What will a WFC/WB retention package look like?

or Register to post new content in the forum

433 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.
Oct 3, 2008 9:05 pm

I would not want to be the one devising a retention plan for a bunch as diverse as the current WS. However, I am thinking something less that what they paid us AGE fc's last year. It would have to be, right? However, when you add the last package plus this package, we might be getting paid well to sit tight.

 
Watch there is no package...
Oct 3, 2008 9:12 pm

By the way, I don't know how the legal ramifications will work out but I am sure Wachovia shareholders want old Vikram to scram. One commentator on CNBC made the point that surely WB and WFC have a few contract attorneys that reviewed the Citi documents and felt they had grounds to proceed. At least that is what everyone other than C shareholders hope is the case.

Oct 4, 2008 8:59 am
WS - I have heard that the retention pkg, which was in the works PRIOR to the C/WFC deal will be "aggresive.
Oct 4, 2008 10:29 am

I work in a large Wachovia office and there has been considerable talk over a proposed retention package in regards to the Wells Fargo acquisition.  One interesting point to keep in mind is that the Legacy AGE employees received a decent upfront (50% of trailing 12 for $500k level) whereas the Wachovia Securities brokers did receive a check to stay in their seats, but at a smaller amount.

 
So how do you handle individuals who received two different sized checks a year ago? 
 
Although I don't have any insight into what could transpire over a retention package, I can say that there has not been a time in my career that so many of my co-workers are actively pursuing deals with other firms (myself included).  Can anyone give me a sense of what the big players are paying upfront (cash) to move?
 
One note isthat the WFC retention package will have to be swift and meaningful.  If not, the WS brokerage will probably be cut in half.
Oct 4, 2008 10:36 am

I am not a huge fc and I can probably get something approaching 100% TT elsewhere. I would prefer not to move so I will wait a little while for the dust to settle (I've used that term about 100 times with clients this week).

 
Ironic that WB employees are concerned about their job saftey and the WS fcs are worried about how much they'll get paid to stay seated. That obviously is not all we are worried about, but having a job is not really a concern right now.
Oct 4, 2008 3:00 pm

this is an interesting time.  As someone who went to ML with a upfront package, I wonder too if they will give me a retention package.  My guess is they will not.   My other guess for my old age friends is that they may sweeten the pot, but not by as much as you would hope.  One thing for sure, we need to keep the communication alive for everyone to make wise decisions.

I am comfortable with ML, and I think Thain made a great call
Oct 4, 2008 3:25 pm

They still have to complete the age/ws merger.

Oct 4, 2008 4:09 pm

It's Saturday afternoon and 23 of the brokers in our office got together for a "town meeting".   The general tone is that if there is not a substantial retention package, we are going to open an office across the street. 



I completely agree with the post above as a Legacy AGE, this has been a disaster to say the least.   The only anchor to keep me in my seat would be a hefty check.
Oct 4, 2008 4:27 pm
Jeroxide:

It's Saturday afternoon and 23 of the brokers in our office got together for a "town meeting". The general tone is that if there is not a substantial retention package, we are going to open an office across the street.



I completely agree with the post above as a Legacy AGE, this has been a disaster to say the least. The only anchor to keep me in my seat would be a hefty check.





I agree. Now that so much of the restricted stock has tanked, the golden handcuffs that top producers had are gone. I see lots of people taking recruiter calls and closed door meetings. Expect the people that were willing to wait and see what the Wachovia merger was about to move.



A quick and healthy package needs to come out immediately. Otherwise expect the flood gates to open in Nov and Dec.



It's not a great time to move a book, but they've given us no choice.

Oct 4, 2008 4:44 pm

Go_Long,

You went on and on about how bad things are and how "the clients and the reps have about had it", yet your conclusion is "I would be very disappointed and surprised if there is not a retention package in the works."  

Huh?

How would a retention package improve one single thing you just railed against?  Either everything you are complaining about is important and needs to be fixed regardless of retention money, or it's not important and you're just whining. 

