Is LPL growth just smoke and mirrors?

or Register to post new content in the forum

51 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Aug 28, 2007 2:08 am


Take a look:



http://www.onwallstreet.com/bdconnect/profile.cfm?comparison s=52



According to this article:



1. LPL has 6,481 reps

2. Average gross is $150,477

3. 31% of reps or 2,009 Reps make less than $50k gross

4. 17% of reps make between $50-$99k gross

5. thats 48% (almost half) or 3,110 reps making less than $100k gross

6. only 39% or 2,527 Reps are making over $150,000 gross



Could these numbers be right?

Aug 28, 2007 2:28 am

Yes it could be, unfortunately.


We have some great technology and some really good OSJ's out there.  We also have some real pikers in the system as well.

Aug 28, 2007 7:10 am

I'm at $440,000 YTD Gross Commissions.  I think that there are a lot of people that bring down the averages...for example people that are doing investments part time.  Just a thought not an examination.

Aug 28, 2007 8:06 am

What the heck does it matter what the average take is at LPL? The ONLY thing that matters is what you'll gross with LPL. I'm at 118,000 gross after 5 months of joining LPL.

Aug 28, 2007 10:05 am

Because ANYONE with over 3 years in this business not grossing $200,000 really stinks. That is ridiculous.

Aug 28, 2007 11:48 am

Did no one notice that BPD was using data from 2005?


Candyman, if you're going to bash the firm that's taking all your reps, you might use fresher data...


I'm sure my licensed assistant and the office of CPAs a couple of towns to the west are also dragging down the average.  Personally, I'll be around $300K this year and Ron Carson is on pace to do somewhere close to ten million in production this year...gee...LPL reps really suck!

Aug 28, 2007 12:04 pm

Nobody says they suck.  What is being suggested is that the age old adage that "Figures never lie, but liars always figure" may be in play about the supposed growth of LPL.


Every time somebody mentions LPL you trot out Ron Carson as proof that the firm is a great firm.  There are dozens of producers in every wire house in the country who post numbers like that.  Having one of them is hardly something to write home about.


What this type of news does is dampen the value of LPL to those LBO guys who want to sell it.  The reality is when you get into the numbers having a huge portion of your stable producing less than is expected in the third year at a real firm does not enhance the value of the business.


Would it surprise you if LPL jacks up its quota and raises its fees in an attempt to drive the little guys away?

Aug 28, 2007 12:20 pm

Oh, I don't know...LPL has taken it's share of arrows here.  Jones doesn't like them or RayJay because many of their advisors going independent select one or the other.


"dozens of ten million dollar producers in every wirehouse in the country"?  I don't doubt that wirehouses have highly successful advisors, but methinks thou dost exaggerate...kind of like you did when you made a statement about LPL's top 20 advisors not aggregating a million dollars in production or something equally ridiculous...it's one here somewhere...feel free to correct me, but only with the link of what you actually said.


There are plenty of other folks I could trot out...last I knew, LPL had somewhere in the range of 100 million dollar producers and I'm assuming that number goes much higher with the recent acquisitions.


What was posted was not news...it was really old news.  When the IPO happens, I'm sure the numbers will be diced six ways to Sunday by a bunch of analysts and what candyman posted will be brushed aside as irrelevant by anyone with any savvy at all.


...and no, it would not surprise me at all that LPL continues to make changes designed to reward and attract larger producers.  I suspect that last year's new bonus brackets were a result of other firms trying to poach the Ron Carsons of LPL.  Perosonally, I'll take it.  I went from 90% to 92% on part of my production.  If LPL cuts loose advisors less than $100K due to lack of profitability, you won't see any weeping here.

Aug 28, 2007 12:34 pm

In addition this study only posts the brokerage business.  As independents, I would assume that the fixed insurance side of the agent's revenue isn't reported.    This is often a quite significant amount of  income which isn't subject to overrides by the b/d.

Aug 28, 2007 1:57 pm

Didn't I just read in the Investment News, or somewhere, about the whole industry inflating its ave production per rep? 

Aug 28, 2007 2:02 pm

>>Could these numbers be right?<<


Yes. Unfortunately, they are comparable to other firms in the independent side of the business. 


You are going to see where the smaller brokers are systematically run out of the business due to the costs of business, licensing, and compliance.  RJ has been doing that for a couple of years now where minimum gross is $100,000 and minimum branch production is $250,000.    LPL will not be far behind.

Aug 28, 2007 9:40 pm
Indyone:

Did no one notice that BPD was using data from 2005?



