Calling a departed reps book?

I think you are asking for it but in my opinion if he was that much of an idiot you would be doing a disservice to the customer to not pick up those accounts and try to do some damage control with their money. 

If the guy wasn’t taking care of his clients and I desired a bigger book, I wouldn’t have any problem cherry-picking through his best clients.  The concern is that he’s probably got a lot of pissed-off clients…are these the type of people you want to work with?  If you can get them calmed down quickly, fine, but I have to wonder if you might be building a book of high-maintenance clients.

I have never been a huge fan of inherited acoc**ts, but it sounds like there is true opportunity there. If the guy was indeed a HACk, it will give you a chance to position your services in a better light to the clients. Offer a full portfoilio review, make appropriate suggestions, and try to gather more assets or referrals. Referrals would be key since they may not hae been willing to refer their friends, etc to the departed rep.

At the end of the day- in business its war, and you have to do your best to retain these clients and develop the relationship.

Sure, but what kind of people would work with an idiot like that?

 I genuinely didn't like the guy's attitude and his clients have been WAY underserved for years...

So you were/are jealous of him.

Regardless of how you felt about the guy, that was HIS business that HE made over years of HIS hard work and good luck and good connections. Not YOURS and NOT the firm's.

Granted, the only reason you weren't calling his clients for years was that you worked at the same firm, and if you were at a different firm and you called one of his clients, then all would be fair.

But this is not that. You are not doing your work, you are doing the firm's dirty work. Your firm had let there be a chinese wall between you and he while he was there and now they take the wall down because he left, they share information that used to be confidential between him and them with third parties of their choosing.

Personally, I think that is unethical. When you switch doctors, does that give your ex doctor the right to go get anybody he wants about your embarassing medical issues? No. So why do we want the firm that (is supposed to) work(s) for us to go around sharing our professional secrets? (This concept of who works for whom is the central issue facing the industry today. IMHO)

You book belongs to you, not the firm!

Until we start treating ourselves and each other with the respect and professional courtesy that we deserve, we'll never be able to demand to be treated fairly by the upper managements of our firms.

The proper course of action is to call the clients and say "...if you have questions or there is anyway that I can serve you, I'm here."

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 I genuinely didn't like the guy's attitude and his clients have been WAY underserved for years...

So you were/are jealous of him.

Regardless of how you felt about the guy, that was HIS business that HE made over years of HIS hard work and good luck and good connections. Not YOURS and NOT the firm's.

Granted, the only reason you weren't calling his clients for years was that you worked at the same firm, and if you were at a different firm and you called one of his clients, then all would be fair.

But this is not that. You are not doing your work, you are doing the firm's dirty work. Your firm had let there be a chinese wall between you and he while he was there and now they take the wall down because he left, they share information that used to be confidential between him and them with third parties of their choosing.

Personally, I think that is unethical. When you switch doctors, does that give your ex doctor the right to go get anybody he wants about your embarassing medical issues? No. So why do we want the firm that (is supposed to) work(s) for us to go around sharing our professional secrets? (This concept of who works for whom is the central issue facing the industry today. IMHO)

You book belongs to you, not the firm!

Until we start treating ourselves and each other with the respect and professional courtesy that we deserve, we'll never be able to demand to be treated fairly by the upper managements of our firms.

[/quote]

Good points - although thinking that RRs are going to look out for each other is more far fetched than the tooth fairy.

What has truly surprised me is

1) The people who picked up the phone and basically said "I'm satying"

2) The people who are pissed I didn't call until he had been gone for 5 days.

No lie - the very first call was to a $4.8mm relationship that immediately said they would stay.

I genuinely didn't like the guy's attitude and his clients have been WAY underserved for years...

So you were/are jealous of him.

I get why you would say the jealousy thing (he did 2x the gross I did last year).  It's not the case.  I may have been envious of his production but that's it .  I was going to write that he was an a$$hole and a Dbag but I didn't think that was fair so I called it a bad attitude.  UNDERSERVED? - He had 950 households and 3000 accounts - I spoke to clients who had bonds mature and they would have to call him after they got their statements to re-invest.  I had more than one client call me to tell me they were staying...

The book does not belong to you.  It belongs to the firm you are employed with.  Regardless of how the clients' were brought in.  Granted, the client can do whatever they wish, and move their $ with  whoever they choose.  Still, you are under contract with the firm you are with.  As you brought these client's in, you were an employee with "ABC Securities", acting on their behalf and being paid for it. Period.  The agreement is that you get a certain % on every dollar you produce.  The "firm" is custodian of the assets, market maker, risk acceptor, SIPC insured, etc etc etc.  It is what it is.  I'm not saying I wholeheartedly agree with it, by any means.  Yet if you leave, you should have every expectation that the firm you leave will take every step possible to try and retain those assets.  I hate the mudslinging, but "business is business." As any recruiter will tell you, you will likely bring 70-80% of the assets you want to bring over if you've done a good job. Still, this is not a business you "own".

Before all the indy's chime in on my above comments: no doubt you "own" to a larger degree the business you control.  In return you share more of the costs'/risks.  Not that it's necessarily a bad thing. 

Fellow reps- bottom line: the clients' are in control.  Always have been and always will be.  That's why our job is to bring in a as many qualified clients' as possible, and do the best possible job for them. 

While you make a good point Judge, I don't think that it is the last word.

