[quote=Omirp222]AGE targets different markets than WS does.  AGE is more small-mid sized urban areas, whereas WS is mainly in larger urban areas.  One of the reasons WS bought AGE was instant market exposure to these middle America areas.  Out of 1500 or so offices combined, they only share 230 market areas (15%) so by combining they essentially increase their footprint by 85% (in total).[/quote]

Good point.

And most of those rural areas have 300K producers.  In those areas it would be way too easy for them to go indie, especially if there is no overlap of WS brokers there.  Maybe they will offer an enhanced payout structure for those folks to stay.  So an enhanced payout across the board and cash above a certain level.

I'll be curious to see how they treat areas where there is overlap, if they do anything different at all.

I keep hearing that @$300k producers don’t have many options. I’d like to discuss this with any of you who are willing. Granted, if you’re in year 10+ of production and are still doing $300, you’re probably topped-out, but most of the $300 people I know are still rather new (after year 5, but inside year 10) and are steadily growing their production. Our options may be limited to non-wirehouse opportunities, but so what. The guys I know wouldn’t work at a wirehouse if you put a gun to their head. There are, however myriad opportunities at regional/indies. There are many platforms/structures, etc. available from RayJay, to Delta Equity, to Edwards Jones, to any number of others. To say that “we” don’t have many options is, as I see it, ludicrous. Maybe some are just lazy and willing to take whatever Wachovia offers, but most of us are just young and working our way up, loving the way AGE let us pursue our own pace with our own business plan. I encourage all who read this to keep this mindset and don’t subject your clients to the crap that the big firms force their brokers to push. Things like this seem to have a way of working out for the best if we push forward through them. Good Luck!

Ferris, Back at ya. Good point. I agree with others that the biggest frustration is the lack of info coming from mangement at this point. Have a great day!

Doesn't Wachovia have an indy channel?  Would it be feasible for those who are in the rural and non urban areas to join that route? 

What kind of changes are you guys anticipating from WB to your current business model...excluding compensation issues?  

WB does have an independent platform and I can refer you to a couple of WB advisors who like it if you want.

FD: I am not with WB in any capacity and am merely trying to present options of all types for consideration to those who have interest.

[email protected]

I think you do have options.  Anyone at the 300K level can easily go independent and make way more.  Unfortunately with that comes a lot of hard work and a bigger risk.  That's something an older and more established broker won't want to do.  I'm glad to hear that you are young and an up and comer, but I really think that you are the minority at AGE.  There are many dinosaur brokers in the system that have mid level production and no desire to make too much change.  Promise them a slightly better payout, do some road shows that promise a similar corporate culture and they will stay.  I'm sure you will be fine.

Dust, Wachovia does have an indie channel. It is my understanding that they only accept high producers, though. By comparison, RayJay’s most desirable indie platform only takes $500k+ producers, so I don’t expect an indie opportunity from Wachovia.

Ferris, You may well be 100% right. Do you have any insight as to the AGE legacy management at the new firm? Some have said Bagby (for better or worse) will run the show, others have said he’s being primed for the bumm’s rush. If some of the AGE culture can permeate the new Co., maybe those broker of whom you speak will be okay. 

This is a website for one of WB's independent broker teams:

http://www.hudockmoyer.com

I believe Barb was with MER(rill) prior to going indy via WB.

Perhaps some of the info on her/their website will be of interest to AGE advisors considering this option (if it's on the table which I would guess it would be as WB most likely wants to retain as many good brokers as it can). This option was NOT on the table when WB merged with PRUSec and quite a few large PRUducers jumped ship because of it. I think WB learned from its mistakes and won't make that (not enough options) mistake again.

There is a WB indy plateform it’s called Wachovia Financial Network…buy my take on it is…if I’m going to go independent, why do want to stay with a bank as my parent company?  This is  probably irrational reasoning but I think it’s better to just break all ties and go in a completely different direction.

From an emotional perspective, I agree that if we’re going to have to transition our book to a new platform anyway, it’s probably desirable to find the best outside opportunity rather than go indie with Finet just because it’s there. The good news here for all us perspective new indies is that I’ve never met an indie who didn’t absolutely love it. Granted, there is more risk and more work but also more flexibility, freedom and $$$!

Agreed.

I would have been happy to stay with AGE until retirement days...but that is now the past. A

Actually, I'm looking forward to the Indie channel. Yes it will be allot more hardwork in the short term & I will loose some aum but I'm confident that I will be able to pull out 70-80% of my fee based clients which will put my production over 500k. Minus my expenses...I should be able to take a few trips (I'll miss those trips...south africa was great).

Great perspective. Don’t miss those AGE trips too much. Remember, they took @60% of your commissions in return for those trips (among other things). If you’re doing over $500k at as an indie, you’ll be able to travel anywhere you want every year. One thing I’ve found out already is that if we promise our clients now that our relationship won’t change, be it with Wachovia or elsewhere, our clients will A) be very relieved and B) be a dead lock to go with us when we go. It’s already working for me.