Candyman, if you're going to bash the firm that's taking all your reps, you might use fresher data...



I'm sure my licensed assistant and the office of CPAs a couple of towns to the west are also dragging down the average. Personally, I'll be around $300K this year and Ron Carson is on pace to do somewhere close to ten million in production this year...gee...LPL reps really suck!





Indyone,



So are you saying that LPL is counting their licensed assistants in that number? That's impressive.



So you have more recent numbers than 2005? Please do share!



Aug 28, 2007 10:14 pm

These low numbers were a concern for me coming from AGE and more of a wire mindset.  When you dig deeper you'll find many small town junior reps, some part time pre-retirement reps, and of course some pikers.  The more I dug the more I appreciated the fact that they are efficient enough for a small producer to be profitable, which makes it even easier for a larger rep. 

I'll be moving my 400k crest club production soon and happy not to be contributing to the next Bagby's $25 Million golden parachute. 

Aug 28, 2007 11:33 pm
BigPayDay:
Indyone:

Did no one notice that BPD was using data from 2005?

Candyman, if you're going to bash the firm that's taking all your reps, you might use fresher data...



I'm sure my licensed assistant and the office of CPAs a couple of towns to the west are also dragging down the average.  Personally, I'll be around $300K this year and Ron Carson is on pace to do somewhere close to ten million in production this year...gee...LPL reps really suck!




Indyone,

So are you saying that LPL is counting their licensed assistants in that number? That's impressive.

So you have more recent numbers than 2005? Please do share!

You're a big boy...find your own d*mned numbers.  All I'm saying is that if you wanted to discuss EDJ numbers, I'll bet you wouldn't trot out 2005 numbers, you self-righteous prick.


As far as who's in the numbers and who's not, I don't know and frankly don't care...it's speculation.  If you want to know for sure, do some homework...don't present two-year-old numbers as anything other than history.


If I were in your region, I'd defect too.  I'll bet you don't tell your reps that they can net 70% as an indy and they won't have to listen to your hamburger presentation and have you sucking off their production.

Aug 29, 2007 12:23 am

Indyone,



My point: These are the most current published numbers. If you work for the firm and don't have more current numbers, how would I have them?



2159 posts...dude you need to get a life! Oh that's right this board is your life.

Aug 29, 2007 10:23 am

Who cares about some one elses production!


I am just a little over 300,000  a year. Does that mean I am not as good advisor as a 500,000 a year advisor and that I am better then a 100,000 a year advisor? I think not!


Do you measure a person by there net worth?


  If you feel this way stay stay at the wire house it is the way they want you to think.


Aug 29, 2007 11:59 am
Greenbacks:

I am just a little over 300,000  a year. Does that mean I am not as good advisor as a 500,000 a year advisor and that I am better then a 100,000 a year advisor?



Yes, that's exactly what that means.

Aug 29, 2007 12:21 pm
BigPayDay:

Indyone,

My point: These are the most current published numbers. If you work for the firm and don't have more current numbers, how would I have them?

2159 posts...dude you need to get a life! Oh that's right this board is your life.

I don't buy that.  You're telling me that no one has published any numbers for 2006 yet?  Ten seconds on Google got me this...


http://209.104.135.85/investmentnews/bdsurvey/edit/profile.a sp?bdprofileid=54


Your bullshit has just been called.


You aren't interested in the truth...that's obvious from your first post.  Your interested in keeping the flock from fleeing, so you post crap like this and your firm puts out "Is the grass really greener" propaganda pieces.


As far as me posting 2-3 times a day, is that all you've got?


That's pathetic.

Aug 29, 2007 11:52 pm

"Mighty"one,



You want to know the definition of pathetic?



How about 45% of your sales force grossing less than $100,000. That's pathetic. Your numbers not mine. I suppose this is not the truth. The growth at LPL is smoke and mirrors I tell you.



You want to know another definition of pathetic?



Over 2100 posts on this board. Yeah it's 2-3 times a day if you have been on EVERY day since May '05. Oh yeah that's right, you have been. What are you giving up by spending all this time on here?



Thanks for sharing the '06 data with us. Make sure and post the '07 data as soon as it is out.

Aug 30, 2007 12:17 am

You just keep telling yourself that as you watch more and more of your reps leave to affiliate with such a pathetic B/D.  You asked to be called out when you posted your bag of shit and I did.  You stupidly insisted that your 2005 numbers were "the most current published numbers" when they obviously weren't.


Your snide little comments about the number of my posts isn't an answer to your bullshit being called.  Try again.