[quote=mikebutler222]

[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?”….

[/quote]

i havent tried to change anything, ive just responded to your questions.  of course this still involves lies.  people at the firm, including trainees, were told no more widespread cuts were going to happen. 

[quote=xmsbroker] of course this still involves lies.  people at the firm, including trainees, were told no more widespread cuts were going to happen.  [/quote]

No, we were told there would be no cuts of the FA force. Trainees and management, both of which were later cut, aren't part of that.

Now, if it makes you feel better to think otherwise, and to wait for the "bad press", "lawsuits" and clients leaving in droves, fine by me, enjoy.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=xmsbroker] of course this still involves lies.  people at the firm, including trainees, were told no more widespread cuts were going to happen.  [/quote]

No, we were told there would be no cuts of the FA force. Trainees and management, both of which were later cut, aren't part of that.

Now, if it makes you feel better to think otherwise, and to wait for the "bad press", "lawsuits" and clients leaving in droves, fine by me, enjoy.

[/quote]

ive never seen such blind loyalty to a large firm, especially to a weak dept of a firm in decline.  they told the same thing to the trainees.  just like they told everyone there would be no more reductions right before they closed a bunch of branches.

[quote=iconsult100]

[quote=Incredible Hulk]mikebutler - i think MS has their own flavor of kool-aid and gorman’s holding your bong.[/quote]

Kool-Aid? Do you see MS brokers pushing products like the Jones guys or the insurance salesmen… No. I would like to know what you are refering to because that statement makes no sense to me.

MikeButler222 continues to try to inject sound business practices along with logical thinking into this discussion. I keep wondering why he tries to fit a square peg into a round hole?

[quote=Biasedrecruiter]MikeButler222 continues to try to inject sound business practices along with logical thinking into this discussion. I keep wondering why he tries to fit a square peg into a round hole?[/quote]

huh?

"Do you see MS brokers pushing products like the Jones guys or the insurance salesmen"

Ahhhhh... I do.... Jus tturn to page two of ANY Morgan STanley satatement... Under "Morgan Stanley funds" you will see about 4-8 mediocre funds... Then look right below that to "Other Mutual Funds", where you will see MSIF and Van Kampen funds.... Guess what- they are owned my MS as well...

I actually just moved my largest account ever on Tuesday by asking a blind prospect to read their statement. I didnt ask for account values at first , but told them my hunch and that if I was wrong they could hang up and I wouldnt call back.... Turns out 97% of their mutual funds were MS/ MSIF and Van Kampen.... Got the meeting and got the ACAT's....

Sure this is one occassion but I have seen it ALL THE TIME..... It is what it is...

they are owned my MS as well...

sorry..... owned by MS as well....

[quote=Incredible Hulk]

Moron - pushing products doesn't make you a "kool-aid" drinker - defending management and your firm policies without independent thought would make you a kool-aid drinker. Jones has many, and at times I might have a sip, but mikebutler has spent the better part of two days defending a cut of 500 brokers. If he spent half the time he spent on this website helping one of the "dead-weight" brokers in his branch, they might still be there. This is why I said he has been drinking his own brand. In fact, I think Mr. Butler may have slipped you a mikebutler ruffie (spelling) in your morgan swill.[/quote]

First of all, there's no need for the name calling, kids shouldn't be allowed on this board.  Me, Mike, and MS agree on some things, and disagree on a lot of things.  If you had read any of my previous posts,  you would know that.  Don't lump us all together, without checking the facts.  The diverse opinions is one of the things that makes this industry great.

Second, its not my job, or Mike's job to train brokers, we have businesses to run.

[quote=blarmston]

"Do you see MS brokers pushing products like the Jones guys or the insurance salesmen"

Ahhhhh... I do.... Jus tturn to page two of ANY Morgan STanley satatement... Under "Morgan Stanley funds" you will see about 4-8 mediocre funds... Then look right below that to "Other Mutual Funds", where you will see MSIF and Van Kampen funds.... Guess what- they are owned my MS as well...

[/quote]

If you are seeing MS, VK, and MSIF on the same statement, then you are most likely looking at a Portfolio Architect Account.  It's a wrap program that uses proprietary class I and Class D shares (institutional shares).  They have 50-60bps expense ratios and have actually performed pretty well. 

I think you will see less and less of this in the future because of our managed money and wrap programs.  All of our platforms use outside funds/managers and are improving every month.  I know that all the FAs in my complex have been boycotting proprietary products for years.  The MS and VK wholesalers don't even bother coming by anymore.