It's more like the wirehouse is the factory and you are Nike. When Nike moves its operations to a different factory, the first factory doesn't get to keep making Nikes. They can keep making sneakers, and they can try to sell those sneakers to the same distributors that sold Nikes (assuming they know who those distributors are and how to contact them). But you can't call them Nikes.

We only share information regarding our clients with the firm because we are mandated by law to do so. Was a time, you could sell bearer bonds to anyone, no questions asked. Because that became inconvenient to the government, rules were established that made this practice come to an end. If our clients could, they'd have numbered accounts with po boxes as the only address, and maybe a cell phone number on record. But they can't because WE can't.

Clients domicile shares at the firm because the firm makes it impractical for them to do otherwise, because the firm finds it uneconomical to do business any other way. We and our clients have been forced into this situation.

Instead they made this guy's job harder and harder. Didn't give him the support that would have helped him keep doing the things that he had done to become such a guy with 950 households. Instead they told everyone else he was a wart because he didn't like the way thing were being undone in this industry.

This guy and his clients paid their dues to this company every year! They bought and paid for those services that you rightly mentioned. But since they were paid for, the firm should have no claim to book that the man built while paying for every service the firm supplied him with (whether he needed/wanted/used them or not).

I don't know the guy, and he might well be a jerk. I do know that I've been hungry for "gone broker accounts" too (I didn't need to come here and ask for validation either), and I know that "everybody does it!" We are the stupidest bunch of smart people on the planet! There is no other group that could benefit as much as we from being unionized, and yet we won't. We think that since we buy stocks, we're supposed to be on the "side" of management. That would be fine if ever ONCE, management was actually on OUR side!

If there were an alliance of brokers, how do you think they'd negotiate with the firms in regards to book ownership? Right! The book belongs to the broker! The broker can do business where he wants and can leave when he wants and the firm has no right to interfere! What would happen then? The firms would start to work FOR the brokers. Their objective would be to create an environment where brokers would want to stay and do their work.

Excellent points/counterpoints here.  Bottom line is, if you take good care of your clients, they're yours.  If you don't, they're your former firm's.  I have a good relationship with the guy who replaced me at my old firm.  When I left, many clients followed and many stayed.  I knew they wouldn't all come.  For some, it wasn't an option (bank as trustee, etc.)  For others, it wasn't a good fit and I told them to stay where they were.  For a few, I either hadn't solidified the relationship (i.e., they hadn't been a client long enough) or the new rep had a relationship with the client (he was local also).

Looking back, I think we've for the most part treated each other with respect.  We both said a few things that we probably wouldn't have had we been working for the same team, but if you don't expect that any of that happens, you're pretty naive.  I don't hold any of that against him...he was doing his job and I was doing mine.  In the end, the clients decide and I'm well satisfied with the number who have come across (and are still coming).  Other than sending a few Christmas cards and advertising locally, I really didn't put forth any effort to bring them across.  For the first twelve months, I honored the non-solicit, even though I was advised that it wasn't valid.  By the time I got past the first twelve months, there really wasn't much of my old book that I was still interested in and I was plenty busy with new business.

There comes a point after you've left that you just need to write off the remaining part of your book that's stayed and move on...your time is better spent working on the new business that your clients are feeding you.  I've reached that point.  I don't turn down old clients that want to come across, but I don't waste any time chasing them either.

To add to this - I don't have the slightest bit of hesitation about going after the book .  I didn't start the thread to look for validation ;  I started it because I was thinking about how this is the first  time I have not had a single bit of remorse. I also know that when the time comes the shoe will be on the other foot.      The guy moved right across the street.  He can look out his window and see me sitting in the seat he occupied for 13 years.  He stood in front of our office on Wednesday morning and bad mouthed the firm, the process, how he was treated etc. to anyone who would listen (emloyees).  He offered a job to one of my colleagues (as a junior broker).  He cleaned the place out of office supplies, down to the last paper clip, post it, stapler etc..  telephone #s on the system are mysteriously incorrect, the voicemail system suddenly wont work and files are missing.  Now do you have an idea the type of guy we are talking about ?  This guy did over $1mm 7 out of those 13 years!  We are talking petty.

When he was standing in front of the office I congratulated him and told him to call me with the names of people he knew were staying and I would concentrate on them and back off the ones he wanted me to.  He basically laughed at me.  Last week I met / spoke with over $40mm that is staying.

I get the idea of a RR owning the book and I always looked at it that way - not this time.  These clients did business with him because he was the local guy in the bank.  These assets are part of the reason I give up 63% of my gross.  If we were Indy it would be completely different

NoFX,

Fine, but please stop pretending that this is not something that it is.

You're in the eye of a shotstirm and you can't resist the urge tograb all that you can as it swirls in front of your eyes.

Wrong phone numbers on accounts! Heavens! No one ever did THAT before! In fact that what I was left handedly non referring to with the comment about only providing information because we were mandated to. How DARE this man make it difficult for the company to solicit his book of business! The Temerity! (I always wanted to coin the word "Limbaughsity" which would be the word that indicates that one is using the word "Temerity" sarcastically. And now I have.)

He took every scrap of paper? Good for him! He thought this process out and did it right (although the standing in front of the office seems a bit "Not economically viable" from Falling Down)

Nothing is going to convince you otherwise, except time.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

NoFX,

Fine, but please stop pretending that this is not something that it is.

You're in the eye of a shotstirm and you can't resist the urge tograb all that you can as it swirls in front of your eyes.

