Actually it was an attempt to resort to the "this guy is a waste of time because his vision is narrow and his thought process is tainted so I'll no longer indulge him" approach.

So far as the discussion goes, I have kept up with it perfectly  - inquisitive and I exchanged the pieces of information that were important to us, and went on our merry way. And I thank him for that. 

Put-

You dont question your approach even though you manage to alienate every new forum member - who actually may have solid contributions to this site- within 10 days ???? Your arrogance is sharp- not your intellect... Go ahead, make your used comment about how all of us are "creatures" and that our intelligence doesn't even begin to scale to your heights....

[quote=Put Trader] 

I see that you too have been unable to keep up with the discussion
and have to resort to the age old approach of attempting to minimize
the king.

[quote=Put Trader]

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

Put,

I have to applaud the tenacity with which you guard your convictions, you might make a pretty-good broker some day.

 [/quote]

Been there, done that, still have the T-Shirt.

I see that you too have been unable to keep up with the discussion and have to resort to the age old approach of attempting to minimize the king.

It's OK, my shoulders are broad and my intellect keen.  I am fully capable of dealing with all of you at once.

I write for my own amusement and for the benefit of the dozens of people who write to me in the background telling me that they enjoy how I routinely humiliate the rest of you.

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

Actually it was an attempt to resort to
the "this guy is a waste of time because his vision is narrow
and his thought process is tainted so I’ll no longer indulge him"
approach.

So far as the discussion goes, I have kept up with it perfectly  - inquisitive and I exchanged the pieces of information that were important to us, and went on our merry way. And I thank him for that. 

[quote=Put Trader]

Has it occured to you that if you were so damn important–not you so much as what you do–Chip Mason would not have sold you?



Why do you think a well respected full service firm such as Legg would be willing to throw it’s retail effort over the side?

[/quote]

I think the realization that the industry is becoming much more
competitive and middle-sized companies like Legg are going to have the
toughest time competing had something to do with it.



The middle sized firms cannot compete with the big players any
longer.  There will ALWAYS be room for niche players in this
industry.  There is no shortage of small advisory firms.  So,
if you can no longer beat the payouts the big firms are paying in order
to attract and retain talent, what other choice do you have?



It used to be the smaller regionals would have higher payouts to
attract reps.  Wachovia’s payout is better than many of the
regionals.



I’m sure other mid-sized companies will be swallowed up, too.

[quote=Put Trader]

If you think about it why would Smith Barney want a bunch of brokers
who they had no interest in trying to recruit before the current turn
of events?

[/quote]

It’s not true that Smith Barney had no interest in Legg brokers. 
That’s false.  If that were true, they wouldn’t be acquiring them,
now would they?  And I’ll bet Smith Barney was calling Legg
branches to recruit, along with the others.

[quote=Put Trader]

If you, and the others at Legg, were actually that desireable the
managers from local Smith Barney offices would have already been
knocking on the door.



Where am I wrong?

[/quote]

You are wrong in assuming that they weren’t already knocking at their door.



Smith Barney is acquiring reps at a fraction of the cost of picking
them off individually.  I’m sorry, but a 40% retention package in
this environment is crap.  Hell, you can go to another firm and
get 100% more.



Maybe Citigroup is unloading crap?

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Duke#1]

Put, you're obviously still stuck back in the old days when you were once producing.  Back then in the days of brokers selling the stock/option/bond idea of the day over the phone for a commission, the firm was more important to the client because strong relationship hadn't been built.  So, Joe Blow Rep leaves Merrill, etc. and the client was just as happy to get the next broker that takes his place. 

You don't understand that, assuming a rep has built a good relationship with his/her clients, clients view their relationship as being with the rep not the firm.  Quality reps retain their clients almost no matter where they choose to go. 

