" Merrill--you think "mother" refers to size?  Your mother is who gives you life.  Your mother is who nutures you.  I took the reference to be that Merrill is the be-all, end-all of firms.  It is not.  That "mother Merrill" sh*t makes me want to vomit.  No firm should be looked at that way.

[quote=stanwbrown]

<o:p></o:p>

[quote=inquisitive] [quote=stanwbrown]
Do you think there's anyone here naive enough to believe that any employer in any field doesn't have interests that diverge from that of their employees?
[/quote]

See above.
[/quote]

Ditto

 [quote=inquisitive]
[quote=stanwbrown][quote=inquisitive]
One thing, folks:  companies that have the "best" training programs still have people who fail and wash out of the industry.  The biggest determinant of your success is you.

[/quote]

Again, a rock solid grasp of the obvious there....

[/quote]

Glad you noticed, Stan.  Too bad more people don't, because if they did, there would be no talk of "best training program".  Because the best program in the world isn't going to help you succeed if you can't make it, just as the worst one isn't going to prevent you from making it.  Repetition--it helps people learn.

[/quote]

Say I want to be a pro golfer, do I want the best coach or the worst? Granted, I have to make it on my own on the course, but call me crazy, I’m going to use the best coach in the biz, if I can.
[/quote]

How do you determine "the best", Stan?  Someone who has a reputation for being the best because people pump him up with glowing comments?  Or the person is the best because he fits your particular situation?

There is no such thing as one best CEO.  Or golf coach.  Or firm.  If there was, I could guarantee you Merrill would not be it.

[quote=stanwbrown]
[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]  [quote=inquisitive]
 I'd focus more on a company that fits your personality than "best" training programs or "biggest" brand names.  There are successful people at little regionals, too.
[/quote]

I think offices actually determine "personality" you’ll encounter more than the firm as a whole.

[/quote]

Yeah, sure, Stan (:rollseyes:).  And when you call the back office for help because something is wrong, I'm sure that branch personality will shine through...huh?  When your payout gets tinkered with, your fees are raised, or support is cut, I'm sure all you'll have to worry about is branch personality.  When you aren't making the cut production-wise and are on the verge of being terminated, I'm sure that branch personality will supersede corporate.

[/quote]

Where to begin on this silliness…… my point was to do with work environment. The environment you work in is far more dependent on your specific office than anything generated out of national HQ. It can be back-stabbing or fair, drudgery or fun competition. It’s all about the people you work with and to some extent, the attitude of the manger. As to the problems you mentioned above, I’ve never encountered any of them, anywhere.
[/quote]

No silliness at all.  How long have you been in the industry, Stan?  Talk to some people.  They'll tell you.

[quote=stanwbrown]

<o:p></o:p>

[quote=inquisitive]

You aren't one of those "branch managers are gods" folks, are you?  They aren't.  They're actually quite powerless.  If you want anything done, go to regional.

[/quote]

sigh, sounds like you often need “things done” and have to contend with “cut support” and payouts being reduced.
[/quote]

Everybody needs things done from time to time.

[quote=stanwbrown]

I’ve never faced that. Perhaps you should tell us where you work so we could all be sure of avoiding it.
[/quote]

Where I worked--past tense.

[quote=stanwbrown]

Within your manager’s limited powers is that of setting an office environment. He/She determines, for example, what if any pressure there might be on proprietary sales

[/quote]

Nope, that pressure comes from corporate.  Those are strategic business decisions, along the lines of deciding to have proprietary products in the first place.
[quote=stanwbrown]

or if there wil be marketing funds available.

[/quote]

Heavens no!  That comes from above, too.  I know one company that cut all client development dollars.  That decision was made in the executive suite--not by the branch managers.

[quote=stanwbrown]

He/she also divies up plums that come along.

[/quote]

Corporate decides if there are any plums and the size of those plums.  Branch managers don't.

[quote=stanwbrown]

They ain’t gods, they’re often failed producers, but there are things within their control.
[/quote]

Sure, there are things under their control.  But those things are trivial. 

Branch managers don't set strategic direction, no part of it.  They don't decide if you should push proprietary products.  They don't set corporate policy--which is one of the biggest determinants of culture, personality, or whatever you want to call it.  Branch managers don't fire back office support to save a few bucks, then scramble to replace them a year or two later.