Wrong phone numbers on accounts! Heavens! No one ever did THAT before! In fact that what I was left handedly non referring to with the comment about only providing information because we were mandated to. How DARE this man make it difficult for the company to solicit his book of business! The Temerity! (I always wanted to coin the word "Limbaughsity" which would be the word that indicates that one is using the word "Temerity" sarcastically. And now I have.)

He took every scrap of paper? Good for him! He thought this process out and did it right (although the standing in front of the office seems a bit "Not economically viable" from Falling Down)

Nothing is going to convince you otherwise, except time.

[/quote]

I'm NOT pretending. You are accurate on all accounts.

You seem a good guy NOFX!

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

If there were an alliance of brokers, how do you think they’d negotiate with the firms in regards to book ownership? Right! The book belongs to the broker! The broker can do business where he wants and can leave when he wants and the firm has no right to interfere! What would happen then? The firms would start to work FOR the brokers. Their objective would be to create an environment where brokers would want to stay and do their work.

Would you be indy if a major wirehouse adopted the Indy b/d paradigm (Probably better to ask, if ALL wires adopted it)?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Would you be indy if a major wirehouse adopted the Indy b/d paradigm (Probably better to ask, if ALL wires adopted it)?[/quote]

Probably not.

Why should I trust them?  They would likely start grabbing at a bigger slice of my revenues every time they had a chance.  They can’t help themselves.  It’s in their corporate DNA.

Why would I go with someone who is new to the game when the established indys have been working this business model successfully for decades?

Dude!

The game is call "WHAT IF". Not "Why It'll Never Be That Way."

IFF (if and only if) a major wirehouse adopted the Indy b/d paradigm (and assumimng that they meant it and that their vested interest was not to nickle and dime you to death because you are always free to leave without interference for the firm) would you join?

Don't be a dick, answer the question hypothetically.

There is no other group that could benefit as much as we from being unionized, and yet we won't. We think that since we buy stocks, we're supposed to be on the "side" of management. That would be fine if ever ONCE, management was actually on OUR side!

You must mean a figurative union, not a real, potentiallly corrupt union.

Like Indy says, if you take good care of clients, they're yours.

I think independent b/ds put good pressure on branded b/ds, and offer a nice option.

But branding can be good - I got two new clients in the last week just by picking up the phone and servicing the brand. No chasing here - from client's point of view, us acting professional is the key.

I like to think of our "union" as being the Financial Planning Association, or even the Registered Rep site. Focusing on our differences, eg. registered rep vs. registered investment advisor, Jones vs. indy, fee-based vs. commissioned - we might even be victims of this mentality. After all, when moves in this business, it gets made. We should focus more on our common professional attributes.

When money moves...

Hence, going independent or RIA can be profitable. Many of the ads are about changing firms ... it ends up with us discussing right or wrong about taking house accounts ... who created and who creates this situation? The industry itself , continuously changing the venues from load, to deferred load, to wrap, and now apparently a focus on planning fees. Client usually pays the same, but our professional apples are continuously shaken off the tree. The professional (her)self suffers, and we continuously take the bait. No one is immune - let's watch the economics of RIA regulation over the next few years.

You must mean a figurative union, not a real, potentiallly corrupt union. Why would I mean that?

The firm is never going to give the broker a fair shake when they don't have to. The only recourse the broker has is to leave the firm. If he leaves, he has three choices, Leave the business, Independent, or go to another firm (as if things will be different there). If the brokers had a collective bargaining unit, they would have a different leverage with the firms. 69 guys wouldn't have felt compelled to leave Smith Barney that Friday if Smith Barney's management knew that they couldn't keep going to the "charge the FC's" well to pay for their depredations. But who was there there to speak for the brokers? Nobody!

Many firms have signed on to this "Protocol" for leaving brokers wherein a leaving broker follows this protocol and the ex-firm will not go after the broker with a TRO. But if you look at the "Protocol" it does absolutely NOTHING to help the broker, it only serves the firms involved (in that it's like having "No-Fault Auto Insurance"). What broker group had any input into this process? Who was it that watched out for our best interests? NOBODY!

I'm able to hold onto clients when they are beguiled by a salesman from another firm. One at a time. But when a broker leaves a firm and all of his clients are being called in the shark feeding frenzy where things are said (I had one guy I had worked with for nearly twenty years call my clients and say "I just wanted to call to let you know that all YOUR money is still here... So you don't need to worry about THAT!") and there is the public's tendency to expect people to love their jobs (especially the older generation) and the bosses that were gracious enough to give them to us, it's much harder. I did bring over 80+ percent of the clients I invited. But that means that the firm caused me to lose 20% of the clients I wanted. How is that fair? There ought to be a law!

I think independent b/ds put good pressure on branded b/ds, and offer a nice option. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? The question was what the question was, not, is there another way?

First of all, this is ALL nothing but a market activity. You exercised your free market rights and:

I did bring over 80+ percent of the clients I invited. But that means that the firm caused me to lose 20% of the clients I wanted. How is that fair? There ought to be a law!

Are you seriously whining?

Like Indy says, if you take good care of clients, they're yours. That's crap and we all know it.

I guess we don't all know it, but it is true. At least you get some perspective here.

So if I understand correctly, you moved someonewhere, and now you feel like you should belong to a union? The irony is amusing. You work in a most brutally competitive industry, and the way you carve out a niche in the competition is through having a tight personal realationship with your clients. Since everything else is a commodity, an notion of a thing like a union is the true "crap".

