[quote=frumhere]they were here 9-10 months.  i am not a bs'er.[/quote]

okay, that makes sense. 

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=JCadieux]…my partner and I have
talked to some very promising candidates this morning.  I supspect that
most of the brokers will be snatched up by other firms very quickly.
[/quote]

The other brokers in the office are in no position to know the details of the production of trainees cut. Best of luck getting the bottom half of a training class placed.

[quote=xmsbroker]

Mike, what is your position at the firm?

Can you also explain how a trainee is functionally different than an FA (differences besides comp plan)?

[/quote]

You mean besides the fact that they're paid, tracked and supervised differently than an FA are are on "probation" until they complete the training program?

[quote=SaySo]Mike is a dushbag. MS FA Trainees have "Financial Advisor" on their business cards. Is Morgan deceiving clients with that title?

The training program gives 1 year to reach our goals, I was given 9 months.

The ONLY 2 "success" stories of the program only made it by (1) landing a big client in the last few weeks of the 1 year or (2) with help of a senior FA.


[/quote]

I feel your pain, brother...

at my office they werent supervised differently but thats probably rare

they are coded differently, what do they do differently on a daily basis? 

what do you mean by probation?

[quote=xmsbroker]

[quote=SaySo]Mike is a dushbag. MS FA Trainees have "Financial Advisor" on their business cards. Is Morgan deceiving clients with that title?

The training program gives 1 year to reach our goals, I was given 9 months.

The ONLY 2 "success" stories of the program only made it by (1) landing a big client in the last few weeks of the 1 year or (2) with help of a senior FA.


[/quote]

Exactly.  Not to mention that fa 'trainees' obviously have to assert themselves as highly qualified wealth managers.  who's going to give their lifes savings to someone who 'in training'?

[/quote]

It isn't what they have on their business card, it's their status in the firm. You're just being silly now.

Plenty of management types have been laid-off too, and I don't consider that a lie on Mack/Gorman's part.

[quote=Starka]

[quote=SaySo]Mike is a dushbag. MS FA Trainees have "Financial Advisor" on their business cards. Is Morgan deceiving clients with that title?

The training program gives 1 year to reach our goals, I was given 9 months.

The ONLY 2 "success" stories of the program only made it by (1) landing a big client in the last few weeks of the 1 year or (2) with help of a senior FA.


[/quote]

If you're going to call someone a "dushbag" [SP], at least spell it correctly.  Better still, don't call another poster a "dushbag" at all.

I've had differences of opinion with Mike, but they are just that.  Differences.  He is certainly not a douche bag because of that.

[/quote]

Yeah, there are plenty of other reasons 

Thanks

[quote=JCadieux] [quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=JCadieux]...my partner and I have talked to some very promising candidates this morning.  I supspect that most of the brokers will be snatched up by other firms very quickly.
[/quote]

The other brokers in the office are in no position to know the details of the production of trainees cut. Best of luck getting the bottom half of a training class placed.

[/quote]

You'd be surprised, Mike.  Gorman admits that their training program needs help.  And just because you weren't successful at Morgan Stanley doesn't mean that you won't be successful in a more supportive environment.

All the same, I can't see any other wirehouse rushing out to hire the bottom 1/2. You know one of the major criticisms of the program wasn't just how it was run, but who they hired to fill the probably-too-many slots. Again, best of luck.

We place a lot of experienced FAs with small books.  Lots of these trainees did very well despite scaled back training and lackluster support.  And several of the candidates that have called yesterday and today seem to have been on-track, and had decent pipelines.  We'll have to verify this, but if last August's cuts are any indication then there are some gems the got caught up in the system.

Sure there are, and last August, the guys doing under $225k with LOS > 8 years? Plenty of gems there.  Look, I could be wrong, but you sound more like you're trolling than that you got any phone calls in the entire 24 hours since this happened. I could be wrong, again, call it a hunch.

I'm not saying that everybody that was cut will stay at the Wirehouse level. 

Ding, Ding, Ding.... say, boys and girls, wouldn't you just love to hear who rushes out to hire the bottom half of a class already known for low hiring standards?

We still reject the majority of the trainee level candidates that contact us.  But there are a significant number of MS trainees that will do better in a more supportive environment.

"Supportive environment"? LOL Again, I really do wish them luck, but don't blow smoke up their skirts that being in the bottom 1/2 had anything to do with anything but themselves or that there are a warm set of mothers arms at some firm you're being paid to deliver them to.

