[quote=anabuhabkuss]

I’m sorry, I’m confused. I thought t this job
was about helping people and putting financial plans together for them.
I am in the opinion that all of you have your sights in the wrong place.[/quote]

Helping people and putting financial plans together for them doesn't pay the bills. You need assets and sales. 

[quote=BondGuy][quote=anabuhabkuss]

I'm sorry, I'm confused. I thought t this job was about helping people and putting financial plans together for them. I am in the opinion that all of you have your sights in the wrong place.

Bondguy said it best: There is nothing wrong with mentoring partnerships, in my view, as long as the trainee applies the knowledge gained to build a strong practice.

How does my way of acquiring assets reflect my implementation of fulfilling those client's needs?

I Know that situations DO vary. I know brokers across the board from different companies that are richer beyond belief, each of the individuals having acquired their book in different ways. Don't say it matters because it doesn't. Don't be a whiner. Get the job done. Afterall, companies only see the bottom line. **** what peers think. They don't pay the bills.

[/quote]

Give an advisor an account and he'll have a good month.

Teach an advisor to prospect and he'll have a good career.

Of course there are rich beyond belief brokers who've made careers out of calling everyone else's clients. The operative word when referring to one of them is whore. But being whores doesn't change how rich they are or whose best interest they have in mind when offering you help. Whores, generally speaking, don't make the best mentors whether we're talking business building or client advisory issues.

 Be careful who you sell your soul to.

As for the best way to learn, which is what this thread is about, I'd offer this: Find a mentor, watch, listen, observe and then do. Don't accept handouts as they will only slow you down. Your business plan should take up 100% of your time. There isn't enough time in the plan to call someone else's clients. The time taken to cultivate someone elses book is time taken away from developing your own book. Want to learn this business, if you build it , you'll know everything you need to know to survive whatever comes. And business killing things will come.

Inherited accounts slow down the natural selection process.

[/quote]

Is this real? These are some of the most disturbing things I have ever read here. The whiners you hang out with that fed these ideas in your head were having a field day with you. You call your peers (or maybe in some cases superiors) whores while you accept money from clients whom you probably have no idea how they earned their wealth.

Keep calling others whores. It's good for you.

Hard work and prospecting are mutually exlclusive. Getting assets does not give me a free ticket by any means. Not enough time in the day? Probably because you're busy posting on this board 4 in the afternoon.

Sickening.

meant “Though” instead of “whom”. Man I’m tired. Just got home 30 mins ago, but how short was your day?

[/quote]

Is this real? These are some of the most disturbing things I have ever read here. The whiners you hang out with that fed these ideas in your head were having a field day with you. You call your peers (or maybe in some cases superiors) whores while you accept money from clients whom you probably have no idea how they earned their wealth.

Keep calling others whores. It's good for you.

Hard work and prospecting are mutually exlclusive. Getting assets does not give me a free ticket by any means. Not enough time in the day? Probably because you're busy posting on this board 4 in the afternoon.

Sickening.

[/quote]

Offended? Apparently you are offended, not my intention.

Someday you may leave your firm as matter of career choice. Your reasons could be as simple as grabbing a front check, or as altruistic as wanting a better home for your clients. Most likely it will be a bit of both. Point is that when you take that step a process will begin at your former firm to keep your clients from joining you at your new firm. They will call clients you worked your ass off to bring on board. Clients you sweated to get and keep. Clients you care about. Your former peers will question every position in your client's accounts and ask the client what they were thinking when they bought X? They will do everything in their power to make you and your new firm look bad, to drive a wedge between you and your clients. Everything is fair game including your reputation as these richer beyond belief advisors hone in on your book, your future, to seperate you from your wealth to add to theirs. This isn't about you being strong enough to overcome the assault. Fact is you will lose a substancial percentage of your assets to your former peers. Afterall, who wants to deal with a dope dealer or a tax cheat or an adulterer or someone with client "ISSUES"? Yeah, it gets that ugly. And while this is not about your ability to overcome this, it is about the type of person who is so greedy that they would make those calls. Even if they don't lie about you they are still sticking their hand into your pocket and doing their damnedest to hurt you. What kind of person thinks that's OK? Whiners?