By extension, things like Allreit's idea of the RIA platform being morally superior or more ethical or whatever, this is more "union crap".

In case you missed the point, the "independent" option and the RIA option is good for putting market pressure on b/ds to keep their costs competitive. Moving your book might be good for your business, but it is only once we get past our feelings that we can truely unite as professionals and have some power over the platform designers and managers who pull the strings - whether those string are b/d, RIA, "independent" or anything else "they" invent.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Like Indy says, if you take good care of clients, they’re yours. That’s crap and we all know it. Clients, taken care of or not, are still susceptible to salesmanship. Meanwhile, clients that have been taken care of should have gotten away from the “salesmanship” relationship with their broker. As such their resistance to the BS of a broker with the weight of the BOM (waving free accounts, lower margin costs, deep discounted trades for the first six month and other tchatchkas that the BOM would never have allowed the original broker to offer) behind him is lowered.

I'm able to hold onto clients when they are beguiled by a salesman from another firm. One at a time. But when a broker leaves a firm and all of his clients are being called in the shark feeding frenzy where things are said (I had one guy I had worked with for nearly twenty years call my clients and say "I just wanted to call to let you know that all YOUR money is still here... So you don't need to worry about THAT!") and there is the public's tendency to expect people to love their jobs (especially the older generation) and the bosses that were gracious enough to give them to us, it's much harder. I did bring over 80+ percent of the clients I invited. But that means that the firm caused me to lose 20% of the clients I wanted. How is that fair? There ought to be a law![/quote]

No, we don't all know it.  When I looked back at the accounts I didn't bring over that I wanted to (and there weren't a lot of these), while I might have initially been surprised a few times, when I took an honest look at the relationship, it was usually pretty easy to see why the client didn't come over.  Sometimes I got off on the wrong foot with them and never fully recovered.  Some were fairly new and I hadn't had the time necessary to solidify the relationship.  Some had an investment that didn't quite pan out the way I'd hoped.  For some, the client misunderstood some aspect of the investment and I lost that critical trust factor (see getting off on the wrong foot).

Try as we might, we can't please everyone.  I'll say it again and I absolutely believe this, if you take good care of the clients, they're yours.  If you don't, they're your former employer's.  Sure there are exceptions.  There will be clients who won't move because of stupid stuff, like inertia.  These are the exception.  Most of my clients would have moved even if I had substantially raised their fees/charges.  I got very, very few questions about fees.  Most clients just said "where do I sign?"  For those accounts I wanted that didn't ultimately move, after a year elapsed, I made sure they knew they were wanted, but I didn't poll each of them to determine why they didn't move.  I got feedback on a few and the reasons were mostly stupid/difficult to overcome. ("I want my investments with my checking account" (I decided that this client was too stupid to understand ACH, so I took a pass on trying to bring the relationship), "what would I do if you got killed?" (the same thing you'd do if I were still at the bank, dummy!))

I think the fact that you moved 80+% of your book proves my point.  You had good client relationships, so for the majority of your book, it didn't matter at all what incentives your former firm offered, they were moving regardless.  Poor client relationships/new relationships are susceptible to salesmanship.  Good clients? I'm not buying...

"So if I understand correctly, you moved someonewhere[sic], and now you feel like you should belong to a union? The irony is amusing. You work in a most brutally competitive industry, and the way you carve out a niche in the competition is through having a tight personal realationship[sic] with your clients. Since everything else is a commodity, an notion of a thing like a union is the true "crap"." Planrcoach

No planrcoach, what's irony is the material between your ears!

You don't understand correctly. This is a competitive business, but your fiercest competition should NOT be your firm!

I know that's the "way it is" and the "way it's always been" but that doesn't make it right. The firm has no right to have a claim to your book. The firm provided a service for which they were well and fully compensated. I'm not whining about not having brought over 20% of my book, dipsy doodle, I'm pointing out that we have accepted as inevitable that the firm will retain nearly a quarter of our book. A 25% commission to sell your firm and buy a new one. We accept this as "just a cost of doing business", somewhere else.

20%! What did they do to deserve that golden handshake? They screwed the broker over for X-number of years until he could stand being screwed no more, and left! That's great! Tell ya what. Next time a client takes an account away from you, go in and sell all their mutual funds and charge them a maximum commission to do so, then sell all their stocks, and mark the commission all the way up to 5% per! Then WTF, just charge them a termination fee of 15% so that you have the full 20%. They shouldn't be unhappy, after all, they got 80% of their money.

My clients are MY HARD EARNED MONEY! Nobody built that book but ME. I did it in spite of the colossal eff ups of the firm I worked for!

The clients have advocates, the firms have advocates and we brokers don't!

IF...well IF(it's a big if) Smith Barney decides that those 69 brokers are the sign of something bad and they decided to change their ways... It's too late for those 69. They can't go back to Barney. The change will only benefit those who didn't leave.

You see now?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Dude!

The game is call "WHAT IF". Not "Why It'll Never Be That Way."

IFF (if and only if) a major wirehouse adopted the Indy b/d paradigm (and assumimng that they meant it and that their vested interest was not to nickle and dime you to death because you are always free to leave without interference for the firm) would you join?

Don't be a dick, answer the question hypothetically.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

But if you look at the “Protocol” it does absolutely NOTHING to help the broker, it only serves the firms involved (in that it’s like having “No-Fault Auto Insurance”). What broker group had any input into this process? Who was it that watched out for our best interests? NOBODY!