[quote=frumhere] i am sure some good trainees were cut.... Bottom line is, if you are not given the training, get the training (out of your own pocket).[/quote]

Or join a firm that actually invests in training its trainees.  Results vary from branch to branch, but there are lots of firms with stronger programs.

"Invests in training its trainees" I just love recruiterspeak....I suggest you listen again to the criticisms internally to the program. It was too big, causing hires that never should have been hired. The instruction on exams was weak, too many failures. I've yet to hear any real evidence that universally people who managed to pass their exams weren't given just what they would have recieved at any other wirehouse. Another wirehouse where, no doubt, "I didn't get any support" is the claim of everyone who washes out.

Just for grins, could someone tell me just what, besides the tools, and a chance, trainees should be given? Any one here in the biz more than 5 years ever given more than a phone and some advice after they passed the exams? Seriously, I'd love to hear it.

[quote=xmsbroker]

at my office they werent supervised differently but thats probably rare

they are coded differently, what do they do differently on a daily basis? 

what do you mean by probation?

[/quote]

You're fixated on what they look like to clients and not the terms of their employment and how they've yet to achieve full-status as they're still in a training program. "Probation" as in the terms of their continued employment being contingent on completing a training program. No FA fits that category.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker]

at my office they werent supervised differently but thats probably rare

they are coded differently, what do they do differently on a daily basis? 

what do you mean by probation?

[/quote]

You're fixated on what they look like to clients and not the terms of their employment and how they've yet to achieve full-status as they're still in a training program. "Probation" as in the terms of their continued employment being contingent on completing a training program. No FA fits that category.

[/quote]

they do the same job.

i certainly wasnt any more or less excited when i 'completed' the trng program.  its not like completing it means your job is no longer contingent. 

i dont know why you care so much about the internal coding. if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and can call itself a duck...

Butler....After the next cuts will your line be "everyone saw the cuts coming"  "the righting was on the wall" These are the exact lines the region guys gave us after last August.  These same region guys, who are no longer with the firm (Steve Townsend, Sanchez) are now saying that they see the same lines coming this summer.

Im sure these will be your sorry ass excuses for all the b.s. your spewing on this site.

"writing" sorry.

"Any one here in the biz more than 5 years ever given more than a phone and some advice after they passed the exams? Seriously, I'd love to hear it."

Are you implying the training at MS is the same as its competitors? Even senior mgmt doesnt believe that...

Even if you do foolishly believe that, the point is MS is firing people before their evaluation day and other firms arent. 

I have the solution to our Trainee Problems!  DON'T HIRE ANY!

This industry is moving toward teams anyway.  The biggest producers are those in teams.  Individual rookies just aren't making it because there are so many people in this industry.  Let senior FAs bring on partners as they see fit.  They can mentor the new FA and expand their practice.  This would dramatically reduce the failure rate and we wouldn't have unqualified people out there giving advice.

A client of mine got invited to a seminar last month.  He said to me, "This guy worked for my friend's Car Dealership last year!  Now he's some kind of financial expert? Give me a break."

[quote=fritz]

Butler....After the next cuts will your line be "everyone saw the cuts coming"  "the righting was on the wall" ...[/quote]

OK, Ms Cleo, here's the offer again; here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is. Let's make a wager on this one. And again, no, I won't give you odds, even though the "due date" on this prediction has come and gone at least three times. 

[quote=xmsbroker]

"Any one here in the biz more than 5 years ever given more than a phone and some advice after they passed the exams? Seriously, I'd love to hear it."

Are you implying the training at MS is the same as its competitors?

[/quote]

I thought the line you quoted was pretty clear. If you have an answer for it, let's hear it.

As a former manager the only did more than hire trainees is fire them.  They were nothing more than a challenge goal number.  It’s sounds cold but it is fact.  Why the excitement over these 500???  They would have been fired eventually.  Morgan sends a thousand trainees up the hill, and hopes that the enemy has less than a thousand bullets.   Crappy training program run by managers who were worried about a P&L that was dragged down by rookies who added thousands to the fixed expenses line. 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker]

"Any one here in the biz more than 5 years ever given more than a phone and some advice after they passed the exams? Seriously, I'd love to hear it."

Are you implying the training at MS is the same as its competitors?

[/quote]

I thought the line you quoted was pretty clear. If you have an answer for it, let's hear it.