[quote=stanwbrown]<o:p> </o:p>

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]
To your second point, I'm sure there are managers working AA or AAA baseball teams that are happy campers too. Me, I'd prefer to work with the bigs, and because of that, I'll always recommend that to those that ask.

[/quote]

There are no parallels between professional baseball and brokerage firms, Stan.  Quite a pathetic attempt to make one, I might add.

[/quote]

 

No doubt the manager of the AAA team things he’s doing the same thing, with the same tools and the same types of players as the managers in the bigs.

[/quote]

Yes.  And that goes for small, non-big leaguers like regionals.  They've got most of the same tools you've got.  Maybe not all.  But most.

 

[quote=inquisitive]

I know of a $4 million producer at a little regional that most people have never heard of.  How does your "big league" production compare to that???

[/quote]

  [quote=stanwbrown]

Golly, he’s a massive fish, in a small pond. Some people love that sort of thing. I personally could make do as a 4 million producer anywhere.

 

At a wirehouse he might make the regional “Chairman’s Council”. OTOH, while his life is pretty good, the vast majority of his peers at his firm are doing far less than the average guy at the bigs and with less in the way of tools.


[/quote]

Nope, the average at his firm is the same as the average at other firms--around $400k.  I sometimes read the annual reports.

And yes, he is a huge fish in a small pond.  And he's treated accordingly.

A $500k producer is going to be treated like something important at a regional.  He isn't going to be treated that way at Merrill.

May 25, 2005 9:56 pm

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

A clue for you “Ma Bell”. The nickname has to do with size, not because any rational person doesn’t see the conflicts of interest between employer and employee (which btw, even exist in sainted regionals). BTW, the “evil” stuff is just so over the top.

[/quote]

Sure, "evil" is over the top.

And "mother" Merrill--you think "mother" refers to size?  Your mother is who gives you life.  Your mother is who nutures you.  I took the reference to be that Merrill is the be-all, end-all of firms. 

[/quote]

I can only assume you're too young to recall the term "Ma Bell". The "Mother Merrill" thing is said with tongue solidly in cheek. Perhaps you should work there before you have a hissy-fit about it.

[quote=inquisitive]

It is not.  That "mother Merrill" sh*t makes me want to vomit.  No firm should be looked at that way.

[/quote]

 You're young, you'll get over it.

[quote=inquisitive] [quote=stanwbrown]
Say I want to be a pro golfer, do I want the best coach or the worst? Granted, I have to make it on my own on the course, but call me crazy, I’m going to use the best coach in the biz, if I can.
[/quote]

How do you determine "the best", Stan?  Someone who has a reputation for being the best because people pump him up with glowing comments?  Or the person is the best because he fits your particular situation?

There is no such thing as one best CEO.  Or golf coach.  Or firm.  If there was, I could guarantee you Merrill would not be it.

[/quote]

Sounds again that your ML-rage has overcome whatever good judgment you might have. ML's training program has an industry-wide rep for being the most comprehensive and deepest. "The best", sorry if that offends you, but you'll even hear people at ML's competitors saying that. Oh, and while you might have a tough time telling "the best" from "the worst" doesn't mean others do.

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]
[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]  [quote=inquisitive]
 I'd focus more on a company that fits your personality than "best" training programs or "biggest" brand names.  There are successful people at little regionals, too.
[/quote]

I think offices actually determine "personality" you’ll encounter more than the firm as a whole.

[/quote]

Yeah, sure, Stan (:rollseyes:).  And when you call the back office for help because something is wrong, I'm sure that branch personality will shine through...huh?  When your payout gets tinkered with, your fees are raised, or support is cut, I'm sure all you'll have to worry about is branch personality.  When you aren't making the cut production-wise and are on the verge of being terminated, I'm sure that branch personality will supersede corporate.

[/quote]

Where to begin on this silliness…… my point was to do with work environment. The environment you work in is far more dependent on your specific office than anything generated out of national HQ. It can be back-stabbing or fair, drudgery or fun competition. It’s all about the people you work with and to some extent, the attitude of the manger. As to the problems you mentioned above, I’ve never encountered any of them, anywhere.
[/quote]

No silliness at all.  How long have you been in the industry, Stan?  Talk to some people.  They'll tell you.

[/quote]

15 years in the biz and I've never encountered what you're talking about. Sounds like you worked at a very sorry firm.


[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown][quote=inquisitive]

You aren't one of those "branch managers are gods" folks, are you?  They aren't.  They're actually quite powerless.  If you want anything done, go to regional.