[quote=blarmston]

"Do you see MS brokers pushing products like the Jones guys or the insurance salesmen"

Ahhhhh... I do.... Jus tturn to page two of ANY Morgan STanley satatement... Under "Morgan Stanley funds" you will see about 4-8 mediocre funds... Then look right below that to "Other Mutual Funds", where you will see MSIF and Van Kampen funds.... Guess what- they are owned my MS as well...

I actually just moved my largest account ever on Tuesday by asking a blind prospect to read their statement. I didnt ask for account values at first , but told them my hunch and that if I was wrong they could hang up and I wouldnt call back.... Turns out 97% of their mutual funds were MS/ MSIF and Van Kampen.... Got the meeting and got the ACAT's....

Sure this is one occassion but I have seen it ALL THE TIME..... It is what it is...

[/quote]

Just ask the Morgan Stanley Funds wholesaler if we're pushing proprietary funds.  MS has the best platform on the street that includes non proprietary funds, outside money managers, and ETF's.  You're going to have to find a new pitch when you come accross an MS client.

"Just ask the Morgan Stanley Funds wholesaler if we're pushing proprietary funds.  MS has the best platform on the street that includes non proprietary funds, outside money managers, and ETF's.  You're going to have to find a new pitch when you come accross an MS client."

Oh I do, my friend... My pitch is nice... Always evolving, improving, and always having MS clients sign a CRA and some ACAT's...

[quote=blarmston]

"Just ask the Morgan Stanley Funds wholesaler if we're pushing proprietary funds.  MS has the best platform on the street that includes non proprietary funds, outside money managers, and ETF's.  You're going to have to find a new pitch when you come accross an MS client."

Oh I do, my friend... My pitch is nice... Always evolving, improving, and always having MS clients sign a CRA and some ACAT's...

[/quote]

Feel free to lie to people if you like Blarmston, but there's no pushing of funds that I've seen. That’s a lesson already learned at MS, and learned the hard way. The fact is if you ACAT a mutual fund-filled account from ML, you'll see ML's core funds in it, the same applies to SB or UBS accounts with mutual funds. If you ACAT a Jones or AGE account you‘ll see a handful of familiar names, even though they‘re non-proprietary.

OTOH, the other writers have made good points about the platform and how non-proprietary it is. In fact, you'd better hope the guys talking to your clients aren't showing them the Personal Portfolio platform that combines SMAs, load-waived, no-load or institutional mutual funds, ETFs in a single account number, with reasonable fees, all free of proprietary names.

[quote=Incredible Hulk] [quote=iconsult100]

[quote=Incredible Hulk]mikebutler - i think MS has their own flavor of kool-aid and gorman's holding your bong.[/quote]

Kool-Aid?  Do you see MS brokers pushing products like the Jones guys or the insurance salesmen.... No.  I would like to know what you are refering to because that statement makes no sense to me.

[/quote]

Moron - pushing products doesn't make you a "kool-aid" drinker - defending management and your firm policies without independent thought would make you a kool-aid drinker. Jones has many, and at times I might have a sip, but mikebutler has spent the better part of two days defending a cut of 500 brokers. [/quote]

I don't think I've ever heard such whining and crying from ill-informed people, far removed from the facts doing their level best to find grounds to bitch about a firm they're not even a member, and willing to twist the details to fit their agenda. 'Kinda funny, actually.....

[quote=Biasedrecruiter]MikeButler222 continues to try to inject sound business practices along with logical thinking into this discussion. I keep wondering why he tries to fit a square peg into a round hole?[/quote]

It's fun to rattle the cages and watch the wings flutter. It inspires some of the funniest reponses I've ever read.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=blarmston]

"Just ask the Morgan Stanley Funds wholesaler if we're pushing proprietary funds.  MS has the best platform on the street that includes non proprietary funds, outside money managers, and ETF's.  You're going to have to find a new pitch when you come accross an MS client."

Oh I do, my friend... My pitch is nice... Always evolving, improving, and always having MS clients sign a CRA and some ACAT's...

[/quote]

Feel free to lie to people if you like Blarmston, but there's no pushing of funds that I've seen. That’s a lesson already learned at MS, and learned the hard way. The fact is if you ACAT a mutual fund-filled account from ML, you'll see ML's core funds in it, the same applies to SB or UBS accounts with mutual funds. If you ACAT a Jones or AGE account you‘ll see a handful of familiar names, even though they‘re non-proprietary.