And the above surprises you because why?  Just consider the mindset and follow the money, and it all becomes clear.

But when a broker leaves a firm and all of his clients are being called in the shark feeding frenzy where things are said (I had one guy I had worked with for nearly twenty years call my clients and say “I just wanted to call to let you know that all YOUR money is still here… So you don’t need to worry about THAT!”)

I did bring over 80+ percent of the clients I invited. But that means that the firm caused me to lose 20% of the clients I wanted. How is that fair? There ought to be a law!

And that would be another reason why I would be loathe to step back into the wirehouse world.  Too many advisors like that who will be your buddy until they have your accounts distributed to them, and then they go right after them and say whatever needs to be said, because “after all it’s just business”.

If I were to submit my resignation to my b/d tomorrow, they would be contractually prohibited from having another advisor proactively contact my clients for a period of one full month.  Can you honestly say that you could imagine any wirehouse manager agreeing to that, or any wirehouse lawyer signing off on such a deal?  I would submit to you that it would require such a dramatic abandonment of the “clients are the firm’s property” ethos such as to be nearly impossible.  Not to mention when the local wirehouse-schooled BOM decides to try to bend the rules a bit for his advantage no matter what the contract says. Just my honest opinion.

"I'll say it again and I absolutely believe this, if you take good care of the clients, they're yours." Indyone 

Well then Shoot, it MUST be true. I mean if you said it again, and you realy truely believe it with all you heart and soul!

Indyone, arguing against this is like arguing against mom and apple pie and the flag. Yes we would all like to believe that this is 100% true, even though we all know that it is not 100% true. Some clients are just too scared to move, some of them are arses who would sell their own mother for free checking! Some of them think the grass is greener on the other side and when Joe Newguy looks through your position page and tells Mr. Client about all the ways he did better in this fund (buying it at lower prices before he advised you that it might be interesting to take a look at) and how he went long term in the bonds and then short term right at the bottom and then long term again at just the tipity top. The firm has an unfair advantage and it shares information it shouldn't be allowed to share until the client decides to hire Joe Newguy as his new broker. (If I recall my Series 7 Refresher, or was it the 9/10 test? As a broker, you are not supposed to share ANY specific client information except on a needs to know basis even with other brokers. So how does the firm get to just hand out that information to whomever they choose?)

"I think the fact that you moved 80+% of your book proves my point."Indyone

I think the fact that you think a 20% commission is fair proves my point.

Again, the "Protocol" says that the only information you are allowed to take with you is Name, Address and Phone number. You need to attest to the fact that you have no other information about these clients, ZERO! And if they think they can prove that you do (for example, by having the tech guys run through all the activity on your terminal over the last few weeks to see if you've been printing up statements or position pages or whathave you) Then IT'S ON Beyatch! They have all their TROing capabilities all over again (not to mention that your new firm is in danger of losing it's status as a "Protocol" firm, which could cost it millions, so you're not a favored son real quick like!

The ex-firm holds ALL the cards. They have all of your information with which to cast all sorts of aspersions on you. Now, maybe at a bank it's not so big a deal, because they don't have the same geographical advantage that a wirehouse does. But when you leave a wirehouse, there are up to dozens of brokers who are fed your book the day you leave (which is why there were 69 slaves who took Lincoln's advice and emancipated themselves before President's Weekend). Instantly they can see your positions, your profits and losses, your bond portfolio breakdown, maturity, income, duration, credit quality whatever and use that information to make a case against you.

And what do you have? Their name, their address and their phone number! And your relationship.

It's not a matter of "Can You Beat Them?"(especially where "wnning' is defined as keeping more than 70% of what is yours to start with. Keep in mind that many of the signing bonus packages give you your backend if you hit 80% of AUM in one year. Why is that? Because they know that statistically, you're lucky to have 75% and they'll never have to pay you that back end!) it's a matter of "It Unethical For Them To Be Going After Your Book In The First Place!"

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

You don’t understand correctly. This is a competitive business, but your fiercest competition should NOT be your firm!

I know that's the "way it is" and the "way it's always been" but that doesn't make it right. The firm has no right to have a claim to your book. The firm provided a service for which they were well and fully compensated. I'm not whining about not having brought over 20% of my book, dipsy doodle, I'm pointing out that we have accepted as inevitable that the firm will retain nearly a quarter of our book. A 25% commission to sell your firm and buy a new one. We accept this as "just a cost of doing business", somewhere else.

20%! What did they do to deserve that golden handshake?

"I'll give you a pass on that one, but any more name-calling and I simply won't participate in the discourse." Joe

You were being a dick! No two ways about it. Other than that, I was out of line, and I apologize.

"I spent about 13 years in "major wirehouses" in the biggest wirehouse market in the country, so forgive me for thinking I might know a little about how they think and operate.  Most management in wirehouses think that they are the be all and end all, and home of all talent that is worthwhile.  I know, I used to be "one of them" until I had a few eye-opening experiences."

Rooty toot tooty for you! Who hasn't? Your history is immaterial. The question is a hypothetical question. It assumes something different from what we think we know as fact (it may be fact it may not be fact, point is that we believe it to be factual) and we discuss from there. the point of the exercise is that we may discover something different from what we think today.

The rest of your post is human interesting, but still more of the same "It wouldn't ever happen because blah blah blah..."