[/quote]

sigh, sounds like you often need “things done” and have to contend with “cut support” and payouts being reduced.
[/quote]

Everybody needs things done from time to time.

[/quote]

<?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]

I’ve never faced that. Perhaps you should tell us where you work so we could all be sure of avoiding it.
[/quote]

Where I worked--past tense.

[/quote]

I'm glad for your sake it's past tense.

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]

Within your manager’s limited powers is that of setting an office environment. He/She determines, for example, what if any pressure there might be on proprietary sales

[/quote]

Nope, that pressure comes from corporate.  Those are strategic business decisions, along the lines of deciding to have proprietary products in the first place.

[/quote]

Your manager, if he cares to, can end that "pressure" at his desk. I've seen it done. Talk to people in the same firm in different offices and see how varied their experiences are. Night and day, pal, night and day.
[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]

or if there wil be marketing funds available.

[/quote]

Heavens no!  That comes from above, too.  I know one company that cut all client development dollars.  That decision was made in the executive suite--not by the branch managers.

[/quote]

I'll bet you my Series 24 license that, assuming there are funds to be had, can either spread the dollars out to people in the office, or he can choice to make his P/L sheet look better by not releasing them.

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]

He/she also divvies up plums that come along.

[/quote]

Corporate decides if there are any plums and the size of those plums.  Branch managers don't.

[/quote]

I'm not sure what planet you're visiting from, but "plums" like redistributed accounts (which some mangers keep themselves, and others pass out) or walk-in traffic, or choice leads aren't distributed by corporate.

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown][quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]

They ain’t gods, they’re often failed producers, but there are things within their control.
[/quote]

Sure, there are things under their control.  But those things are trivial. 

[/quote]

If you think the office environment is trivial, so be it.

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]
To your second point, I'm sure there are managers working AA or AAA baseball teams that are happy campers too. Me, I'd prefer to work with the bigs, and because of that, I'll always recommend that to those that ask.


[/quote]

There are no parallels between professional baseball and brokerage firms, Stan.  Quite a pathetic attempt to make one, I might add.

[/quote]

No doubt the manager of the AAA team things he’s doing the same thing, with the same tools and the same types of players as the managers in the bigs.

[/quote]


 

Yes.  And that goes for small, non-big leaguers like regionals.  They've got most of the same tools you've got.  Maybe not all.  But most.

[/quote]

 

Like I said, I'm sure the AAA manager thinks he's got the same as the bigs manager....

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown][quote=inquisitive]

I know of a $4 million producer at a little regional that most people have never heard of.  How does your "big league" production compare to that???

[/quote]

Golly, he’s a massive fish, in a small pond. Some people love that sort of thing. I personally could make do as a 4 million producer anywhere.

At a wirehouse he might make the regional “Chairman’s Council”. OTOH, while his life is pretty good, the vast majority of his peers at his firm are doing far less than the average guy at the bigs and with less in the way of tools.


[/quote]

Nope, the average at his firm is the same as the average at other firms--around $400k.  I sometimes read the annual reports.

[/quote]

 

Sure, "same as other firms". Don't pretend the bigs don't have bigger average production.

[quote=inquisitive] A $500k producer is going to be treated like something important at a regional.  He isn't going to be treated that way at Merrill.
[/quote]

Why, that's the very definition of a mid-sized fish in a small pond. Some people don't mind the other things they have to give up to be that fish. Others would prefer bigger competition....

May 25, 2005 11:00 pm

[quote=stanwbrown]I can only assume you’re too young to recall the term “Ma Bell”.

[/quote]



Nope.  Not too young.  How much competition did Ma Bell
have?  Ma Bell was where you went for phone service.  You
didn’t have a whole lot of other options. 



[quote=stanwbrown]

The
"Mother Merrill" thing is said with tongue solidly in cheek. Perhaps
you should work there before you have a hissy-fit about it.



[/quote]



Not having a hissy fit.  And if you think I’m the only person with
negative things to say about ML, you are dead wrong.  Other people
have said negative things about ML before I joined this forum in
April.  “Merrill Lynch is not your friend.”



[quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=inquisitive]

It is not.  That "mother Merrill" sh*t makes me want to vomit.  No firm should be looked at that way.

[/quote]

 You're young, you'll get over it.

