Mother Merrill or Morgan Stanley

or Register to post new content in the forum

10 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.
Sep 17, 2006 9:17 pm

What firm will be in better shape in 18 months?  If you had an offer from both firms which one would you pick and why?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


 


Hoping to hear form the veterans….


 


Thank You:


 


Shmer33  

Sep 17, 2006 11:50 pm

I on the fence about this.  Too many changes, no communication from management, and too many big teams jumping ship from MS.  If you join today, I think you could be thrown into an unstable environment that is just full of distractions.  That's not really what you need if you are starting out in an industry that is already very tough.



Sep 18, 2006 6:38 am

On the other hand, if you're doing your job you don't even know what's going on at the Home Office.


When a firm is in turmoil--which both MS and ML are because of Gorman--it only affects those who are involved in the turmoil.


If you're working in the Columbus office there is virtually nothing that is changing.  Oh sure, it might take an extra day to get something done because back in New York Susie who is supposed to do what you need done is too busy gossiping about what is happening around the place--but the bottom line is that soon passes, or Susie will be outta there too.


Big teams leaving MS?  OK, but big teams are leaving ML--which is what much of the brouhaha is all about.  Net change, not much.


Your clients are essentially unaware of what is happening--9,999 out of every 10,000 clients at both ML and MS have no idea who Gorman is or the turmoil that is surrounding him and his activities.


I'd say that a year from now MS will be stronger than they are today, and perhaps ML will be a bit weaker.  But a weaker ML is still the king of the hill.


If that offends Indyone, too bad.

Sep 18, 2006 7:19 am

Here's my 2 cents on this mess:


Gorman failed to clean up messes in private client at MER left by Stan O'Neal and Launny Steffens (compliance ones and EEOC messes).


Morgan Stanley's got the same problem and I seriously doubt Gorman (consultant---never was a broker, trader, banker, analyst) will be able to clean theirs up, either.


I think I would consider a "not messed up at HQ" wirehouse like UBS if I was concerned about what my clients thought. Smith Barney's got its fair share of issues, too.


How many retail clients of MER or MS know who Gorman is? My guess is less than 5%. Maybe 10% know who Stan O'Neal or John J. Mack are.


How many retail clients at LEH know who Dick Fuld is? 90% plus. How many at Bear know who Jimmy Cayne is? 90% plus. How many at Goldman Sachs know who Hank Paulson is/was? 95% plus. How many ever heard of Lloyd Blankfein? 80% plus. How many retail clients at JEF know who Rich Handler is? 90% plus.


That's the dif between retail clients of an investment bank and those at a wirehouse.


Welcome back, NASD Newbie aka Street Maven. Please do try to be a little less combative. I personally enjoy most (but not all of your comments).


Sep 18, 2006 8:35 am

I concur with Maven--the short answer to the question is "it doesn't matter."

The local difference may have 5-10% to do with a new person's success or

failure, but the national situation is pretty much irrelevant. If and when you

make it and are looking to change firms, the question is a bit more

important. However, I moved to MS when their name was in the paper all

the time and it didn't seem to matter to my clients....they realized I'm not

going to be a different person just because my business card has a different

company's name on it.

Sep 18, 2006 9:36 am
ymh_ymh_ymh:

Here's my 2 cents on this mess:


Gorman failed to clean up messes in private client at MER left by Stan O'Neal and Launny Steffens (compliance ones and EEOC messes).


Morgan Stanley's got the same problem and I seriously doubt Gorman (consultant---never was a broker, trader, banker, analyst) will be able to clean theirs up, either.


Huh? You figure the compliance and EEOC problems are ML are unique in the industry (or that there are major ones at MS right now?)? If so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.


ymh_ymh_ymh:

I think I would consider a "not messed up at HQ" wirehouse like UBS if I was concerned about what my clients thought.


No knock at UBS, but I doubt there's a lack of the same compliance/EEOC issues there are are seemingly everywhere else. Addionally, I've heard from firends there at management feels "distant", as if calls are being made off the US shores and the incorportaing of some recent UBS buys are keeping them busy with other issues.



ymh_ymh_ymh:

How many retail clients of MER or MS know who Gorman is? My guess is less than 5%. Maybe 10% know who Stan O'Neal or John J. Mack are.


How many retail clients at LEH know who Dick Fuld is? 90% plus. How many at Bear know who Jimmy Cayne is? 90% plus. How many at Goldman Sachs know who Hank Paulson is/was? 95% plus. How many ever heard of Lloyd Blankfein? 80% plus. How many retail clients at JEF know who Rich Handler is? 90% plus.


That's the dif between retail clients of an investment bank and those at a wirehouse.



I don't recall that being the question, even if that bit of trivia is true (which I doubt since I doubt if those numbers come close to representing even the street's knowledge of who those guys are).

Sep 18, 2006 9:39 am
iconsult100:

 Too many changes, no communication from management, and too many big teams jumping ship from MS. 


Sorry, I don't see this. The changes have slowed to a trickle, the teams jumping issue is over and has, in fact, reversed and I think communication's been pretty good from where I sit.


Perhaps that last one varies by region, but I have to agree with others who have said that what's happening at the national level means next to nothing (unless people are being perp-walked out of corner offices) and the specific branch environment accounts for far more to someone just starting out.

Sep 18, 2006 9:40 am

Ok, back to a better a proof reading effort on my part before hitting the "post" button. Enjoy, Putsy...



Sep 18, 2006 9:45 am
mikebutler222:

Perhaps that last one varies by region, but I have to agree with others who have said that what's happening at the national level means next to nothing (unless people are being perp-walked out of corner offices) and the specific branch environment accounts for far more to someone just starting out.


The reality is that even if people are being perp walked out of the Home Office most of your clients will not know about it, and those who do will figure that they're there and you're here and probably don't even know them.


In a country where about half the people don't know who their US Senators are it's silly to worry that they're paying attention to what you see as horrible news.


There are lots of variations of "There is no such thing as negative publicity," but it really is true.


Once a month the WSJ publishes a list of brokers who were censored, fined, barred--all those bad things.  The only people who pay attention to that list are brokers who are in the process of being censored, fined, barred themselves and wonder if they've made the list yet.

Sep 23, 2006 6:53 pm

Morgan Stanley's new president looks like an idiot, just my .02