You need to get clear in your own mind which it is, as your answer will make your future choices clearer. 

Oct 4, 2008 4:53 pm
Jeroxide:

It's Saturday afternoon and 23 of the brokers in our office got together for a "town meeting".   The general tone is that if there is not a substantial retention package, we are going to open an office across the street. 


I completely agree with the post above as a Legacy AGE, this has been a disaster to say the least.   The only anchor to keep me in my seat would be a hefty check.


These sentiments are perfectly understandable and to be expected.  But watch yourselves carefully.  You walk out en masse and all open an office across the street and you better plan on some serious legal bills and challenges. 

The more people that leave together the greater the likelihood of them coming after you for recruiting while still employed by WS, not to mention the usual non-solicit issue.  Regardless of the outcome, it would not be pleasant or cheap.

So be careful.  Don't let your emotions run away with you.  Now is the time to keep your head about you.


Oct 4, 2008 5:34 pm

It would be disappointing and surprising becuase I believe that managment knows what the advisors have been going through -- with likely more to come with a future merger. 
 
 
 
 
 
 




 
 
Oct 4, 2008 5:58 pm

Has anyone talked to Janney Montgomery Scott regarding an upfront bonus?  I'd be curious what some of the other top 15 firms are offering us to move.....

Oct 5, 2008 12:46 am

Judgw just ruled against WFC/WB deal..Looks like it will not go through, or will tied up in courts for a long long time.  Maybe should not spend the retention $$ yet.

Oct 5, 2008 1:19 am

what a mess, does that mean Wells gets the brokerage, but the courts will decide on the banking side?

Oct 5, 2008 9:16 am
Jeroxide:

Has anyone talked to Janney Montgomery Scott regarding an upfront bonus?  I'd be curious what some of the other top 15 firms are offering us to move.....

It's north of 100%.
Oct 5, 2008 9:24 am

Do you really think that the Citi deal in its present form will get shareholder approval? No way.


 
 
Oct 5, 2008 11:10 am
Go_Long:

Do you really think that the Citi deal in its present form will get shareholder approval? No way.







Nope. Not when shareholders know there was another deal for 7 times that. Citi will have to up the ante now. I also find it hard to believe that a smart company like Wells would put up a bid knowing the exclusivity agreement was in place without having a plan. An injunction like this was EASY to get, they had to know this in advance.



I can't wait to hear what Danny has to say on Monday.

Oct 5, 2008 12:14 pm

A WB/WFC retention deal would probably look like the AGE/WB deal. I am told that the MER/BAC retention deal will look like the AGE/WB retention deal. I suspect that for AGE reps, the WFC retention will be a small add on, not a whole new pile of cash.



Oct 5, 2008 3:20 pm

"Wells Fargo Says Takeover Agreement With Wachovia Still Stands

By Ari Levy



Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Wells Fargo & Co. said nothing in a court order obtained by New York-based Citigroup Inc. derails the California bank's plans to acquire Wachovia Corp.



Wells Fargo and Wachovia have a firm, binding merger agreement,'' the San Francisco-based bank said today in a Business Wire statement.That agreement represents a transaction that, in stark contrast to Citigroup's proposal'' benefits shareholders and taxpayers, the company said. Wachovia, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, earlier affirmed it plans to proceed.



Citigroup, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, bid $2.16 billion last week for parts of Wachovia including the branch network, and Wells Fargo followed by offering $15 billion for the whole company, including the money-losing mortgage unit. Citigroup said a New York judge last night extended its sole right to negotiate with Wachovia.



The order by New York State Supreme Court Judge Charles Ramos doesn't have any effect on the validity of the Wells Fargo agreement,'' Wachovia said in its own statement.The agreement is in the best interests of shareholders, employees, creditors and retirees as well as the American taxpayers.''"





I wonder how WFC and WB will get out of this, what do they seem to know that we don't.