AGE Brokers must wonder what
in the world happened to them. Very sad, company with nice little rep gone right down the toilet.
Hopefully we get picked up here real quick by someone with a little better track record…At this point, C or WFC looks better than WB.... Or maybe JPM has a trump card in their back pocket...
[quote=Bud Fox]Hopefully we get picked up here real quick by someone with a little better track record…At this point, C or WFC looks better than WB.... Or maybe JPM has a trump card in their back pocket...[/quote] C??? Oh please help us...anyone but them! That's just out of the frying pan and into the fire.
The way we’re going, there soon won’t be any wirehouses or super-regionals. Looks like we’ll end up being bank, independent or Edward Jones…egads…
Friday...WB stock was beat down $3 to $10 a share & in the afterhours market the company lost another $1.5 now trading under $8.50.The writing is on the wall & only a matter of time (won't be long) wheather WS brokers will become SB brokers or Wells Fargo brokers. Bloomberg is reporting that the potential acquirers are simply waiting to pounce after WB teeters. It is a shame what became of the old AGE and it's interesting with all of these national bank M&A deals the regionals like Ray Jay, Stiefel & yes even Jones remain independent & are doing well in this environment. Makes one wonder what would have become of AGE if Bagby didn't sell out the company for a buck. Would they have been able to survive and perhaps even thrive through this mania.
AGE shares always seemed to lag the market, analysts said it was always overvalued and that they paid the fc’s too much. That being said, AGE didn’t have 122 billion of crud in California. My guess is WFC would be the pick just from a stability standpoint. C and the Spanish bank - who knows? SF and RJ are definitely bucking the trend, good for them.
[quote=Bud Fox]Hopefully we get picked up here real quick by someone with a little better track record…At this point, C or WFC looks better than WB.... Or maybe JPM has a trump card in their back pocket...[/quote]
My condolences to you and my other former AGE colleagues, who deserve better. Having said that, and recalling an earlier conversation we had here about staying put or going independent, what do you think all this turmoil and (likely) yet another corporate change is likely to do to your clients' comfort level? I know my clients have been uniformly saying they are more relieved than ever now to be out of AGE/Wachovia with all the recent turmoil.
And I'm relieved to not have to be worried about my firm, and hoping about who might pick us up and what that might mean for me and my clients. We've all got enough to worry about with the markets. Who needs the additional uncertainty?
I wish I would have gotten out when the gittin was good...With all of this uncertainty, where does one go? I feel like a boat in the middle of the ocean without any navigational equipment and my clients are behind me in a dinghy connected with a couple of shoestrings that could give anytime. The absolute last company that I want to have to explain is taking us over is Banco Santander. It will be just like when Wachovia bought AGE. Every clients response was, "WHO is that?" I do not wanna have to do that again.
You have the power to make it stop, or to continue as a passenger where ever the train happens to take you. But nothing is without risk. You simply have to realize that the risk of going is less than the risk of staying.
As the VW commercial says, “There are passengers and there are drivers. Drivers wanted.”
funny how many of my former AGE reps are all kicking themselves for not going indy a year ago. Now they’re all looking at it. Best move ever.
Curious if the other wirehouse reps will learn anything from this experience. Probably not, most of the lemmings will now go from bank to bank. Love it, easy to pick up clients that now see their advisors are only in it for the check. (oops, those may not be that rewarding anymore)
News is breaking now that C will acquire WB.Wachovia Securities IS NOT part of the transaction. Maybe C didn't want to pay the legacy AGE brokers more retention money on top of what WB had already paid?
AGE reps and WS reps left to fend for themselves. Gut tells me not included in the deal since Citi may still need to spin off SB, so why deal with the process of bringing Wachovia Securities over.
If SB was spunoff I would believe it to become a public company, but who knows these days. Probably better to go private. Now with ML going to BAC, Citi may do its best to keep Smith Barney.I'm just trying to think of reasons why Citi wouldn't take the securities side and come up with these thoughts: 1) Won't take liability of previous retention bonuses, 2) They have no capital for new retention bonuses 3) Concerns of ability to keep SB anyway so not worth the hassle. 4) too many low end producers, why bother with it, especially now. 5) why take the risk right now in case things really get depression bad, why buy an asset base that won't be worth anything once clients cash out of managed accts, stocks, etc. (scariest of all for the industry), people will still make deposits and cash checks, so only buy the bank portion.
They actually stated that today - that they dont need another 20,000 brokers (i know, its actually 14000.). Thats what was stated in the Registered Rep article on the front page of this website.
With all the shit they are talking at Citi about how recent events validate their model, i dont think they are planning to sell SB. But nobody knows what happens tomorrow, things change so fast.
So is WB still a wire or back to being a regional? My head is just spinning over all of this. I cannot think of 1 good thing that occurred to us legacy AGE guys since WB took us over. And Bagby said we could not stand alone any longer… Did I hear correctly when CNBC said that Danny Ludeman said we will now go buy a bank??? WTF…