[quote=inquisitive] [quote=stanwbrown]
Say I want to be a pro golfer, do I want the best coach or the worst? Granted, I have to make it on my own on the course, but call me crazy, I’m going to use the best coach in the biz, if I can.
[/quote]

How do you determine "the best", Stan?  Someone who has a reputation for being the best because people pump him up with glowing comments?  Or the person is the best because he fits your particular situation?

There is no such thing as one best CEO.  Or golf coach.  Or firm.  If there was, I could guarantee you Merrill would not be it.

[/quote]

Sounds again that your ML-rage has overcome whatever good judgment you might have. ML's training program has an industry-wide rep for being the most comprehensive and deepest. "The best", sorry if that offends you, but you'll even hear people at ML's competitors saying that. Oh, and while you might have a tough time telling "the best" from "the worst" doesn't mean others do.

[/quote]

OK, let's say for the sake of argument that it is the best.  Do all people who enter the ML training program succeed?  Of those that do succeed, would those people have succeeded at companies with less than best training programs?

[/quote]

[quote=stanwbrown]

15 years in the biz and I've never encountered what you're talking about. Sounds like you worked at a very sorry firm.
[/quote]

http://www.onwallstreet.com/detail.cfm?page=/pubs/ows/200303 01015.html

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]

Within your manager’s limited powers is that of setting an office environment. He/She determines, for example, what if any pressure there might be on proprietary sales

[/quote]

Nope, that pressure comes from corporate.  Those are strategic business decisions, along the lines of deciding to have proprietary products in the first place.

[/quote]

Your manager, if he cares to, can end that "pressure" at his desk.

[/quote]

Not once have I ever heard of a manager overriding a corporate directive.
[quote=stanwbrown]

I've seen it done. Talk to people in the same firm in different offices and see how varied their experiences are. Night and day, pal, night and day.

[/quote]

So if a ML branch manager didn't want his reps to move all their clients to fee-based accounts--as directed from above--that would be OK with the corporate brass?  I doubt it.

[quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]

or if there wil be marketing funds available.

[/quote]

Heavens no!  That comes from above, too.  I know one company that cut all client development dollars.  That decision was made in the executive suite--not by the branch managers.

[/quote]

I'll bet you my Series 24 license that, assuming there are funds to be had, can either spread the dollars out to people in the office, or he can choice to make his P/L sheet look better by not releasing them.
[/quote]

Interesting choice of words, "assuming".  A conditional statement.  In other words, I'm right.  Corporate sets policy regarding such things.

[quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]

He/she also divvies up plums that come along.

[/quote]

Corporate decides if there are any plums and the size of those plums.  Branch managers don't.

[/quote]

I'm not sure what planet you're visiting from, but "plums" like redistributed accounts (which some mangers keep themselves, and others pass out) or walk-in traffic, or choice leads aren't distributed by corporate.
[/quote]

Sorry, I was mistaken regarding what you were referring to.  Yes, branch managers do distribute accounts.  But that's their job.  Corporate isn't going to be bothered with such things.

[quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown][quote=inquisitive][quote=stanwbrown]

They ain’t gods, they’re often failed producers, but there are things within their control.
[/quote]

Sure, there are things under their control.  But those things are trivial. 

[/quote]

If you think the office environment is trivial, so be it.
[/quote]

Not trivial.  But the branch manager is largely a puppet.  I don't think they have more power than they have.

Nope, the average at his firm is the same as the average at other firms--around $400k.  I sometimes read the annual reports.

[/quote]

 

Sure, "same as other firms". Don't pretend the bigs don't have bigger average production.

[/quote]

That $400k figure is a few years old--back in 2002.  So I'm sure it is higher now.  ML has the highest average production.  But the rest of the big firms are similar to the regionals.

Here are some averages:

http://www.onwallstreet.com/detail.cfm?page=/pubs/ows/200503 01003.html

 

May 26, 2005 12:07 am

I just like working at Merrill Lynch, Thats all.

May 26, 2005 12:09 am

[quote=rightway]I just like working at Merrill Lynch, Thats all. [/quote]

It's a great firm and you have nothing to apologize to a rapid-ML hater about....

May 26, 2005 12:21 am

"Not having a hissy fit.  And if you think I'm the only person with negative things to say about ML, you are dead wrong.  Other people have said negative things about ML before I joined this forum in April.  "Merrill Lynch is not your friend."

You are having the same hissy-fit you have every week or so. "evil" and "makes me want to vomit" says it all.

"OK, let's say for the sake of argument that it is the best.  Do all people who enter the ML training program succeed?"