OTOH, the other writers have made good points about the platform and how non-proprietary it is. In fact, you'd better hope the guys talking to your clients aren't showing them the Personal Portfolio platform that combines SMAs, load-waived, no-load or institutional mutual funds, ETFs in a single account number, with reasonable fees, all free of proprietary names.

[/quote]

have they finally instituted the true UMA theyve been talking about forever?  i thought different SMAs required different account numbers

[quote=xmsbroker][quote=mikebutler222][quote=blarmston]

"Just ask the Morgan Stanley Funds wholesaler if we're pushing proprietary funds.  MS has the best platform on the street that includes non proprietary funds, outside money managers, and ETF's.  You're going to have to find a new pitch when you come accross an MS client."

Oh I do, my friend... My pitch is nice... Always evolving, improving, and always having MS clients sign a CRA and some ACAT's...

[/quote]

Feel free to lie to people if you like Blarmston, but there's no pushing of funds that I've seen. That’s a lesson already learned at MS, and learned the hard way. The fact is if you ACAT a mutual fund-filled account from ML, you'll see ML's core funds in it, the same applies to SB or UBS accounts with mutual funds. If you ACAT a Jones or AGE account you‘ll see a handful of familiar names, even though they‘re non-proprietary.

OTOH, the other writers have made good points about the platform and how non-proprietary it is. In fact, you'd better hope the guys talking to your clients aren't showing them the Personal Portfolio platform that combines SMAs, load-waived, no-load or institutional mutual funds, ETFs in a single account number, with reasonable fees, all free of proprietary names.

[/quote]

have they finally instituted the true UMA theyve been talking about forever?  i thought different SMAs required different account numbers

[/quote]

We've been propagating a boatload of new acronyms around here, so pardon my ignorance, what's a UMA? Also, the Personal Portfolio Account allows for multiple SMA managers, ETFs, load-waived no-load and institutional funds in a single account number. You can combine six sectors/styles and the minimums are pretty low. Seems like there are added enhancements every week.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=blarmston]

"Just ask the Morgan Stanley Funds wholesaler if we're pushing proprietary funds.  MS has the best platform on the street that includes non proprietary funds, outside money managers, and ETF's.  You're going to have to find a new pitch when you come accross an MS client."

Oh I do, my friend... My pitch is nice... Always evolving, improving, and always having MS clients sign a CRA and some ACAT's...

[/quote]

Hey, it's a competitive world, not a problem. I mean, why should I have all the fun of that sort when I comb through a Bob Doll “managed” account with nothing but proprietary ML SMAs, all sucking wind, as the client signs an ACAT?  Those things sort of sell themselves. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Say, are you guys still using the “Focus One List” as a sell signal as we did when it first rolled out?

Just teasing, pal. 

[quote=MWD123]

Just ask the Morgan Stanley Funds wholesaler ...[/quote]

I don't think there are any to ask. I haven't seen one in years...

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=xmsbroker][quote=mikebutler222][quote=blarmston]

"Just ask the Morgan Stanley Funds wholesaler if we're pushing proprietary funds.  MS has the best platform on the street that includes non proprietary funds, outside money managers, and ETF's.  You're going to have to find a new pitch when you come accross an MS client."

Oh I do, my friend... My pitch is nice... Always evolving, improving, and always having MS clients sign a CRA and some ACAT's...

[/quote]

Feel free to lie to people if you like Blarmston, but there's no pushing of funds that I've seen. That’s a lesson already learned at MS, and learned the hard way. The fact is if you ACAT a mutual fund-filled account from ML, you'll see ML's core funds in it, the same applies to SB or UBS accounts with mutual funds. If you ACAT a Jones or AGE account you‘ll see a handful of familiar names, even though they‘re non-proprietary.

OTOH, the other writers have made good points about the platform and how non-proprietary it is. In fact, you'd better hope the guys talking to your clients aren't showing them the Personal Portfolio platform that combines SMAs, load-waived, no-load or institutional mutual funds, ETFs in a single account number, with reasonable fees, all free of proprietary names.

[/quote]

have they finally instituted the true UMA theyve been talking about forever?  i thought different SMAs required different account numbers

[/quote]

We've been propagating a boatload of new acronyms around here, so pardon my ignorance, what's a UMA? Also, the Personal Portfolio Account allows for multiple SMA managers, ETFs, load-waived no-load and institutional funds in a single account number. You can combine six sectors/styles and the minimums are pretty low. Seems like there are added enhancements every week.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

unified managed account