Plug these numbers in

AFC  $402,000

JC    $840,000

BH    $930,000

EP    $960,000

AD  $2,500,000

Those are the 06 numbers of some people in the business who I'm close to. We came up together. None takes inherited accounts. Not today, not ever. These people sound like whiners to you? They're not. They are talanted hard working people who don't need your assets to succeed. And there's a message there.

Just how much respect are these people, who have earned every dime, suppose to have for those who survive on the backs of others?

We may have to accept the whores as part of the business environment, but we don't have to like them.

Having your peers pound your clients into leaving you is part of the business. Its an ugly part. When it happens to you get back to us with your opinion of the people making those calls. I'll bet that whore will be one of the tamer names you use.

Again, my intention was not to offend you.

[quote=BondGuy]Plug these numbers in

AFC  $402,000

JC    $840,000

BH    $930,000

EP    $960,000

AD  $2,500,000

Those are the 06 numbers of some people in the business who I'm close to. We came up together. None takes inherited accounts. Not today, not ever. These people sound like whiners to you? They're not. They are talanted hard working people who don't need your assets to succeed. And there's a message there.[/quote]

Those are impressive, but I'm curious...what are BG's 2006 numbers?

[quote=Indyone][quote=BondGuy]Plug these numbers in

AFC  $402,000

JC    $840,000

BH    $930,000

EP    $960,000

AD  $2,500,000

Those are the 06 numbers of some people in the business who I'm close to. We came up together. None takes inherited accounts. Not today, not ever. These people sound like whiners to you? They're not. They are talanted hard working people who don't need your assets to succeed. And there's a message there.[/quote]

Those are impressive, but I'm curious...what are BG's 2006 numbers?

[/quote]

HMMM, you want to know BG's numbers? Now, why would I tell you that?

Then again, maybe I already have.

Yo,

I read through that post too fast and got riled over nothing. Sorry for the confusion. However  Despite what you may think, situations DO vary.

Look the point is this, and again I'm going to use these terms, prospecting, hard work AND inheriting accounts are mutually exclusive.

You say , generally speaking, those who inherit do not learn to prospect unless they're signed on under a good mentor. But realitically, the only way for a person inherited accounts to survive is by *GASP* doing a good job servicing the clients he inherited to generate *GASP*...referrals?

Oh my, if that's not a form of prospecting then what is? I treat the clients right, they throw my name to two people who know two people who know two people. How is that not prospecting?

You're losing perspective of this whole situation. Everyone who stays in this business is a good prospector in one form or another. Whether he/she starts from scratch or not, if we do not service the client, why are they going to come back and mention your name to their friends?

But going back to "Whores" i see your point. To me a whore is that one guy who lingers outside the managers office while said manager is firing somebody and having to worry how to spread this person's book to the branch. The "Whore" runs right in before the firee has even completely walked out of the office. I've seen it and I hate it.

I'm not offended by your post because my case is entirely different :)

Another example,a firm's training program hires 10 kids, 3 whom had a book established from the firm they left and 7 who have nothing. Let's say come 7 months from now the 3 with the prior book do well thanks to their ehad start and only 1 from the 7 with nothing to begin with survives. You think the company cares that there were apples and oranges in the mix, and that 3 had a head start and slight advantage over the rest of the group?

Oh but it's what my peers think of me, that's what should keep me up at night

The fundamentals do not change. You do not prospect and service, you're out....whore or not.

Quote: Having your peers pound your clients into leaving you is part of the business. Its an ugly part. When it happens to you get back to us with your opinion of the people making those calls. I'll bet that whore will be one of the tamer names you use.

See and again Bond guy, I missed that point entirely. I ddi not mean to defend these people you're attacking 'cause I concur. I just do not think someone who was offered an opportunity and took advantage of it by working hard with a team does not make that person any less talented or hard working than someone who starts from scratch. No way.

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

Quote: Having your peers pound your clients into leaving you is part of the business. Its an ugly part. When it happens to you get back to us with your opinion of the people making those calls. I'll bet that whore will be one of the tamer names you use.