You're trying to move the goalposts. Just because everyone who enters doesn't succeed doesn't mean it isn't the best program. I'm sorry it causes you to have fits, but ML's earned that rep. Even competing firms admit it, you should consider it.

http://www.onwallstreet.com/detail.cfm?page=/pubs/ows/200303 01015.html

Your link doesn't seem to work.

"So if a ML branch manager didn't want his reps to move all their clients to fee-based accounts--as directed from above--that would be OK with the corporate brass?  I doubt it."

I doubt any firms ever said "have your reps move all their accounts to fee-based". Like I said, take to reps in different offices of the same firm yourself and see how much the enviroments vary.

[quote=stanwbrown]

I'll bet you my Series 24 license that, assuming there are funds to be had, can either spread the dollars out to people in the office, or he can choice to make his P/L sheet look better by not releasing them.
[/quote]

"Interesting choice of words, "assuming".  A conditional statement.  In other words, I'm right.  Corporate sets policy regarding such things."

No, IOW you're incorrect. I've seen managers withhold marketing money to make his P/L look better. I've seen other managers say it costs money to make money, and spend it.

"Not trivial.  But the branch manager is largely a puppet.  I don't think they have more power than they have."

You're either deeply confused, you've never watched management or you've never compared notes with anyone in your firm from another office.

"That $400k figure is a few years old--back in 2002.  So I'm sure it is higher now.  ML has the highest average production.  But the rest of the big firms are similar to the regionals.

Here are some averages:

http://www.onwallstreet.com/detail.cfm?page=/pubs/ows/200503 01003.html"

Again, your link doesn't seem to work.

May 26, 2005 1:49 pm

[quote=stanwbrown]You’re trying to move the goalposts. Just because
everyone who enters doesn’t succeed doesn’t mean it isn’t the best
program. I’m sorry it causes you to have fits, but ML’s earned that
rep. Even competing firms admit it, you should consider it.<o:p></o:p>

http://www.onwallstreet.com/detail.cfm?page=/pubs/ows/200303 01015.html

Your link doesn't seem to work.
[/quote]

Stan, you should know by now that this forum puts spaces in longer links.  Here is another, just for you.

http://tinyurl.com/bxmj4

No, I'm not moving goalposts.  "The best" doesn't indicate how much better the training program is than others.  Slightly better?  Leaps and bounds better?  It means nothing. 

Are there any statistics on rookie washout rates at companies?  If ML has the "best" training program, then we'd expect them to have the lowest washout rate, right?  Significantly lower?  Or just slightly lower?  Of course, we may have to adjust for their higher production standards to equalize the playing field.

[quote=stanwbrown]

"So if a ML branch manager didn't want his reps to move all their clients to fee-based accounts--as directed from above--that would be OK with the corporate brass?  I doubt it."

I doubt any firms ever said "have your reps move all their accounts to fee-based". Like I said, take to reps in different offices of the same firm yourself and see how much the enviroments vary.
[/quote]

I wonder if you are on the same planet even...

Transitioning to fee-based accounts was an executive decision.  Period.  Branch managers have no say in it at all.  Further, not only did senior management issue that directive, they were also the ones who reworked comp to punish transaction-oriented business.

One branch manager I spoke with a few years ago told me that he couldn't even talk to any potential recruits unless they had at least 25% of their business fee-based.  Who do you think mandated that policy?  Him?  Nooooo.  He wasn't happy about it at the time as it severely limited who he could and could not hire.  And he was powerless to change it, Stan.

[quote=stanwbrown]

I'll bet you my Series 24 license that, assuming there are funds to be had, can either spread the dollars out to people in the office, or he can choice to make his P/L sheet look better by not releasing them.
[/quote]
[quote=stanwbrown]

"Interesting choice of words, "assuming".  A conditional statement.  In other words, I'm right.  Corporate sets policy regarding such things."

No, IOW you're incorrect. I've seen managers withhold marketing money to make his P/L look better. I've seen other managers say it costs money to make money, and spend it.

[/quote]

Stan, any levels of marketing money are first determined by senior management.  Period.  It's going to be part of the overall corporate budget.  Sure, a branch manager can withhold it.  But he CANNOT give it out if he doesn't first get it from above.  Make sense?  Somehow I still don't think you'll grasp it.

Besides, any manager would be foolish to give people marketing money unless he thinks he can earn a sufficient return on that investment.

[quote=stanwbrown]
"Not trivial.  But the branch manager is largely a puppet.  I don't think they have more power than they have."

