Rbc

or Register to post new content in the forum

21 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 20, 2006 9:56 pm

I have been asked to recruit for RBC Dain Rauscher. In my opinion they are a second tier firm. Am I wrong? What about their platform? Can they compete with the big wirehouses?



I appreciate any first hand information you can provide?



Thanks,


Sep 20, 2006 10:01 pm

Their compliance people in Canada are great. I am personal friends with a Royal Bank Board member. A Bear Stearns' institutional client friend of mine has his pp account with Dain in Houston.


Can they compete with MER, SB, and MS? I think so, if Royal Bank's truly interested in growing US based retail assets which I think they are.


Sep 21, 2006 8:52 am

I have been asked twice and declined both times.  Not a bad firm, just not a ton of critical mass to be built there, IMHO.

Sep 21, 2006 4:04 pm

Their platform is very competitive, they offer wrap accts, SMA's and are one of a handful of exclusive distributors for Frank Russell products. 

Sep 21, 2006 4:13 pm

I was recruited by RBC and I was really impressed.  If I would have stayed as an employee I would have gone with RBC.

Sep 21, 2006 4:30 pm

Yeah, I think 2nd tier firm is a little inaccurate from a platform perspective, even if they are a regional.  They are definitely not like Edward Jones. 

Sep 21, 2006 4:35 pm

I'd given them a hard look...I got a call recently from a fund manager whose performance I liked and the rep that called indicated that LPL and RBC were the only platforms that their funds were sold through.  While I understand that in and of itself is not enough of a measuring stick to judge with, I for the impression from the guy that called me that RBC was considered a high quality shop.

Sep 21, 2006 5:20 pm

Re-post without the brain spasm...


I'd give them a hard look...I got a call recently from a fund manager whose performance I liked and the rep that called indicated that LPL and RBC were the only platforms that their funds were sold through.  While I understand that in and of itself is not enough of a measuring stick to judge with, I got the impression from the guy that called me that RBC was considered a high quality shop.

Sep 21, 2006 5:23 pm
Indyone:

Re-post without the brain spasm...


I'd give them a hard look...I got a call recently from a fund
manager whose performance I liked and the rep that called indicated
that LPL and RBC were the only platforms that their funds were sold
through.  While I understand that in and of itself is not enough
of a measuring stick to judge with, I got the impression from the
guy that called me that RBC was considered a high quality shop.





Why would you value the opinion of a guy representing a fund that could
only find two firms willing to enter into selling agreements?



From where I sit that could indicate that RBC and LPL were the only firms with low enough standards to want to sell that fund.

Sep 21, 2006 5:35 pm

It may not be an indication of exclusivity.  I went more on the fact that the guy that called me said a lot of positive things about RBC.  The fund is VALUX and with the exception of 2002, which was tough all over, they've done a pretty respectable job...I wouldn't think that it would be hard to convince various platforms to pick them up. Perhaps they get enough inflows from the two platforms that carry them to satisfy the manager.

Sep 21, 2006 6:10 pm
Knows Wall St.:
Indyone:

Re-post without the brain spasm...


I'd give them a hard look...I got a call recently from a fund manager whose performance I liked and the rep that called indicated that LPL and RBC were the only platforms that their funds were sold through.  While I understand that in and of itself is not enough of a measuring stick to judge with, I got the impression from the guy that called me that RBC was considered a high quality shop.




Why would you value the opinion of a guy representing a fund that could only find two firms willing to enter into selling agreements?

From where I sit that could indicate that RBC and LPL were the only firms with low enough standards to want to sell that fund.


From where you sit? You mean looking up at the curb?

Sep 21, 2006 6:24 pm
Knows Wall St.:
Indyone:

Re-post without the brain spasm...


I'd give them a hard look...I got a call recently from a fund manager whose performance I liked and the rep that called indicated that LPL and RBC were the only platforms that their funds were sold through.  While I understand that in and of itself is not enough of a measuring stick to judge with, I got the impression from the guy that called me that RBC was considered a high quality shop.




Why would you value the opinion of a guy representing a fund that could only find two firms willing to enter into selling agreements?

From where I sit that could indicate that RBC and LPL were the only firms with low enough standards to want to sell that fund.


RBC works with Russell which only allows a handfull of dealers to offer their products.  You'd have a hard time convincing me that Russell would only be attractive to shops with 'low standards'.  I used to work right next door to their headquarters and know quite a few people there.  Top notch company.

Sep 21, 2006 6:39 pm
dude:
Knows Wall St.:
Indyone:

Re-post without the brain spasm...


I'd give them a hard look...I got a call recently from a fund
manager whose performance I liked and the rep that called indicated
that LPL and RBC were the only platforms that their funds were sold
through.  While I understand that in and of itself is not enough
of a measuring stick to judge with, I got the impression from the
guy that called me that RBC was considered a high quality shop.