See and again Bond guy, I missed that point entirely. I ddi not mean to defend these people you're attacking 'cause I concur. I just do not think someone who was offered an opportunity and took advantage of it by working hard with a team does not make that person any less talented or hard working than someone who starts from scratch. No way.

[/quote]

I agree, I am all for hard work but not taking a book when it is offered is like telling your clients that you don't want referrals.

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

Quote: Having your peers pound your clients into leaving you is part of the business. Its an ugly part. When it happens to you get back to us with your opinion of the people making those calls. I'll bet that whore will be one of the tamer names you use.

See and again Bond guy, I missed that point entirely. I ddi not mean to defend these people you're attacking 'cause I concur. I just do not think someone who was offered an opportunity and took advantage of it by working hard with a team does not make that person any less talented or hard working than someone who starts from scratch. No way.

[/quote]

Taking handouts from a mentor is not the same thing as working a departed reps book. Unless the handouts are a departed reps book. Some mentor relationships work that way. There's nothing wrong with a giving a new advisor a leg up by throwing them some accounts to work AS LONG AS IT"S NOT THAT ADVISOR'S SOLE CHANNEL OF BUSINESS. To be successful advisors need to be able to develope business from the ground up. Those who can't do that are in the wrong place.

There a 1000 ways to get this job done. IMHO the best way to do it is to learn from the mentor and then build it yourself. Not one person on the list above took any handouts of any kind. They didn't need too. And believe me, when you reach that level of production you get first dibs on the inherited accounts. Yet we've all passed on it. That said, let's agree to disagree on how best to build a career.

[quote=ExPropTrader][quote=anabuhabkuss]

Quote: Having your peers pound your clients into leaving you is part of the business. Its an ugly part. When it happens to you get back to us with your opinion of the people making those calls. I'll bet that whore will be one of the tamer names you use.

See and again Bond guy, I missed that point entirely. I ddi not mean to defend these people you're attacking 'cause I concur. I just do not think someone who was offered an opportunity and took advantage of it by working hard with a team does not make that person any less talented or hard working than someone who starts from scratch. No way.

[/quote]

I agree, I am all for hard work but not taking a book when it is offered is like telling your clients that you don't want referrals.

[/quote]

Explain? A referral is gleaned from the trust developed over time by proving to a client that your are in fact trustworthy. You've earned that referral. Conversely, being handed a book may not have anything to do with your trustworthyness or your work ethic. You may not have earned anything and you may be, depending on circumstances, helping destroy a fellow advisor's career. So I don't see how the two are related.  

[quote=BondGuy][quote=anabuhabkuss]

Quote: Having your peers pound your clients into leaving you is part of the business. Its an ugly part. When it happens to you get back to us with your opinion of the people making those calls. I'll bet that whore will be one of the tamer names you use.

See and again Bond guy, I missed that point entirely. I ddi not mean to defend these people you're attacking 'cause I concur. I just do not think someone who was offered an opportunity and took advantage of it by working hard with a team does not make that person any less talented or hard working than someone who starts from scratch. No way.

[/quote]

Taking handouts from a mentor is not the same thing as working a departed reps book. Unless the handouts are a departed reps book. Some mentor relationships work that way. There's nothing wrong with a giving a new advisor a leg up by throwing them some accounts to work AS LONG AS IT"S NOT THAT ADVISOR'S SOLE CHANNEL OF BUSINESS. To be successful advisors need to be able to develope business from the ground up. Those who can't do that are in the wrong place.

There a 1000 ways to get this job done. IMHO the best way to do it is to learn from the mentor and then build it yourself. Not one person on the list above took any handouts of any kind. They didn't need too. And believe me, when you reach that level of production you get first dibs on the inherited accounts. Yet we've all passed on it. That said, let's agree to disagree on how best to build a career.

[/quote]

They didn't need to? Fine. So accepting them would have portrayed an image of desperate "need"?

It's funny you talk about trustworthy in your last post and work ethic.