The question reamins, "What if?" If I could work at a full sized firm where I had control of my cost structure and I had clarity as to how much of my reveune was going to pay for services that were provided to me so that I could determine if they were being provided at a fair market price and that I wasn't subsidizing other brokers and that my payout was at a level where I could afford to hire a team of brokers to work under me at a livable commission so that I could leverage my business. That I came out of the back end with a corporation of my own with revenues per share and retained earnings and a pension plan  and the ability to sell it to the highest bidder! Damn, I'd be interested in that.  

That's the firm I want to build!

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

You were being a dick! No two ways about it. Other than that, I was out of line, and I apologize.

Thank you.

"I spent about 13 years in "major wirehouses" in the biggest wirehouse market in the country, so forgive me for thinking I might know a little about how they think and operate.  Most management in wirehouses think that they are the be all and end all, and home of all talent that is worthwhile.  I know, I used to be "one of them" until I had a few eye-opening experiences."

Rooty toot tooty for you! Who hasn't? Your history is immaterial.

Many folks on this very board "haven't".  My point in any case was not to impress you, merely to state that I speak from a position of first-hand experience.

The question reamins, "What if?" If I could work at a full sized firm where I had control of my cost structure and I had clarity as to how much of my reveune was going to pay for services that were provided to me so that I could determine if they were being provided at a fair market price and that I wasn't subsidizing other brokers and that my payout was at a level where I could afford to hire a team of brokers to work under me at a livable commission so that I could leverage my business. That I came out of the back end with a corporation of my own with revenues per share and retained earnings and a pension plan  and the ability to sell it to the highest bidder! Damn, I'd be interested in that.  

That's the firm I want to build!

It has already been built.  No need to reinvent the wheel.  I work at a "full size firm" with all that good stuff, and some of the best technology I've seen on the retail end.  http://www.lpl.com  , as a point of reference.

If you want to build one of your own, best of luck to ya!  But don't try to do it under a wirehouse shell they'll eventually figure out how to pick your pocket.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=Whomitmayconcer]

But if you look at the "Protocol" it does absolutely NOTHING to help the broker, it only serves the firms involved (in that it's like having "No-Fault Auto Insurance"). What broker group had any input into this process? Who was it that watched out for our best interests? NOBODY!

And the above surprises you because why?  Just consider the mindset and follow the money, and it all becomes clear.It doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is the complacency with which we accept the fact that these rules are adopted without our interests being addressed!

But when a broker leaves a firm and all of his clients are being called in the shark feeding frenzy where things are said (I had one guy I had worked with for nearly twenty years call my clients and say "I just wanted to call to let you know that all YOUR money is still here... So you don't need to worry about THAT!")

I did bring over 80+ percent of the clients I invited. But that means that the firm caused me to lose 20% of the clients I wanted. How is that fair? There ought to be a law!

And that would be another reason why I would be loathe to step back into the wirehouse world.  Too many advisors like that who will be your buddy until they have your accounts distributed to them, and then they go right after them and say whatever needs to be said, because "after all it's just business".

If I were to submit my resignation to my b/d tomorrow, they would be contractually prohibited from having another advisor proactively contact my clients for a period of one full month.  Can you honestly say that you could imagine any wirehouse manager agreeing to that, or any wirehouse lawyer signing off on such a deal? Not without being forced to! We won't even ask! We' don't have the ballz of Oliver! "Please Sir, I want some more!" I would submit to you that it would require such a dramatic abandonment of the "clients are the firm's property" ethos such as to be nearly impossible.  Not to mention when the local wirehouse-schooled BOM decides to try to bend the rules a bit for his advantage no matter what the contract says. Just my honest opinion. Joe, you're not telling me anything I don't know. I'm asking you to take the step through the looking glass to see things as they aren't so that you might stop telling us "Why" and start asking yourself "Why Not?"

It is, admittedly antithetical to suggest to brokers that they ought to belong to a collective bargaining unit. As I've noted, we're "businessmen" and we're "capitalists", we're "In Sales! You want a raise damnit you talk to the guy in the mirror!" But the plain fact that we have no representation at the bargaining table shows that we are NOT businessmen, we are sharecroppers. And just like in the Grapes Of Wrath, "The Bank" can hire someone with a combine tractor to come and plow us under, and if he hits our house off it's foundation while he's passing by, well there's a little extra in his pay envelope come payday for doin so!

I would agree that Wachovia's Finet IS sort of like the wirehouse Indy. But I don't see the Indy paradigm worth a bucket of warm spit if you're going to be a one man branch. It only makes sense if you intend on using it to grow to a point where you're doing twelve to fifteen million per year and then you form your own B/D. By that time you'll have between 50 and 100 brokers working under you, and the question remains, how will your firm be different from day one than the wirehouses?

Good discussion. Joe, thanks for taking the trouble to provide some insight.

It just goes to show, there are so many ways to run your practice.

I have stayed with my branded b/d, but run my own office and enjoy the benefits of the brand.

Joe, you make some good comments about the home office - corporate mentality.

Flip side, in visiting some independent b/ds, I realized how "easy" it would be to start one and provide profitable services to rrs.

Better to go RIA, if I leave the b/d environment.

Whomitmay, congrats on your hard work and accomplishments. You do sound a little bitter about leaving the nest.

With regard to the advisor - client relationship, you will discover over time what has been discussed here. You will probably discover that taking client relationships to the next level is the most leveragable, productive thing you can do - in any environment. From this will flow referrals and satisfaction and success that will make all of the other questions - like "home office", payouts, even compliance - look almost distant. But enough pontificating - I admire your fire and idealism.