Why would you value the opinion of a guy
representing a fund that could only find two firms willing to enter
into selling agreements?

From where I sit that could indicate that RBC and LPL were the only firms with low enough standards to want to sell that fund.


RBC works with Russell which only allows a handfull of dealers to
offer their products.  You'd have a hard time convincing me that
Russell would only be attractive to shops with 'low standards'.  I
used to work right next door to their headquarters and know quite a few
people there.  Top notch company.





What do you suppose is their logic to not want the large firms to sell their funds?

Sep 21, 2006 7:31 pm

I think its a great firm the only thing that is kinda lacking (if you are gona be a new broker) is the name recognition...outside Minn its not really that strong.

Sep 21, 2006 8:43 pm

Dain has a product called Total Portfolio that I think (correct me if I am wrong) they are the only people (beside Piper and now UBS which have a version that isn't as good).


Basically you can buy seperate accounts, etfs, and mutual funds, all in one wrap account. You can set it to auto rebalance.  And the coolest thing is the tax feature.  It automatically goes in and does all of the tax loss harvesting and watches for managers who buy the same stock, ect. That only costs 10 basis points and they say you earn an additional one percent. 

Sep 21, 2006 9:05 pm
Knows Wall St.:
dude:
Knows Wall St.:
Indyone:

Re-post without the brain spasm...


I'd give them a hard look...I got a call recently from a fund manager whose performance I liked and the rep that called indicated that LPL and RBC were the only platforms that their funds were sold through.  While I understand that in and of itself is not enough of a measuring stick to judge with, I got the impression from the guy that called me that RBC was considered a high quality shop.




Why would you value the opinion of a guy representing a fund that could only find two firms willing to enter into selling agreements?

From where I sit that could indicate that RBC and LPL were the only firms with low enough standards to want to sell that fund.


RBC works with Russell which only allows a handfull of dealers to offer their products.  You'd have a hard time convincing me that Russell would only be attractive to shops with 'low standards'.  I used to work right next door to their headquarters and know quite a few people there.  Top notch company.




What do you suppose is their logic to not want the large firms to sell their funds?


The Russell company is a very exclusive company to begin with (they manage the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation in addition to many other VERY big pools of money).  I believe that they are very selective in who represents their products and are sensitive to image issues in general.  I remember looking out our front window and seeing stretch limos going to Russell's headquarters where you'd find the flag flying in their foyer of whatever sultan, head of states' or representatives' country that was visiting that week to get a portfolio review.


I can't really speak for them, but I'm pretty sure if they wanted to be on the platform of the Major players then they'd have no problem.  Their support of the advisor is very sophisticated and robust (they make other fund companies look like a joke in this area) and you will find that the dealers they have arrangements with (AG Edwards, RBC, Piper etc...) are generally smaller 'more independent' type shops.


I would even venture to say that their support of the advisor is the best in the industry.  They have designed a handfull of excellent tools to help their advisors increase the efficiency of their practice, streamline and format client meetings and provide added value to their client relationships.

Sep 21, 2006 9:11 pm

Oh, to answer your question Knows NASD.....


Exclusivity.  If they were on the platforms of the major distributors they'd become 'just another fund company'.  I get the impression that they really want to preserve their 'exclusive' image. 


I think it helps them preserve what I feel is their biggest drawback which is exorbitantly high fees for their seperately managed accounts and other products.  The fees is what kept me from using their offerings.

Sep 22, 2006 3:46 pm

The fees ARE what kept me from using......


How'd I screw that one up....yeesh.

Sep 22, 2006 6:49 pm
Knows Wall St.:
dude:
Knows Wall St.:
Indyone:

Re-post without the brain spasm...


I'd give them a hard look...I got a call recently from a fund
manager whose performance I liked and the rep that called indicated
that LPL and RBC were the only platforms that their funds were sold
through.  While I understand that in and of itself is not enough
of a measuring stick to judge with, I got the impression from the
guy that called me that RBC was considered a high quality shop.

Why would you value the opinion of a guy
representing a fund that could only find two firms willing to enter
into selling agreements?

From where I sit that could indicate that RBC and LPL were the only firms with low enough standards to want to sell that fund.


RBC works with Russell which only allows a handfull of dealers to
offer their products.  You'd have a hard time convincing me that
Russell would only be attractive to shops with 'low standards'.  I
used to work right next door to their headquarters and know quite a few
people there.  Top notch company.





What do you suppose is their logic to not want the large firms to sell their funds?



Maybe because they don't want to be pressured to make huge "shelf space" payments to be in the system?

Sep 22, 2006 8:17 pm

Thanks guys; Interesting informative conversation, and no insults.



I pretty much agree with Brokerrecruit; just needed confirmation.