You know: You could have said they passed on the assets because:

1)There were younger FA's who could benefit from them and do a great job servicing those accounts

2)They didn't have time to service said accounts

But your choice of words were "They didn't need to"

God forbid anybody call on those clients who need servicing without sacrificing their dignity.

Your choices are made off of ego. If you justify that as a way to build your business and then turn around and use "trustworthy" and "work ethic" then...well 'nuff said.

Or maybe I'm just pulling your leg because I need a breather after a hard ass week. :)

[quote=anabuhabkuss][quote=BondGuy][quote=anabuhabkuss]

Quote: Having your peers pound your clients into leaving you is part of the business. Its an ugly part. When it happens to you get back to us with your opinion of the people making those calls. I'll bet that whore will be one of the tamer names you use.

See and again Bond guy, I missed that point entirely. I ddi not mean to defend these people you're attacking 'cause I concur. I just do not think someone who was offered an opportunity and took advantage of it by working hard with a team does not make that person any less talented or hard working than someone who starts from scratch. No way.

[/quote]

They didn't need to? Fine. So accepting them would have portrayed an image of desperate "need"?

We passed on them as trainees because most, as in almost all, of these accounts were from brokers who had left our firm to join another firm. Taking time out of our days to help a manager fulfill his agenda just wasn't on the list. Still isn't.

Let me paint a picture for you. With the exception of AFC, everyone on that list, as trainees, was cold calling using either NYSE stocks or Munis. Every month, and I mean every month, this group opened anywhere from 25 accounts to as many as 90 apiece. The record, if memory serves, was 112 new accounts in one month. That's volume calling from about 7:30 am to 9pm, five days a week. The account sizes ranged from $10,000 to as high as $500,000 on what we called a first trade. AD was the absolute king of the hill in opening large accounts over the phone. Once opened we worked to penetrate the accounts. Today i have million dollar plus accounts that were opened as $10,000 or $25,000 accounts in the eighties.  Now imagine if you will, the manager comes into our office and says "Joe Doaks has left our office to join Merrill Lynch across the street and I want you guys to call his clients to get them to stay here. I'm going to give you some of his accounts to call." We look at each other. None of us wants Joes' accounts. An hour later the manager comes back in with a pile of account pages and hands them out to us. We look at the accounts, and they're filled with bond mutual funds, leveraged closed end funds, stocks I wouldn't buy with your money , and all sorts of other assorted crap. From my POV it's going to cost me at least two days and three to five new accounts to derail myself to do this and then I've got to live with the accounts so I pass and give the accounts back to the mgr. The manager doesn't like that, but hey, I'm the number two trainee at the company, so what's he going to do? AD gives his back too. He was the number one trainee at the firm so again the mgr was stuck. And so it went. From then on policy was we don't take these accounts. Why would we? While the rest of the office was floundering in the wake of the 87 crash we were opening one, two, three, or more new accounts everyday.

Taking these accounts would not have portrayed any particular image. The load they represented would have definately clogged the gears of the money printing machine we were as trainees. The very best accounts we could open were with the top quality prospects we were pursuing. that's were we spent our time.

It's funny you talk about trustworthy in your last post and work ethic.

You know: You could have said they passed on the assets because:

1)There were younger FA's who could benefit from them and do a great job servicing those accounts

Yup i could have said that but that's not why we passed. My take today is that a young FA should do what we did and pass.

As for excellent account service, no one can do a better job of servicing these clients than the advisor who brought them on board. That advisor is intimately familiar with the client's needs and in all probability designed and fulfilled the plan they are using. That in this particular advisor's view, the client can be better served by his new firm, shouldn't interfere with the broker/client relationship. The client in this case is much better served following the veteran advisor to his new firm than turning his/her assets over to a rookie who doesn't know them, doesn't know their needs, and doesn't know much about the markets. Trainees can't possibly do a better job than a knowledgeable veteran advisor. Wouldn't you agree?