[/quote]

Mike, you obviously believe that better training is possible as you have acknowledged the program was lacking and earlier you said:

''It's more likely that getting on with revamping the training program and getting the new WM deal up and running was the real motivation"

Now youre saying that training everywhere is nothing more than being handed a phone?  Strange.  Why would MS be revamping the program if all theyre going to do is hand someone a phone?

I dont make any claims to be an expert trainer, but certainly things can be done to make someone more successful.  WM education is  one obvious step. the 7/66 do not teach nearly enough about investing for someone to handle a $1mm+ portfolio and proper understanding is important for the sales side as well.  A lot of wealthy people can gauge how well someone understands investing.  Likewise, guidance is needed to structure a business plan.  You cant make it anymore simply by making 200 calls everyday.    

Mike, perhaps you can answer my questions.  Do you think the training at MS is as good as every firm?  If yes, why are they changing the program?

[quote=xmsbroker][quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"Any one here in the biz more than 5 years ever given more than a phone and some advice after they passed the exams? Seriously, I'd love to hear it."

Are you implying the training at MS is the same as its competitors?

[/quote]

I thought the line you quoted was pretty clear. If you have an answer for it, let's hear it.

[/quote]

Mike, you obviously believe that better training is possible as you have acknowledged the program was lacking and earlier you said:

''It's more likely that getting on with revamping the training program and getting the new WM deal up and running was the real motivation"

The WM program, which is brand new, and will cover about 50% of all hires going forward, is an effort to do much of  what was suggested above, to groom people for placement into WM teams. That’s a completely different focus than any program that I know of on the street.

The revamping aside from that, that I’ve heard discussed is raising the hiring standards and providing better pre-exam instruction. It isn’t as if some magic success formula has been discovered and is going to be implemented.

Now youre saying that training everywhere is nothing more than being handed a phone? 

You seem to suffer from a significant comprehension problem. What I said was “I got no support” is what you hear everywhere from people who failed to make the grade in a career field where the attrition rate is somewhere north of 75% in the first five years. I simply asked what “support” people making that claim think would have made the difference, since I’ve heard that complaint everywhere, including ML which has a reputation for having the best program on the street. The reason for failure with new trainees isn’t that they weren’t given the skills to manage $1MM+ accounts, it’s that they couldn’t OPEN accounts.

I’m unaware of any training program on the street that has as a goal that trainees will be able to manage $1MM accounts on their own without relying on the assets within the firm to given them guidance once the account is opened or in the proposal stage.

I dont make any claims to be an expert trainer, but certainly things can be done to make someone more successful.  WM education is  one obvious step.

You’re aware that even the old program incorporated earning the CFP designation, right? Again, the problem wasn’t that trainees weren’t WM skilled, its that they didn’t open accounts and bring in assets.

Likewise, guidance is needed to structure a business plan.  You cant make it anymore simply by making 200 calls everyday.    

I would agree that if the plan didn’t include that, it was severely lacking. I just asked a trainee in the office and told me that was part of his program even before he finished his exams.

Mike, perhaps you can answer my questions.  Do you think the training at MS is as good as every firm?  If yes, why are they changing the program?

Is it as good as everywhere else? I can’t tell you that, and that’s a fair question. My guess is it’s better than some, not as good as others. I think the real problems were, as discussed earlier, as Mack himself said. We tried to make it so big that hiring standards suffered as a result. I also noticed the pass rate on the exams weren’t as high as I saw at ML. That could have been a function of hiring standards or the course itself, I couldn’t tell you. What I can, again, tell you is I heard the “I got no support” claim even at ML, with their reputation.

My take on their program was that it gave you a solid basis to take the exams, it then gave you knowledge about how to use the firm’s tools and how to devise a business plan. After that, the trips to ML’s campus were only informative in so much as you got to hear what was working for others, and you got some motivation from hanging (and drinking a lot) with others going through the same pressure. The same with the interaction with office mentors, the biggest value was motivational when you got down. But when it comes right down to it, those aren’t difficult tools to supply a trainee and beyond that, it’s all up to the individual. No one else can give you “support” that opens accounts, only “support” that helps to keep trying.

Oh, and why are they changing it? As I mentioned above, hiring standards were low and the new WM track. Beyond that it could well be that they’ve acknowledged the change in the biz and how people should start in it before others have.

It’s interesting how you’ve tried to change this from “lies” and “bad press” and “lawsuits” to “don’t you think the training program sucked?”….