[/quote]

You really do have the temerity to state that the broker client relationship is stronger today, when all you have to do is explain mutual funds than it was in the days when clients would actually seek to have multiple brokers within the same office because of individual expertise?
[/quote]

It should be stronger because it should no longer be transactionally based. It should be a deeper, more inclusive relationship with much more "grip" than the "You want a bond, I gotta bond" variety.

[quote=stanwbrown]

It should be stronger because it should no
longer be transactionally based. It should be a deeper, more inclusive
relationship with much more “grip” than the “You want a bond, I gotta
bond” variety.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

Actually it was an attempt to resort to the "this guy is a waste of time because his vision is narrow and his thought process is tainted so I'll no longer indulge him" approach.

So far as the discussion goes, I have kept up with it perfectly  - inquisitive and I exchanged the pieces of information that were important to us, and went on our merry way. And I thank him for that. 

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

Actually it was an attempt to resort to the "this guy is a waste of time because his vision is narrow and his thought process is tainted so I'll no longer indulge him" approach.

So far as the discussion goes, I have kept up with it perfectly  - inquisitive and I exchanged the pieces of information that were important to us, and went on our merry way. And I thank him for that. 

[/quote]

Has it occured to you that if you were so damn important--not you so much as what you do--Chip Mason would not have sold you?

Why do you think a well respected full service firm such as Legg would be willing to throw it's retail effort over the side?

If you think about it why would Smith Barney want a bunch of brokers who they had no interest in trying to recruit before the current turn of events?

If you, and the others at Legg, were actually that desireable the managers from local Smith Barney offices would have already been knocking on the door.

Where am I wrong?
[/quote]

Ok, here come my closer 1-2-3 inning boys:

1st batter: You cursed, automatically discrediting the rest of the question, but I will oblige. My clients and my family make what I do so damn important. When I find the industry evolving to a point that my skill set is overly commoditized, or that I can no longer add value for the people that matter to me I will evolve as well - again fully functioning, thinking people would agree - this is the only alternative. Chips motivation is closely tied to the higher PE afforded by pure asset managers - less volitile revenues=higher stock price. Check the insider holdings - Mason, Brinkley, Sabelhouse made a killing.

2nd Batter: SB has chosen to pursue distribution over manufacturing product as they are better suited to it. LM's B/D represented only 18% of earnings whereas SB's B/D is a much greater % of their bottom line. Play to your strengths. Citi faced increasing pressure from regulators to remove conflicts of interest from their business, as well as soem pretty hefty fines so for them throwing the funds over the side was their solution as the fund group had been plagued by poor performance and record outflows.

3rd batter: I have spoken with several brokers throughout the northeast who had entertained the recruitment efforts of SB managers over the past year (myself included), and ultimately for each of the folks I spoke with SB was not an ideal fit for their (my) business. The fact that I could have written a deal with them for 100% in the recent past only adds to the disappointment in the current retention package that has been offered. I can assume the same for each of the brokers I have spoken with this is also the case.

So, where are you wrong you ask? I think someone of your superior intellect can probably figure it out. If not, there is a kid fresh out of UCONN in the bullpen (don't worry he's an MBA) that I could refer you to.

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

Ok, here come my closer 1-2-3 inning boys:

1st batter: You cursed, automatically discrediting the rest of the question, but I will oblige.

[/quote]

Oh no, a curse word.  Cover your ears boys and girls as we quickly leave the room.

Years ago the now retired CEO of my B/D--even before he was the CEO--was having drinks with several of us.  He let go with a nasty phrase and some guy at a nearby table came over and asked him to watch what he said.

The boss looked at him with that dismissive way, nodded, and turned back to our table.  Then in a loud voice he said, "Ya know--I've never met a person who objects to the language being used who was not a moron."

As the years have gone by I have come to realize how right he was.

One wonders how you hypersenstive types are able to go to the movies?  Do you ever poke your finger in your eye as you sit there in your frenzy of covering your ears and your eyes at the same time?