2)They didn't have time to service said accounts

But your choice of words were "They didn't need to"

God forbid anybody call on those clients who need servicing without sacrificing their dignity.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by sacrificing dignity? Taking these accounts or not is a business decision. if the accounts are coming from a departed advisor who has moved firms then there is a slimy aspect to it. People who work hard to bring these accounts in get this. regardless of what your manager tells you account ownership is a very grey area. If it wasn't noone would ever leave their current firm. That said, I'm firmly in the advisor owns the account camp. It's the firm's agenda to keep the assets from fleeing. the only assets i care about are the assets under my control. That's more than enough to keep me as busy as i want to be.

Your choices are made off of ego. If you justify that as a way to build your business and then turn around and use "trustworthy" and "work ethic" then...well 'nuff said.

You've lost me here? There is no ego in this. As I've said this is a business decision. There is a cost to taking these accounts. By my math they are way too expensive.

Plus there is this: I have to know every security in my book. I keep a very tight control on what goes into client's accounts. It's really the only way to do the job right. When it comes to inherited accounts, these clients have all sorts of stuff tacked to the side of their ship. While trying to tackle this problem within these accounts could lead to some nice days at the cash register, for the most part, inventory control becomes impossible. If nothing else it's a burden. As a businessman I chose not to take that burden on. And then there's the liability question. 

Or maybe I'm just pulling your leg because I need a breather after a hard ass week. :)

or maybe your not

[QUOTE]

I agree, I am all for hard work but not taking a book when it is offered
is like telling your clients that you don't want referrals.

[QUOTE]

Explain? A referral is gleaned from the trust developed over time by
proving to a client that your are in fact trustworthy. You've earned that
referral. Conversely, being handed a book may not have anything to do
with your trustworthyness or your work ethic. You may not have earned
anything and you may be, depending on circumstances, helping destroy a
fellow advisor's career. So I don't see how the two are related.

[/quote]

I agree with you that it depends on the circumstances, if a rep is
leaving the business completely someone has to service those clients and
if it's offered to me by the powers that be, I assume it's because I'm doing
something right, or at least they see potential. If I get a referral from a
customer I know I'm doing something right, so to me both come from
doing right by the client.

If however someone informs me that one of my coworkers is moving
and trying to take clients and gives me a list to contact, I think I would
have a very hard time doing that, I still gotta sleep ya know.

I am hoping and assuming that will not happen alot at the indy firm I
hope to be starting at, but I could be wrong.

[quote=BondGuy]

I’m trying to figure out what you mean by sacrificing dignity? Taking these accounts or not is a business decision. if the accounts are coming from a departed advisor who has moved firms then there is a slimy aspect to it. People who work hard to bring these accounts in get this. regardless of what your manager tells you account ownership is a very grey area. If it wasn’t noone would ever leave their current firm. That said, I’m firmly in the advisor owns the account camp. It’s the firm’s agenda to keep the assets from fleeing. the only assets i care about are the assets under my control. That’s more than enough to keep me as busy as i want to be.

First off I apologize for my previous sloppy post, was trying to cut down the repost and missed editing a quote.

Second BondGuy, I went back and read your previous rebuttal to anabuhabkuss and I have to say you do make a lot of sense, I really appreciate you and the rest of the vets helping guide us newbies through this very complicated biz.  I do realize that some people (me) need some brutal honesty sometimes to make things sink in.  I really respect 95% of the people in the forum even if I don't always agree. 

There is no 'business' decision or 'cost' for not accpeting assets as a trainee?

The only cost for you, at the time, was having to spend more hours in the office.

A trainee turning down assets and calling it a 'business decision'? What a freaking joke.

Sorry let me put it in clearer words.

So as trainees, you had a lot to LOSE (a cost as you put it) if you had accepted these assets?

Yeah you made a business decision, but a dumb one at that. You had a chance to turn some accounts into goldmines and deepen some relationships but opted to look at your buddy and say "We don't need them HIGH FIVE!".

I'm guessing you've refused to buya  cold call list or use any marketing technique to prospect for clients because "we don't need them HGIH FIVE!"

My point? Ultimately, it could be implied that you never ever brought in assets that were housed by a different firm. What's the difference between attaining some handed assets (which, arguably could be seen as just another lead list whose assets are held elsewhere) vs doing it on your own (outside of ego)?

