Huge Team Leaves ML!
60 RepliesJump to last post
"down 50+ last 14 months" It was 51% for 2008, 4-5 % for last two months of 2007, then Jan of 2009..since you want exact numbers.. I'll try to get Jan for you next week. It adds up to around 60%. The team my buddie is on is a joke. The head is daughter who's dad retired in 2005. She has about 5 years experience, one of her friends who was working at Schwab since 2001, two brokers who were in the training program at ML and she brought them in. Their business is about 75% managed money, the book had about T-12 of 3 mill when her dad retired. It is now probably 1/2 that. Not sure I would equate this team as a successful business that clients feel they are "lucky to be a part of" like you assume. What am I jealous of? I do about 450k, work about 20 hours a week. I made more on a private placement 4 years ago than you would get on a 150% up front retention. I am happy with my business, yes its not over a million (And never will be, I am too lazy and won't hose clients) , but I have no headaches and could quit today and not have to work another day in my life.First down 50%, now down 60%. ??. If I were a client down 60% I would leave too. Who would you want to do business with, a succesfull broker in the business 17 years or a struggling rookie that may not be there in 2 years? Not a naive comment, its just that you are prob 500k or less and jealous
Thanks for the information. It is a very scary time at ML especially if you are a hard working CA. I have been sending out a lot of resumes. Just hard to get a foot in the door for an interview here. I have worked hard at ML and I knew this was probably going to happen given BOA track record. I kept telling the people in my office all that “this is a great thing for ML” BS was just that and wait until after January 1. We lost a guy Monday who just got all of his licenses and had not even started in production left. BOA said they would pay him until February 6, but otherwise “don’t let the door hit you on your butt as you leave.” What a bunch of crap.
What are SMO's?The cuts are everywhere not just Southeast. You should be scared. You will know by the 6th whether you have a job or not. That is when CA’s will find out nationally if they have been cut. The names have already been chosen, they just have not told anyone yet. Basically alot of dead man walking in all size offices. I think that SMO are safe for now. However, they may be the next to be consolidated, etc.
[quote=fritz]
Is she hot?
[quote=bondo]Heard a big team out of Cincy left today. Over $5mm in production.[/quote]
BS. there isn’t 5mm in cincy
If it is the team Bondo said then they might not be 5 mm but he’s one of the top 100 fa’s at ML. A huge PIA producer and he had most of upper management at PG. I live 80 miles south and he was a legend in our office.
Morgan Stanley's (MS) global wealth management group recently hired seven financial advisers, including Dean Trindle, a high- producing broker who had $6 million in trailing 12-month production. http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200902191139DOWJONESDJONLINE000899_FORTUNE5.htm[quote=bondo]Heard a big team out of Cincy left today. Over $5mm in production.[/quote]
BS. there isn’t 5mm in cincy
When a team leaves Goldman, depending on your reference point, many of you will call them huge. Keep in mind, the minimum account size at Goldman is $5 million, and the average account size is approximately $20 million. In order to survive at a firm like that, a investment professional must be doing $500,000 in revenue within their first 2 years, and about $1 million in revenue within their first 3-4 years. The payouts are much lower at Goldman than other firms, so that is why teams leave for other firms. Goldman never has problems attracting new talent, and they rarely buy a book of business, if ever. They rely heavily on their brand name to hire and retain talent, and it works very effectively. From GS, you can only go to a few other firms who cater to those clients, like MS, CS, or UBS. Channel conflict is a big issue. GS pounds on broker-dealers that have corner brokerage service, saying its a dilineation of the resources of the firm.
You seem quite knowledgable for being a "newrep.'When a team leaves Goldman, depending on your reference point, many of you will call them huge. Keep in mind, the minimum account size at Goldman is $5 million, and the average account size is approximately $20 million. In order to survive at a firm like that, a investment professional must be doing $500,000 in revenue within their first 2 years, and about $1 million in revenue within their first 3-4 years. The payouts are much lower at Goldman than other firms, so that is why teams leave for other firms. Goldman never has problems attracting new talent, and they rarely buy a book of business, if ever. They rely heavily on their brand name to hire and retain talent, and it works very effectively. From GS, you can only go to a few other firms who cater to those clients, like MS, CS, or UBS. Channel conflict is a big issue. GS pounds on broker-dealers that have corner brokerage service, saying its a dilineation of the resources of the firm.