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

My clients and my family make what I do so damn important. When I find the industry evolving to a point that my skill set is overly commoditized, or that I can no longer add value for the people that matter to me I will evolve as well - again fully functioning, thinking people would agree - this is the only alternative. Chips motivation is closely tied to the higher PE afforded by pure asset managers - less volitile revenues=higher stock price. Check the insider holdings - Mason, Brinkley, Sabelhouse made a killing.

[/quote]

Done a lot of committee work with Jim Brinkley--one of the good guys.  I think Sabelhouse spells his name Sabelhaus.

It's nice that you're in this for your family and your clients.  I'll bet such a self deprecating type would find somebody with my confidence to be overbearing--even rude.  You know, not sensitive to the needs of others.

Is Chip wrong to seek to consolidate the business--to focus on the firm's strengths.  Tell me something.  The other day you said it was a card that Chip had been hoping to play and that you were not surprised.

Why then had you not already jumped ship--accepted one of the 100% relocation packages that you claim were being thrown your way?  For that matter, seeing as you're in the business for your family why in the world would you not do what was best for your family at every turn--you're sitting there telling me that managers galore were waving large sums at you and you didn't see accepting one of those offers to dance as being a shrewd play in light of the coming tossing over the side?

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

2nd Batter: SB has chosen to pursue distribution over manufacturing product as they are better suited to it. LM's B/D represented only 18% of earnings whereas SB's B/D is a much greater % of their bottom line. Play to your strengths. Citi faced increasing pressure from regulators to remove conflicts of interest from their business, as well as some pretty hefty fines so for them throwing the funds over the side was their solution as the fund group had been plagued by poor performance and record outflows.

[/quote]

I do not disagree with that at all.  Who got a better deal will be the question to be answered in the future.  Legg bought a bunch of poorly performing funds and in return gave up a thousand or so poorly performing brokers.

Knowing that you'd never use a dirty word like damn anyway, I should remind you that you told the assembled that the B/D was hardly a contributor to the Legg income statement--so it's not a leap in logic to conclude that the reason why is because it was a collective group of also ran producers.

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

3rd batter: I have spoken with several brokers throughout the northeast who had entertained the recruitment efforts of SB managers over the past year (myself included), and ultimately for each of the folks I spoke with SB was not an ideal fit for their (my) business. The fact that I could have written a deal with them for 100% in the recent past only adds to the disappointment in the current retention package that has been offered. I can assume the same for each of the brokers I have spoken with this is also the case.

[/quote]

Again, in light of the foresight you had--what with knowing what the Legg Board was going to do--why in the world did you not accept the 100% offers as they were being made.

What is going to happen now is formerly eager managers at competitor firms will know that you're being faced with a retention package that you consider unacceptable.  If you were to sit down across from me I'd know that you're weighing 40% versus whatever I offer you--say 50%.

Add to the mix that a lot of Legg offices are off the beaten path, shall we say, and brokers in those offices may be faced with long commutes in order to catch on with a firm willing to give them much more than Smith Barney is offering.

Finally, is it possible--JUST POSSIBLE--that the 40% offer is nothing more than an opening bid.  Do you suppose that the sales management team at Smith Barney is prepared to negotiate with Legg brokers they want to keep, while lettinig the rest of them go away?

Just as accepting a package to move your business from one firm to another provides an opportunity to cull your book--these situations offer the firms an opportunity to cull the herd.

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

So, where are you wrong you ask? I think someone of your superior intellect can probably figure it out. If not, there is a kid fresh out of UCONN in the bullpen (don't worry he's an MBA) that I could refer you to.

[/quote]

Thanks for the offer, but when it comes to pure cognitive abilities
I’ll take a 65 year old housewife over anbody who is less than forty.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

Ok, here come my closer 1-2-3 inning boys:

1st batter: You cursed, automatically discrediting the rest of the question, but I will oblige.

[/quote]

Oh no, a curse word.  Cover your ears boys and girls as we quickly leave the room.