It is, admittedly antithetical to suggest to brokers that they ought to belong to a collective bargaining unit. As I've noted, we're "businessmen" and we're "capitalists", we're "In Sales! You want a raise damnit you talk to the guy in the mirror!" But the plain fact that we have no representation at the bargaining table shows that we are NOT businessmen, we are sharecroppers. And just like in the Grapes Of Wrath, "The Bank" can hire someone with a combine tractor to come and plow us under, and if he hits our house off it's foundation while he's passing by, well there's a little extra in his pay envelope come payday for doin so!

But this is the stuff of Steinbeck. Kind of like teachers belonging to a union. If you think about, what kind of message are we sending to our kids? Go out, get a college degreee, become a professional, and join a union.

Then, the union will fight tooth and nail against anything competitive, like a free market voucher system.

And so the reason I suggested you were whining is, first of all, you did a good job to bring 80% of your book. But, if you think about it, the wirehouses are really the only people that train in our industry, aren't they? And then, you have efficient platforms like LPL to come along and take the fruits of that investment.

I'm not making a judgement, other than to say, come on, be realistic. Training costs a lot more than you think. It is just ironic as h*** that you take this planned market intervention all the way to the level of the Grapes of Wrath.

Then you have guys who go to RIA, also taking the fruits of their training, and trying to make a moral virtue out of it.

And to all of this I say, boy, as professionals, we have really got us in a condition of economic ignorance about who we really are as a self-aware group of industry professionals.

OMG I forgot "ABOUT THE CHILDREN"!

How about you let ME worry about what I teach my children?

I was taught that collective bargaining units are a good thing, and yet here I am working in this business. Been doing so for 20 years now! I've watched this industry take advantage of brokers each and every day. I've listened to management tell me that they had no choice because "everybody else is doing this anyway" as they cut our pay and increased their own. I'd been with one firm for 17 years, if I averaged $250,000 per year (over the 17 years) and if 10% of my earnings went to training costs, that's more than $400,000. My training costs were well paid for, but my former firm appreciates your concern!

If you work for a firm, you are a sharecropper, you work their land with your sweat and sinew, you take what they'll give you, and they'll give you less and less, "if you don't like it, you're free to leave, but know that your book will have to make it through this lynchmob. Somewhere between 20 and 50% won't make it! Are you sure it's so bad here that you're willing to risk that?"

I'm sorry you feel the way you do, I figured you must have some strong feelings, and 17 years is a long time and a big financial and emotional investment.

Please, teach you own kids whatever you want - you will anyway, just as you exercise your right to move your book.

I decided to stay with my broker dealer, partly for economic reason, precisely what you describe. I pay a cost, and enjoy benefits. Don't agree  with much of how things are structured, and hope to influence them by patiently "suffering". ( And keeping my own costs down, and not rewarding inappropriate behaviours.)

But I thank God for freedom, and the free market. The unions served a good purpose and ended up destroying much, including part of our education system. Maybe in automobiles, the unions themselves were used to support profit max in producing profitable but unstainable products that led to the fall of both worker and management. But the market will find a proper course.  Let this all be a lesson, let's use our optimism and good energy to unite as professionals in consciousness and not fight each other as victims of the competitive economic evolution of our industry, which is basically good and not inherently diabolically evil,  anyway.

"But I thank God for freedom, and the free market."

How appropriate that you thank a fictious construct for a ficticious economic ideal.

You work in one of the nation's most highly regulated businesses and you think there is a "Free Market Economy." as we have been known to say when the internet was the tool of Libertarianism;

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahaha!!!!!

It's so much fun watching you use the language of "the power of positive thought" to be negative.

It's quite enjoyable to see you believe that your Ghandi ish patient suffering will melt the hearts of the management of this industry.

It's a delight to see this gentle soul pretend that the free market's machinations and mastications of mankind is all for our best long term interests.  

I would agree that Wachovia's Finet IS sort of like the wirehouse Indy. But I don't see the Indy paradigm worth a bucket of warm spit if you're going to be a one man branch. It only makes sense if you intend on using it to grow to a point where you're doing twelve to fifteen million per year and then you form your own B/D. By that time you'll have between 50 and 100 brokers working under you, and the question remains, how will your firm be different from day one than the wirehouses?

Are you kidding? As upset as you are about your former employer chasing your book, why on earth would you NOT go independent and once and for all, rid yourself of all the corporate BS you've described and the feeding frenzy that commences once you get fed up and move?!!  As a one-man shop, I couldn't disagree with you more.  I have far more freedom, none of the corporate bullsh*t and a much higher payout than I did as an employee.  Sure, I intend to leverage up to 3-4 employees at some point, but that's it...I don't have any aspirations to build a kingdom, but I do believe that what I have now as an owner is far better than the crap I took as an employee.

Bottom line is, you and I agree on a lot of things.  Sure, I think it's crap that employers use questionable tactics and imply things about departing brokers that are at best, inaccurate and at worst, slanderous.  I agree that some customers are easily swayed and stay/move away from you for stupid reasons.  On the 80/20 thing, we're splitting hairs.  You think it's horrible that the former employer keeps 20% of the book.  I say good riddance.  If those 20% decided to stay, really, how good were they as clients?  They obviously weren't loyal.  They obviously didn't wholeheartedly believe in what you were telling them.  They obviously weren't good at listening to your advice.  Why the hell do you want them?!!  Yes, I believe you wanted them and were disappointed to see them not move.  I was too in a few cases, but for the most part, it wasn't hard for me to see that I wasn't really losing much.  Instead of focusing on those clients that stayed behind, I focused on new business that will be loyal to me.

