Get a life, Radio Shack. To the rest of the (normal) world, they’re all synonymous.



YOU sir are the idiot.

" ahhhhhhhh   I’m hang gliding… Honey, take a good picture … I’m dead!" What a freak!"

You are so intelligent Ferris; a real credit to those that read your posts.

The WFC retention question has been beaten to death so I don’t want to guess on what it will or won’t be.

I think you hit it on the head, the way to profitablity is to do the same, or almost the same amount of business with less brokers, and to get there by losing the guys doing less than say, 300k or 400k. And the wires realize that.But the way the wires are doing that, is not by offering the lower end guys buyouts. They are doing it by lowering their payouts bigtime, figuring they will ultimately leavve and in a market like the one we;ve had, will take less of the assets with them than they would in normal times.

Sportsfreak:

Why do advisors deserve a retention b/c their company was bailed out?  Whether it’s ML or Wachovia, reps should NOT be getting hundreds of thousands and million dollar checks just to stay with the firm.  It absolutely disgusts me, especially when client portfolios are down 30-50% and people are losing their jobs left and right.  Where is this sense of entitlement coming from?  Guys I work with at ML were never going to leave the firm, yet BAC threw cash at them to stay.  Sure, you can go to UBS and get 200%+, but the transition is extremely painful and risky.  Go ahead and leave the firm if your retention isn’t all you felt entitled to…the remaining brokers at the firm will be glad to go after your clients like vultures and offer them great discounts to keep their assets at your old firm.

[quote=Sellout21]Why do advisors deserve a retention b/c their company was bailed out?  Whether it’s ML or Wachovia, reps should NOT be getting hundreds of thousands and million dollar checks just to stay with the firm.  It absolutely disgusts me, especially when client portfolios are down 30-50% and people are losing their jobs left and right.  Where is this sense of entitlement coming from?  Guys I work with at ML were never going to leave the firm, yet BAC threw cash at them to stay.  Sure, you can go to UBS and get 200%+, but the transition is extremely painful and risky.  Go ahead and leave the firm if your retention isn’t all you felt entitled to…the remaining brokers at the firm will be glad to go after your clients like vultures and offer them great discounts to keep their assets at your old firm.[/quote]

Big diff between ML and BAC and the AGE/WS/WFC mess…clients will move that were legacy AGE clients…they are already fed up at Wachovia…and most have only stayed this long because of me…they are ready to move…ML clients are used to gettign hosed, so BAC shoulnt phase them.

So am I to take it that you somehow refused the ML $$ or were you just too low of a producer to recieve any and that is why you are bitter?

Thanks for the shot below the belt on my first post   Actually, I transitioned to ML after the '05 cutoff so I was not eligible.  I would have received a pretty generous bonus, but I never expected it and didn’t even participate in the gossip and speculation of what it would be.  I was really disappointed that so many advisors were upset that it wasn’t enough or they felt entitled to a retention bonus at all.  The biggest producers that have been at ML for decades were not going anywhere, and the transition to BAC is not going to significantly impact their business at all.  As a matter of fact, the new comp plan is extremely generous to seasoned advisors with big books, so I expect your top producers at other wires to start seriously taking a closer look at ML.

You do realize that the “not significantly impacting the business” line is  BS…wait a year or two…lol
WS buying AGE was not supposed to impact our biz lmao!
The ML payouts will not stay that way for long they will trasition to a model where they can use the grid for both firms…do you think they are going to give a raise to the exisiting BAC reps, or a cut to teh ML reps…hmmmm lets see…just wait

Hmmm let’s see, cut pay for ML reps who average close to $800k in production and give raises to BAC reps doing $300k in production?  That’s ridiculous.  ML/BAC is going to a model where they are going to handsomely reward their top producers and they really don’t care about the rest.  If there’s 20,000+ reps b/w the 2 firms today, there will be 10,000 in 3 years, but those advisors at ML who are left standing are going to be big producers who are extremely well compensated.

[quote=Sellout21]Hmmm let’s see, cut pay for ML reps who average close to $800k in production and give raises to BAC reps doing $300k in production?  That’s ridiculous.  ML/BAC is going to a model where they are going to handsomely reward their top producers and they really don’t care about the rest.  If there’s 20,000+ reps b/w the 2 firms today, there will be 10,000 in 3 years, but those advisors at ML who are left standing are going to be big producers who are extremely well compensated.