Years ago the now retired CEO of my B/D--even before he was the CEO--was having drinks with several of us.  He let go with a nasty phrase and some guy at a nearby table came over and asked him to watch what he said.

The boss looked at him with that dismissive way, nodded, and turned back to our table.  Then in a loud voice he said, "Ya know--I've never met a person who objects to the language being used who was not a moron."

As the years have gone by I have come to realize how right he was.

One wonders how you hypersenstive types are able to go to the movies?  Do you ever poke your finger in your eye as you sit there in your frenzy of covering your ears and your eyes at the same time?

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

My clients and my family make what I do so damn important. When I find the industry evolving to a point that my skill set is overly commoditized, or that I can no longer add value for the people that matter to me I will evolve as well - again fully functioning, thinking people would agree - this is the only alternative. Chips motivation is closely tied to the higher PE afforded by pure asset managers - less volitile revenues=higher stock price. Check the insider holdings - Mason, Brinkley, Sabelhouse made a killing.

[/quote]

Done a lot of committee work with Jim Brinkley--one of the good guys.  I think Sabelhouse spells his name Sabelhaus.

It's nice that you're in this for your family and your clients.  I'll bet such a self deprecating type would find somebody with my confidence to be overbearing--even rude.  You know, not sensitive to the needs of others.

Is Chip wrong to seek to consolidate the business--to focus on the firm's strengths.  Tell me something.  The other day you said it was a card that Chip had been hoping to play and that you were not surprised.

Why then had you not already jumped ship--accepted one of the 100% relocation packages that you claim were being thrown your way?  For that matter, seeing as you're in the business for your family why in the world would you not do what was best for your family at every turn--you're sitting there telling me that managers galore were waving large sums at you and you didn't see accepting one of those offers to dance as being a shrewd play in light of the coming tossing over the side?

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

2nd Batter: SB has chosen to pursue distribution over manufacturing product as they are better suited to it. LM's B/D represented only 18% of earnings whereas SB's B/D is a much greater % of their bottom line. Play to your strengths. Citi faced increasing pressure from regulators to remove conflicts of interest from their business, as well as some pretty hefty fines so for them throwing the funds over the side was their solution as the fund group had been plagued by poor performance and record outflows.

[/quote]

I do not disagree with that at all.  Who got a better deal will be the question to be answered in the future.  Legg bought a bunch of poorly performing funds and in return gave up a thousand or so poorly performing brokers.

Knowing that you'd never use a dirty word like damn anyway, I should remind you that you told the assembled that the B/D was hardly a contributor to the Legg income statement--so it's not a leap in logic to conclude that the reason why is because it was a collective group of also ran producers.

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

3rd batter: I have spoken with several brokers throughout the northeast who had entertained the recruitment efforts of SB managers over the past year (myself included), and ultimately for each of the folks I spoke with SB was not an ideal fit for their (my) business. The fact that I could have written a deal with them for 100% in the recent past only adds to the disappointment in the current retention package that has been offered. I can assume the same for each of the brokers I have spoken with this is also the case.

[/quote]

Again, in light of the foresight you had--what with knowing what the Legg Board was going to do--why in the world did you not accept the 100% offers as they were being made.

What is going to happen now is formerly eager managers at competitor firms will know that you're being faced with a retention package that you consider unacceptable.  If you were to sit down across from me I'd know that you're weighing 40% versus whatever I offer you--say 50%.

Add to the mix that a lot of Legg offices are off the beaten path, shall we say, and brokers in those offices may be faced with long commutes in order to catch on with a firm willing to give them much more than Smith Barney is offering.

Finally, is it possible--JUST POSSIBLE--that the 40% offer is nothing more than an opening bid.  Do you suppose that the sales management team at Smith Barney is prepared to negotiate with Legg brokers they want to keep, while lettinig the rest of them go away?

Just as accepting a package to move your business from one firm to another provides an opportunity to cull your book--these situations offer the firms an opportunity to cull the herd.