You're either deeply confused, you've never watched management or you've never compared notes with anyone in your firm from another office.

[/quote]

Well, Stan, I know people at pretty much every well-known company.  I also know guys who hate their branch managers.  In your world branch managers are loved and adored by their underlings, aren't they?  Ah, how sweet...

[quote=stanwbrown]

"That $400k figure is a few years old--back in 2002.  So I'm sure it is higher now.  ML has the highest average production.  But the rest of the big firms are similar to the regionals.

Here are some averages:

http://www.onwallstreet.com/detail.cfm?page=/pubs/ows/200503 01003.html"

Again, your link doesn't seem to work.

[/quote]

Here is another link for you:

http://tinyurl.com/9v42a

Let me reiterate previous points:

Branch management exists to implement the policies set forth by senior management.  Branch management has little power to challenge corporate directives.

Independents who have relationships with clearing firms, according to what I know, have lower switching costs than their wirehouse counterparts and are better able to switch if things take a turn for a worse, thus reducing the power of the clearing firms and limiting their ability to jerk independents around (raise fees).  Make sense?

In addition, the lower switching costs enable independents to keep competition high in the independent clearing industry, thus helping to keep fees down.

A mental exercise for you Stan:

Let's say for the sake of this extreme argument that brokers industry-wide are going to take a severe financial hit if they leave the firm because of deferred comp.  And I mean severe--to the point that nobody wants to leave.  Let's also say that the big firms are able to extend their brands, create strong relationships with the clients through branding and products that tie the clients to the firms, enabling the firms to keep 50% or more of the clients when a rep jumps firms.

What happens at that point?  Why is your firm going to pay you so much when you can't leave?  You can't go anywhere without losing a ton of cash.  And if you did go, half your book would be gone.

Everything happens in stages.  Many people feel that deferred comp is starting to make leaving your firm difficult to do (starting, not there yet).  Many people are also beginning to believe that clients are becoming more loyal to the firm.  "Deferred comp helps us build wealth..."  First and foremost, deferred comp is a strategic tool to bind you to the firm.

Are you the only one in your branch that can recommend outside money managers to your clients?

I am NOT the only person around here who doesn't think that Merrill is the best!  So stop pretending that I am.  Other people, whose posts I read before I even joined the forum, said similar things.

I read a consumer report on skillets a few months ago.  All-Clad is one of the "best", or so everyone says.  Guess what, the cheapo $14 skillet scored higher in the things the researchers measured than the $120 All-Clad did. 

So much for the "best".
May 26, 2005 4:10 pm

"Stan, you should know by now that this forum puts spaces in longer links.  Here is another, just for you.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

http://tinyurl.com/bxmj4"

Why golly, thanks so much. How dare I not know the forum policy on links? A thousand pardons.

 Now just which of your incorrect assertions is this link supposed to support? Is the t "cutting payout" argument? If so, could you show us where in the article there was a cut aside from the small ticket/household change?

"No, I'm not moving goalposts.  "The best" doesn't indicate how much better the training program is than others.  Slightly better?  Leaps and bounds better?  It means nothing. "

Fine, if it "means nothing" that even ML's competitors routinely say ML has the industry's best training program, so be it. It’s a boring argument that can’t defeat your “little brother” syndrome.

>> "So if a ML branch manager didn't want his reps to move all their clients to fee-based accounts--as directed from above--that would be OK with the corporate brass?  I doubt it."

>I doubt any firms ever said "have your reps move all their accounts to fee-based". Like I said, take to reps in different offices of the same firm yourself and see how much the environments vary.

"Transitioning to fee-based accounts was an executive decision.  Period.  Branch managers have no say in it at all.  Further, not only did senior management issue that directive, they were also the ones who reworked comp to punish transaction-oriented business."

Yes, the industry is moving to a fee based platform. Now, tell us the name of the firm that ever said to managers, as you alleged, "have your reps move all their accounts to fee-based".

 

"One branch manager I spoke with a few years ago told me that he couldn't even talk to any potential recruits unless they had at least 25% of their business fee-based.  Who do you think mandated that policy?  Him?  Nooooo.  He wasn't happy about it at the time as it severely limited who he could and could not hire.  And he was powerless to change it, Stan."