Herman
You make a good point.
I do have two guys i know who are in that category, severely affected by the new lower comp for under 400k guys. Both dont need the money. One is ready to cut back, not retire, but cut back his hours and let his partner take a bigger cut. The other is insane, feels slighted after decades at the firm and is trying to decide what to do, i.e. make a move, go indie, etc. I think her only choices are stay where she is and get shitted on or go indie. Production is low enough that a wire wont even look at her. (much different than a year ago - not her production, but the wires not interested)

Sellout - i am not with a firm that is involved in a retention, or anything like that, so i would consider myself an unbiased commentator on this subject.
It just seems to me that in theory you are right, why should anyone get paid big bucks to stay in a job. But our business is not at all like other industries. In our business, the inmates run the asylum. And control the assets. Yeah, in this environment a broker will not take as large a % of his assets with him as say, a year or two ago. But so what. That means instead of taking 70-80% he will take 60%. Its enough to give him the power.
Thats why there is even a discussion about retention. I think its ridiculous too, in most industries. But in ours, he who controls his business gets the bucks. In a perverse way, its called Capitalism

Sportsfreakbob - I agree with you, but I do believe the business is going to go through a fundamental change.  Without the use of leverage like they’ve had in the past, banks and brokerage shops are going to be cutting overhead, benefits, and total compensation for everyone but the biggest producers.  If anyone deserves a retention bonus you could clearly make a case for the $1M+ producers instead of smaller producers and worthless management. 

[quote=Sportsfreakbob]  Yeah, in this environment a broker will not take as large a % of his assets with him as say, a year or two ago. But so what. That means instead of taking 70-80% he will take 60%. Its enough to give him the power.


[/quote]

I disagree with that stmt…I think going from ML to SB or SB to UBS etc that would be true…but in the AGE/WS situation…things are a little different…clients are unhappy w the merger and have’nt really been affected yet…this month they will recieve a packet explaining how fees are going up, they will get all new checks, debit cards etc, automatic bill pays will be cancelled and they will have to re-sign up, they will get two stsmts in Feb, stmts will change, confirms will change…money fund rates will go down…so with that as a backdrop moving to indy or a regional would bring lots of clients with you…they are going to have to go through a change either way…the question is will it be with YOU or not.

I believe you would be able to take more clients with you going indy or to a regional, rather than wire to wire.  Ultimately, clients will come with you if the relationship is very solid.  It's unfortunate, but performance, fees, and some of those little inconveniences don't matter as much as you might think to clients.  They just want someone who they like and trust.

[quote=nestegg]

[quote=Sportsfreakbob]  Yeah, in this environment a broker will not take as large a % of his assets with him as say, a year or two ago. But so what. That means instead of taking 70-80% he will take 60%. Its enough to give him the power.


[/quote]

I disagree with that stmt…I think going from ML to SB or SB to UBS etc that would be true…but in the AGE/WS situation…things are a little different…clients are unhappy w the merger and have’nt really been affected yet…this month they will recieve a packet explaining how fees are going up, they will get all new checks, debit cards etc, automatic bill pays will be cancelled and they will have to re-sign up, they will get two stsmts in Feb, stmts will change, confirms will change…money fund rates will go down…so with that as a backdrop moving to indy or a regional would bring lots of clients with you…they are going to have to go through a change either way…the question is will it be with YOU or not.
[/quote]
My statement was a general statement. I am not with WS. From what you are telling me, if that is the case, then i would say even more, that they should get retention. Generally speaking i think FA’S unless they have been idiots that dont understand who they work for their entire careers, will take the majority of their book with them. Right now, going wirehosue to wirehouse, they will still take the majority, but maybe not quite as much as under normal market conditions. I think in terms of general premise, tho, we agree

[quote=Sellout21]

I believe you would be able to take more clients with you going indy or to a regional, rather than wire to wire.  Ultimately, clients will come with you if the relationship is very solid.  It’s unfortunate, but performance, fees, and some of those little inconveniences don’t matter as much as you might think to clients.  They just want someone who they like and trust.

[quote=Sellout21]

I believe you would be able to take more clients with you going indy or to a regional, rather than wire to wire.  Ultimately, clients will come with you if the relationship is very solid.  It’s unfortunate, but performance, fees, and some of those little inconveniences don’t matter as much as you might think to clients.  They just want someone who they like and trust.