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

So, where are you wrong you ask? I think someone of your superior intellect can probably figure it out. If not, there is a kid fresh out of UCONN in the bullpen (don't worry he's an MBA) that I could refer you to.

[/quote]

Thanks for the offer, but when it comes to pure cognitive abilities I'll take a 65 year old housewife over anbody who is less than forty. [/quote]

Touche - or should it be spelled with a 'd'? Let's play this a little differently.

Why would one, so profoundly educated assume any of the details you've outlined to be within a stones throw of the truth?

Where is it that you have fallen from that makes you so hate the dynamics of the business these days?

As I sit here now and absorb the aloe from my wife's gentle fingertips, the cooling, soothing cream penetrating my over-exposed shoulders, I wonder - am I that man....will I become that man.................screw it, let's wake the neighbors!

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

Why would one, so profoundly educated assume any of the details you’ve outlined to be within a stones throw of the truth?

Where is it that you have fallen from that makes you so hate the dynamics of the business these days?

This is an exercise in futility I see. You did create scenerios that were quite detailed in nature. As a matter of fact you had me working for Wachovia in one instance, and vetren SB brokers raiding my book. Let's take a look at the problems with these "facts." First, I have never stated that I was looking to move my business anywhere. I mearly stated that I was performing my due dilligence as anyone would do in this situation. It helps to set your clients at ease when you can explain the features and benefits of SB vs. other firms. And second the opportunity for vetren SB brokers to raid any LM clients would not come for at least eight months as LM branches will operate autonomously at least until the integration period presidents day weekend - and we've been told (which may or may not come to be) that the northern region will stand alone for at least 18months following the 12/1 close.

As far as my comment about the dynamics of the business, I have read more than one post from you in other threads that you make very clear your dislike for the "used car salesmen selling mutual funds" being a direct effect of the industry's dumbing down.

I have wasted enough time with you, and would expect that someone such as yourself would gather more facts before you spout your worthless advice. If you would like, we could begin a thread (in fact Starka may have already) that talks more to the uselessness of your typing.

I have read with amusement the petty banter on this board, and feel
that I should chime in with my perspective on the LM/Citi deal.



As a successful advisor at LM, I have been sought by numerous
wirehouses over the years. I stayed at Legg because I liked the
atmosphere and the ethics of the firm. I have always felt there was
room in the market for a nimble, mid-sized firm to compete with the
elephant Merrills and Smith Barneys. 



The B/D biz at Legg has been one of the most profitable on the Street,
with 20% margins, though this was not enough when compared to the asset
management side of the firm. Of course, they fed and nourished that
side, and (lately) starved the B/D side, so it’s no wonder the asset
management biz looks good in comparison.



I’m not sure if they will regret this move, but time will tell.



There are many of us who feel this retention package says much about
how Citi views Legg’s salesforce. They evidently think that most of us
are captive, and tied into Legg funds with large capital gains if sold.
While that may be true for some, I know that there are a variety of
business models practiced by FAs at the firm that do not tie us to Bill
Miller or other Legg products.



So, I guess I will be going on interviews this summer…

[quote=LMBARGINCHIP]

This is an exercise in futility I see. You did
create scenerios that were quite detailed in nature. As a matter of
fact you had me working for Wachovia in one instance, and vetren SB
brokers raiding my book. Let’s take a look at the problems with these
"facts." First, I have never stated that I was looking to move my
business anywhere. I mearly stated that I was performing my due
dilligence as anyone would do in this situation. It helps to set your
clients at ease when you can explain the features and benefits of SB
vs. other firms. And second the opportunity for vetren SB brokers to
raid any LM clients would not come for at least eight months as LM
branches will operate autonomously at least until the integration
period presidents day weekend - and we’ve been told (which may or
may not come to be) that the northern region will stand alone for at
least 18months following the 12/1 close.

As far as my comment about the dynamics of the business, I have read more than one post from you in other threads that you make very clear your dislike for the "used car salesmen selling mutual funds" being a direct effect of the industry's dumbing down.