I don't think Hank Moody went to Wharton, but I'm pretty sure his clients did better last year than the Goldman clients. And he doesn't even talk to them at an 'extremely high level' and show them multicolored pie charts.Just a blog name … I’ve worked in wealth management before … and by wealth management, I don’t mean brokerage … there is a difference, despite that everyone seems to want to adapt that name these days … I know the ultra-high net-worth busines well, and I think those who work at corner brokerages are making comments without really understanding the models, the complexity, and the level of sophisticated investing that takes place at that level. I can guarantee that team that left Goldman was loaded with MBA’s from schools like Harvard, or Wharton, or GSB, or wherever. They simply do not hire people who cannot speak with a client at an extremely high level about aet allocation, aet location, structural planning, and all the different areas of investing. When a team leaves GS for UBS, they are doing it for a one-time bonus check, because they are then selling for a company that represents everything GS doesn’t, which is having brokerage units that serve all levels of investors … At that level of clientele, UBS is tainted by its attachment to Paine Webber … just like Morgan Stanley has to deal with being referred to as Dean Witter.
Apparantly, high level talk loses people's money just as well as low level talk. Too bad you're too smart to tell people about index annuities. It doesn't take an MBA to say that "when the market goes up, you make money and when the market goes down, you don't lose money, plus you don't pay any commissions or fees."Just a blog name … I’ve worked in wealth management before … and by wealth management, I don’t mean brokerage … there is a difference, despite that everyone seems to want to adapt that name these days … I know the ultra-high net-worth busines well, and I think those who work at corner brokerages are making comments without really understanding the models, the complexity, and the level of sophisticated investing that takes place at that level. I can guarantee that team that left Goldman was loaded with MBA’s from schools like Harvard, or Wharton, or GSB, or wherever. They simply do not hire people who cannot speak with a client at an extremely high level about aet allocation, aet location, structural planning, and all the different areas of investing. When a team leaves GS for UBS, they are doing it for a one-time bonus check, because they are then selling for a company that represents everything GS doesn’t, which is having brokerage units that serve all levels of investors … At that level of clientele, UBS is tainted by its attachment to Paine Webber … just like Morgan Stanley has to deal with being referred to as Dean Witter.
I don't think Hank Moody went to Wharton, but I'm pretty sure his clients did better last year than the Goldman clients. And he doesn't even talk to them at an 'extremely high level' and show them multicolored pie charts. [/quote] I heard that Hank has a Master's degree in Accounting from the University of Texas and most of his clients don't even know it.[quote=NewRep73]Just a blog name … I’ve worked in wealth management before … and by wealth management, I don’t mean brokerage … there is a difference, despite that everyone seems to want to adapt that name these days … I know the ultra-high net-worth busines well, and I think those who work at corner brokerages are making comments without really understanding the models, the complexity, and the level of sophisticated investing that takes place at that level. I can guarantee that team that left Goldman was loaded with MBA’s from schools like Harvard, or Wharton, or GSB, or wherever. They simply do not hire people who cannot speak with a client at an extremely high level about aet allocation, aet location, structural planning, and all the different areas of investing. When a team leaves GS for UBS, they are doing it for a one-time bonus check, because they are then selling for a company that represents everything GS doesn’t, which is having brokerage units that serve all levels of investors … At that level of clientele, UBS is tainted by its attachment to Paine Webber … just like Morgan Stanley has to deal with being referred to as Dean Witter.
Who tells people there are no fees? YOU? where did you get such an idea that reps will bold face lie to a client. To even make such an a**umption is a reflection of YOU, not the average Rep.
Do you think clients are so stupid they are oblivious to the fact that there is a cost to doing business? AGAIN a reflection of your ideas NOT mine.
Yes, really.Annuities? Really? Aren’t you going to sell me on that upfront haircut that the broker takes on those? How is that pro-client? Show me an annuity that actually can’t be replicated much cheaper using derivatives. The problem with financial advisory is because there are people out there telling people “it’s so simple, when the market goes up, you make money and when the market goes down, you don’t lose money, plus you don’t pay any commissions or fees.” I’m sure some 65 year old Grandmother buys that. I’d rip that thing apart and find all the hidden fees in it if I saw a client with one of those in their portfolio and show them exactly how the broker got paid on that instrument, which supposedly has “no commissions or fees”. It’s frightening that people think annuities are pro-client. This is part of the reason I don’t work on that side of the industry anymore, because I refuse to claim that ignorance is a legitimate excuse for not educating the clients on all the fees.