Two things. First, name that firm. Second, my point about managers was never that they supersede the firm's strategic directives, but that they go a long way in determining the atmosphere, the "personality" of the office you're in. Again, if you don't believe me, talk to people in different branches of the same firm and see how much their experiences differ. Your introduction of this side issue does nothing to change that fact.

"Stan, any levels of marketing money are first determined by senior management.  Period.  It's going to be part of the overall corporate budget.  Sure, a branch manager can withhold it.  But he CANNOT give it out if he doesn't first get it from above.  Make sense?  Somehow I still don't think you'll grasp it."

So managers can withhold marketing money to make their P/L look better. Sounds like what I've been saying all along. Now, if you can name a firm that doesn't have a marketing budget, we'd all be interested in hearing about it.

"Well, Stan, I know people at pretty much every well-known company.  I also know guys who hate their branch managers.  In your world branch managers are loved and adored by their underlings, aren't they?  Ah, how sweet..."

Check that reading comprehension problem again. I've never said anything remotely like that last line. In fact, I've made it pretty clear that some offices have managers the reps hate, and other offices have managers the reps like. THAT'S why the environment between offices of the same firm can be so different.

Please do try to keep up.

"Here is another link for you:

http://tinyurl.com/9v42a"

And this is supposed to be the link where you prove that, aside from ML, regionals and the bigs have the same production levels? Really? Just where does it say that?

“Let me reiterate previous points:

Branch management exists to implement the policies set forth by senior management.  Branch management has little power to challenge corporate directives.”

 

A nice change of your original claim, and true as far as it goes. OTOH, I’ve known branch managers who choose not to press brokers in the office on, say, proprietary mutual fund sales. They simply decide that on all the measures they’re judged by their superiors, this is going to be an area in which they don’t excel. I’ve seen it.

“Independents who have relationships with clearing firms, according to what I know, have lower switching costs than their wirehouse counterparts and are better able to switch if things take a turn for a worse, thus reducing the power of the clearing firms and limiting their ability to jerk independents around (raise fees).  Make sense?”

 

<?:namespace prefix = u1 /><?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Indies can switch, but it isn’t painless and there’s only so many firms they can clear through. You may have noticed that you have plenty of gas stations to chose from, but they usually seem to move their prices in lockstep. Pressures to profit on one clearing house apply to all and they can adjust their costs to reps. Just as brokerages can move their cost structure to produce better profits.

 

It’s silly to argue, as you have, that business fundamentals apply to one channel of the business and not to the other.


“Let's say for the sake of this extreme argument that brokers industry-wide are going to take a severe financial hit if they leave the firm because of deferred comp.  And I mean severe--to the point that nobody wants to leave.  Let's also say that the big firms are able to extend their brands, create strong relationships with the clients through branding and products that tie the clients to the firms, enabling the firms to keep 50% or more of the clients when a rep jumps firms.

What happens at that point?  Why is your firm going to pay you so much when you can't leave?  You can't go anywhere without losing a ton of cash.  And if you did go, half your book would be gone.”

 

What you seem to ignore is that fact that recruiting brokerages will respond by offering MORE incentives to get brokers to leave behind the deferred comp money. Also, your assertion that firm INCREASE, rather than DECREASE their “ties” to clients via SMAs is just laughable. Access to these SAME MANAGERS are available at most every wirehouse. If anything that makes the business MORE portable, not less.

 

Your entire theory that firms are increasing their power of reps by making it harder to move is misguided. Firms ONCE did have that power when they held brokers in place by having them sell large amounts of proprietary funds that couldn’t be moved because they weren’t networked and couldn’t be held anywhere else. You had to have your client sell their funds, perhaps with CDSC charges involved, in order to keep their business. You ALSO had to explain why your old firm’s proprietary fund was a great thing for them to buy THEN, and a bad idea now.

 

With SMAs you can say “Mr and Mrs Client, I suggest we keep your XYZ managed account, we simply move it, without costing you a dime and causing no purchases or sales, to my new firm”.

 

That’s much, much easier, it lessens the power of firms, it makes brokers more mobile, and therefore lessens the firm’s ability to slash payouts and offend “kept” brokers.


“re you the only one in your branch that can recommend outside money managers to your clients?”

 

Of course not. Just what does that question mean in this discussion?

 

“I am not the only around here who doesn't think that Merrill is the best!  So stop pretending that I am.”

 

How did we get from your hysteria about ML every time the name comes up and your blind refusal to admit the rep ML’s training program has achieved  to the above? When did I or anyone else make the blanket proclamation that  “Merrill is the best”?