I have wasted enough time with you, and would expect that someone such as yourself would gather more facts before you spout your worthless advice. If you would like, we could begin a thread (in fact Starka may have already) that talks more to the uselessness of your typing.

Ah…if you behave yourself ClerkBoy, I may let you shine my shoes one day.  (Don’t hold my breath, though.  You’re not even close to worthy yet.)

[quote=Starka]Ah…if you behave yourself ClerkBoy, I may let you
shine my shoes one day.  (Don’t hold my breath, though. 
You’re not even close to worthy yet.)[/quote]



See what I mean, anger fueled by stupidity.



The phrase is “Hold your breath.”  It is impossible for me to hold your breath Starka–go look it up.

[quote=Put Trader] 



 Do you understand the power of telling a client,



“Mr. Johnson
in investing there is one thing that works best–consitency.  You
are fully invested at this time, Bob Broker moved to Wachovia because
Wachovia gave him a huge upfront bonus.  In order to justify that
bonus it is expected that Bob will move you out of all of your current
positions into new ones.  It may not happen right away, but you
can bet it will happen.



On the other
hand, if you simply stay here at Legg–then Smith Barney–there will be
no such suggestions, no pressure…just consistency.



The reality is
your money is being managed by fund managers, not Bob or me.  If
you feel a “loyalty” to Bob you should not, he’s not loyal to you or he
wouldn’t be asking you to go through this turmoil.



Please, for the sake of your own financial future, be very careful following Bob around.



I could have jumped ship too, but decided that stability for my clients was too important.



If Smith Baney doesn’t work out, I can go later…why do you suppose that Bob didn’t wait to see what was going to happen?”



(Shut up and listen)



"Well, the
easiest way to maintain the consistency you need is for you to tell me
to instruct our operations people to not transfer your account to
Wachovia…all I need is for you to tell me now, we’ll send you a
letter to confirm it.



Do you want me to do that, keep the consistency working for you?"



That I mention this is not some sort of proof that I hate the business
or don’t understand the dynamics of it. 

[/quote]



All salesmen script their work. Putzy, the lines above demonstrate your
skills at “pushing product” to be very impressive. Leading questions.
Building consensus. Rhetorical statements. More leading questions.
Great job, sport.



Amateur salespeople talk about product. Junior salespeople ask about wants and needs. 
What you have done is nothing short of dumbfounding. The positioning of
the need for consistency in ones life as a deliverable product is sapid
to me (I just looked over at the mirror Putzy sent me for Arbor Day
which reads - Smile Saphead - and admired my vacant slackjawed
expression of awe at the profundity of the P-man’s
salesmanship…Wowsy.)



Putz, your playbook (does it have Roger Staubach’s name somewhere on
the cover?) probably includes the above scripted-play. It’s an
aggressive defense that might deliver some mediocre results in a
scrimmage against “The Greatest Generation” (or, any argyle-socked,
Lake Wobegon wannabe, balletomane-boy and fervent admirer of all things
archaic) and their wants and needs for consistency. This same script
bounced against the babyboomer or X-type’s would meet would meet with a
dismissive shake, rattle and juke. P-eater, just a  quick update,
"Elvis has left the building."



A competent salesperson would first validate an understanding of the
situation. Then probe into problem areas. And only then, combine the
two to twist the knife on the problem. Good luck, Killer.

I was recently contacted and recruited by a Smith Barney branch manager
for the Financial Consultant training program. I have 5 years
experience in the Insurance/Marketing industry but do not have a series
6,7 or 63 and my degree is in Literatue. I was told that I would be
brought in under a 3-year training program where I would learn the
industry and take the tests as I’m trained. I was told I needed to take
a 2 tests before a serious interview, one based on basic math and
economics and the other I have no idea. Perhaps an IQ test of some
sort? I read the threads and was just wondering if any of you can offer
some info/tips to give me a jump start on the process.



Thanks