Joe, that’s great advice for all of us.

Well said…that’s all we can do. Nothing changes until it does…

[quote=Broker010]Joe, that’s great advice for all of us.
[/quote]

If I can help a little glad to do so.  Like I said, I’ve been there…spent quite a bit of time at AGE in the good old days when Ben was in charge, left shortly after Tad-ster had his grab at the ring.  Then went through a takeover.  It was interesting times to say the least.

FWIW that’s why I’m indy now.  Far more freedom to respond to changing conditions.   I’m in the STL area if any of you are in town and want info.

What I meant was good luck with the retention package and transition. AGE had a lot of good qualities. Hopefully WB won’t kill off all of the culture.

Just In: Home Office Leak says

Retention Bonus as I've heard will be 40% 0-$349K, 50% $350K-$499K, 60% $500K-799K, 100% $800K-up 

Advisor28, Thanks for the info. If that’s anywhere in the ball park, it may actually end up being a “broker retention” package. 

Broker10

It seems i was a little harsh last night. Tequila has that effect. LOL!

I apoloigize for that. I know it's a rough time for some of you. I believe that once you see and interact wirh some of the WB people it will help to calm your fears. The culture at WB is the closest you will find in a large firm to what you have at AGE. Don't let the fact that its owned by a bank give you the wrong idea. It's run by brokerage people, for brokers. You won't be doing auto loans, but will have the ability to offer mortages, letter of credits and business loans. If thats what you want to do. You can do managed money and get paid more or transactional business. The Envision process can unlock your clients hidden assets and up your AUM and net.

Just give it a chance.

Hydeho, No problem. It was a case of beer for me (purely medicinal at this point). These things always seem to have a way of working out for the best.

[quote=advisor28]

Just In: Home Office Leak says

Retention Bonus as I've heard will be 40% 0-$349K, 50% $350K-$499K, 60% $500K-799K, 100% $800K-up

[/quote]

No offense to anyone, but someone doing 200K and has been in the business for 10 years doesn't deserve a check for $80K.  Sorry.  That's an insult to the rest of us and I seriously doubt they are considering that.  Plus if you multiply the number of producers at each level by the percentage you suggest it totals to over 1.4BIL and that doesn't even include the incentive for the WS brokers.

Not saying that package is anything like the truth, but…Why is that an insult to “the rest of us”? What do you care what a $200k producer gets as long as you get a whole lot more??

Because the total pie is only 1 Billion and I’ve already been subsidizing 200K producers in my office for too long.

So where would you put $0 on your offer scale, knowing that over 4000 AGE brokers produce less than $350?

0-149 = 0%

150-349 = 20%

350-549 = 40%

550-799 = 60%

800-999= 80%

1MIL + = 100%

Now that's a fair system.

Very realistic. I honestly appreciate your input. Thanks!

I think his point pertains to the break-even point for brokers vs. overhead. Anyone doing below $170 or so is not profitable i.e. a net drag on the firm. I think he’s saying that those who are only marginally profitable should not expect much of an offer.

[quote=Broker010]I think his point pertains to the break-even point for brokers vs. overhead. Anyone doing below $170 or so is not profitable i.e. a net drag on the firm. I think he's saying that those who are only marginally profitable should not expect much of an offer. [/quote]

B10... A guy doing 170m has a 32% payout... that means after his part of hlth ins. he grosses 48m....It doesn't cost 122m for phone computer and back office support.....

[quote=Broker010]I think his point pertains to the break-even point for brokers vs. overhead. Anyone doing below $170 or so is not profitable i.e. a net drag on the firm. I think he's saying that those who are only marginally profitable should not expect much of an offer. [/quote]

Exactly.  The sad thing is that he still won't get what you mean.  This is capitalism, we each reap what we earn.  There is nothing wrong with someone getting paid for their worth, but there is something wrong with someone expecting something that they didn't earn.

[quote=Quicksdraw]

[quote=Broker010]I think his point pertains to the break-even point for brokers vs. overhead. Anyone doing below $170 or so is not profitable i.e. a net drag on the firm. I think he's saying that those who are only marginally profitable should not expect much of an offer. [/quote]

B10... A guy doing 170m has a 32% payout... that means after his part of hlth ins. he grosses 48m....It doesn't cost 122m for phone computer and back office support.....

[/quote]

Broker010 - See, I told you this monkey wouldn't understand.  Now we know where this entitlement comes from.  If he only knew...

Right on. The tricky calculation comes when you consider Wachovias payout system. Anyone doing under $360 or so will take a pay cut. Period. Wachovia either needs to compensate for that short-term (we all plan to move above $360, I hope) or basically give up on us. Since $300+ is quite profitable either there or indy. That’s the boat I’m in which makes the final numbers’ accuracy very important.

Ferris, My gut tells me that $500+ guys will get 100% T12. They deserve every penny and can get it elsewhere and WB knows this.