All of your prospects whom are now your clients had no financial plan put together whatsoever?

You were offered "leads" and you turned them down. Like someone else mentioned, turning down assets is like turning down a referral. You're ego just won't allow you enough space in the head to grasp the notion that your prospecting for new clients via marketing is no different than calling assets that are offered to you.

Who is to say those handed down clientele would have liked you anyway?

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

Sorry let me put it in clearer words.

So as trainees, you had a lot to LOSE (a cost as you put it) if you had accepted these assets?

Yeah you made a business decision, but a dumb one at that. You had a chance to turn some accounts into goldmines and deepen some relationships but opted to look at your buddy and say "We don't need them HIGH FIVE!".

I'm guessing you've refused to buya  cold call list or use any marketing technique to prospect for clients because "we don't need them HGIH FIVE!"

My point? Ultimately, it could be implied that you never ever brought in assets that were housed by a different firm. What's the difference between attaining some handed assets (which, arguably could be seen as just another lead list whose assets are held elsewhere) vs doing it on your own (outside of ego)?

All of your prospects whom are now your clients had no financial plan put together whatsoever?

You were offered "leads" and you turned them down. Like someone else mentioned, turning down assets is like turning down a referral. You're ego just won't allow you enough space in the head to grasp the notion that your prospecting for new clients via marketing is no different than calling assets that are offered to you.

Who is to say those handed down clientele would have liked you anyway?

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

Sorry let me put it in clearer words.

Do you mean to speak more clearly?

How many drinks before this post?

So as trainees, you had a lot to LOSE (a cost as you put it) if you had accepted these assets?

Yes, we would have lost the time it takes to cultivate relationships outside the business model. What is it that you don't get about this?

Example: I'm looking for business people who can invest $500,000 to $1,000,000 on a phone call. The average inherited account= Velda Bluehair with $100,000 in CDs, and $200,000 in mutual funds. So lets see... I spend how many hours CULTIVATING a relationship with Velda, a very nice, talkative little old lady? And while I'm doing that how many millionaire business people who meet my standard am I talking to? If you answered zero you're starting to get it.

Yeah you made a business decision, but a dumb one at that. You had a chance to turn some accounts into goldmines and deepen some relationships but opted to look at your buddy and say "We don't need them HIGH FIVE!".

Exactly. We're able to develope our own goldmine accounts. We don't have to leech off another advisor's hard work. And if that's a dumb decision, at least it's one I can live with.

I'm guessing you've refused to buya  cold call list or use any marketing technique to prospect for clients because "we don't need them HGIH FIVE!"

Actually ,we have purchased lists. But the best leads come from lists we develope ourselves. This is the part of the program where I have to tell you that top producers think differently than does the average producer. Please note the use of the word producer. What do you think that means? It means that instead of standing around waiting for a handout we are out there developing new business. Our career trajectory isn't inversely related to that of others. Try it. it will open up a whole new universe. It's good, iIm not kidding, Come on, take that step.

My point? Ultimately, it could be implied that you never ever brought in assets that were housed by a different firm. What's the difference between attaining some handed assets (which, arguably could be seen as just another lead list whose assets are held elsewhere) vs doing it on your own (outside of ego)?

Ultimately you're showning how upset you are by being totally ridiculous. That you can't or don't see the difference is scary.

All of your prospects whom are now your clients had no financial plan put together whatsoever?

You were offered "leads" and you turned them down. Like someone else mentioned, turning down assets is like turning down a referral. You're ego just won't allow you enough space in the head to grasp the notion that your prospecting for new clients via marketing is no different than calling assets that are offered to you.

You keep mentioning ego. It's not ego but another 'E" word that keeps me from taking inherited accounts. That word is Ethics. Look it up.

Who is to say those handed down clientele would have liked you anyway?

I guess we'll never know since I don't take second hand clients.

I think Joe summed it up best. You don't get it because you don't work to develope your own accounts.

That's Ok, look at it this way. On one side we have the producers and rainmakers. On the other side we have the leeches and the ticks. In clearer words you've made your choice obvious.