You're right...logically.

But we all had a comfort level at AGE which kept us comfortable with our 40% payouts...we rationalized that hey after I receive my Feb bonues add in the 7.5% 401k match plus the great environment...this is not a bad place.  All of that will now change and so has my complacency.

Last week, many of my "A" clients called to see if "I was going to be ok" during the takeover...it's a good feeling knowing that they are concerned about "you".  Relationships is what it's all about.

Exactly right on all counts. I would have happily stayed with AGE for 20 more years. Unfortunately, AGE is going bye-bye. That being the case, we need to do what’s best not only for us, but our clients and, make no mistake, they are OUR clients. Even the ones who did have some loyalty to the AGE brand, it’s going away and they feel a little betrayed, too. I anticipate taking more clients with me than in any other imaginable scenario. Especially with the lack of info available to everyone now, we are the clients’ touchstone and we are really able to cement the “us” relationship.

[quote=Broker010]Ferris, You may well be 100% right. Do you have any insight as to the AGE legacy management at the new firm? Some have said Bagby (for better or worse) will run the show, others have said he's being primed for the bumm's rush. If some of the AGE culture can permeate the new Co., maybe those broker of whom you speak will be okay.  [/quote]

If this were a buyout, then they wouldn't be retaining any of our people, let alone moving HQ to St. Louis.  I think they will retain the best of both cultures, including AGE research and compliance depts.  Their research and compliance sucks.  As near as I can tell this is a true merger and I'm sure they were real close to retaining the AGE name.  WS is much larger and has a much bigger name recognition and deeper pockets so the name change makes sense.  Now they need the men in the trenches to show clients that its the same philosophy but a different name on the door.

[quote=Broker010]One thing I've found out already is that if we promise our clients now that our relationship won't change, be it with Wachovia or elsewhere, our clients will A) be very relieved and B) be a dead lock to go with us when we go. It's already working for me. [/quote]

I've already primed the pump on this one.  I'm telling them that things look good at this point, but if things ever change for the worse we'll jump together.  The response I've gotten is overwhelming.  It's refreshing to see the loyalty they have.

[quote=Ferris Bueller]

[quote=Broker010]Ferris, You may well be 100% right. Do you have any insight as to the AGE legacy management at the new firm? Some have said Bagby (for better or worse) will run the show, others have said he's being primed for the bumm's rush. If some of the AGE culture can permeate the new Co., maybe those broker of whom you speak will be okay.  [/quote]

If this were a buyout, then they wouldn't be retaining any of our people, let alone moving HQ to St. Louis.  I think they will retain the best of both cultures, including AGE research and compliance depts.  Their research and compliance sucks.  As near as I can tell this is a true merger and I'm sure they were real close to retaining the AGE name.  WS is much larger and has a much bigger name recognition and deeper pockets so the name change makes sense.  Now they need the men in the trenches to show clients that its the same philosophy but a different name on the door.

[/quote]

If you've been to St.Louis lately, then you would know that half of the MEGA training facility is empty.  2.5 million square feet of half emptiness.  Some bean counter figured out that the most cost efficient means was to consolidate in St.Louy rather than Richmond. Call me a skeptic but that's my take. 

Merger??? have you looked at the post consolidation organization chart.  Practically all of the Edwards senior people are co-managing their areas with WB people. So who do you really think is calling the shots? Sounds more like a takeover to me.

I suspect that the AGE culture and most of the management will be replaced over time in the not-too-distant future. That’s what I’m planning for, at least. Another huge question is local logistics. How many AGE branch offices will be closed/consolidated? Will AGE branch mangers be retained or replaced? We have two half-full offices within 10 miles of each other in SW Florida. I can’t imagine that will remain the same.

[quote=Broker Fee][quote=Ferris Bueller]

[quote=Broker010]Ferris, You may well be 100% right. Do you have any insight as to the AGE legacy management at the new firm? Some have said Bagby (for better or worse) will run the show, others have said he's being primed for the bumm's rush. If some of the AGE culture can permeate the new Co., maybe those broker of whom you speak will be okay.  [/quote]

If this were a buyout, then they wouldn't be retaining any of our people, let alone moving HQ to St. Louis.  I think they will retain the best of both cultures, including AGE research and compliance depts.  Their research and compliance sucks.  As near as I can tell this is a true merger and I'm sure they were real close to retaining the AGE name.  WS is much larger and has a much bigger name recognition and deeper pockets so the name change makes sense.  Now they need the men in the trenches to show clients that its the same philosophy but a different name on the door.

[/quote]

If you've been to St.Louis lately, then you would know that half of the MEGA training facility is empty.  2.5 million square feet of half emptiness.  Some bean counter figured out that the most cost efficient means was to consolidate in St.Louy rather than Richmond. Call me a skeptic but that's my take. 

Merger??? have you looked at the post consolidation organization chart.  Practically all of the Edwards senior people are co-managing their areas with WB people. So who do you really think is calling the shots? Sounds more like a takeover to me.