I don't expect you to agree, but at least you know how I feel...

"But I thank God for freedom, and the free market."

How appropriate that you thank a fictious construct for a ficticious economic ideal.

Just about sums it up. Having lived in Socialist China about 25 years ago, I find it amusing that you view the free market as being a fictitious construct, yet work in this particular industry. Even as the wrath of the market is felt on this day.

It's a delight to see this gentle soul pretend that the free market's machinations and mastications of mankind is all for our best long term interests.  

Sorry that you feel I am being disingenuous. Don't shoot the messenger.

Indy,

This is not about the people who didn't come. It's about the rights of the firm to get involved at all.

As the top of a three man shop (looking to add!) I can agree that there are many days that I long to be all alone again. But I've told myself I'm a capitalist for far too long for me to be happy just being a mom and pop business. I love my clients, I love buying and selling assets for a profit. I don't want to constantly be on the prowl for more clients. I'd rather bring in two or three guys per year (for now, accelerating as the business grows) and give them the opportunity to grow and prosper in a firm that sees them as the primary client, that treats them with the respect and dignity that they deserve. There won't be that backstabbing at my firm because there is no percentage in it. Why stab somebody if there is nothing to be gained from doing so?

It's not that I agree or disagree with you, it's that you don't seem to get the point. And that is that the the firm is being unethical (and even breaking the rules of the exchange) and will continue to be so until we, the brokers unite and demand a seat at the discussion table.

Whoops! Oh well, if you couldn't have figured it out anyway you still won't get it, so...

[quote=planrcoach]

"But I thank God for freedom, and the free market."

How appropriate that you thank a fictious construct for a ficticious economic ideal.

Just about sums it up. Having lived in Socialist China about 25 years ago "Apropos of nothing" much? Is that your version of Military Service cred? "I did something that you didn't so that means that what I say means something that you can't comprehend." , I find it amusing that you view the free market as being a fictitious construct, yet work in this particular industry You find it amusing that I, a person who doesn't believe that there is such a thing as the "Free Market" works in one of the most highly regulated industries. Yeah I was forced to obtain several licenses to play in this Free Market too. BTW, to be clear, "God" is the ficticious construct, "Free Markets" are the ficticious Economic Ideal. If we lived in a "free market" there wouldn't have been men in Iraq for Operation Desert Storm, protecting the oil companies' assets in Saudi Arabia. That effort would have been carried out by the oil companies as a cost of their doing business there. Even as the wrath of the market is felt on this day. And if this market goes down X%age, what will happen? Circuit Breakers kick in and the market goes to a cool down period. That's not a Free Market. Disabuse yourself of that quaint notion. The best way to do that is to try to think what the world would be like if there were indeed "Free Markets" (perhaps you might read a book about the days after the Civil War when there were no rules in the markets, then you'll understand why "Free Markets" are a BAD idea!

It's a delight to see this gentle soul pretend that the free market's machinations and mastications of mankind is all for our best long term interests.  

Sorry that you feel I am being disingenuous. Don't shoot the messenger. I don't think you're being disingenuious I think you don't know WTF you're talking about. But I do think you are sincere in your disjointed reasoning.

Are you THE Dredpiraterobts? Or did you buy that title from the last Dredpiraterobts?

In either case, you're kinda full of yourself aren't you there palie pal?

Where guys like you come from is a Misteray to Me!

God" is the ficticious construct, "Free Markets" are the ficticious Economic Ideal.

Guess that just about settles it then.

Just curious, why didn’t it “just about settle it” the first time it was said?

I admit my mistake and faults. I'm sorry you are apparently so angry. If you believe in Karma, may you get some good Karma. Remember to ask for what you want.

[quote=dredpiraterobts]Whoops! Oh well, if you couldn't have figured it out anyway you still won't get it, so...[/quote]

...I thought that was you...too many similarities...

[quote=Indyone]

[quote=dredpiraterobts]Whoops! Oh well, if you couldn’t have figured it out anyway you still won’t get it, so…[/quote]

...I thought that was you...too many similarities...

Nobody was hiding anything anywhere, putz!

Dred signed on to see if he had any PMs that he hadn't seen because he never signs on. Then he made comments and pointed it out that he had done so.

There was no hiding.

I'd say that isless like a stick and more like a pole, and that ain't mud!

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Nobody was hiding anything anywhere, putz!

Dred signed on to see if he had any PMs that he hadn't seen because he never signs on. Then he made comments and pointed it out that he had done so.

There was no hiding.

I'd say that isless like a stick and more like a pole, and that ain't mud!

No need, I get to air out my spleen on guys who say something stupid, fortunately there is no lacking of guys saying something stupid around here!

What you said before I responded was stupid on many many levels. It's stupidity was so deep, its almost a work of art.

Your retort shows a total imperviousness to logic. I called you names for sure, but that was how I responded to YOU, not to your "argument" which I refuted factualy.

The basis of the ad hominem attack is that instead of responding to the argument, you try to discredit the arguer. For example: Joe Donnelly says "The problem with religion is that people often replace reasoning with faith." and a respondent says "Don't listen to him, he's Irish, and we all know that the Irish love to drink too much!"

OTOH hand, this would NOT be an ad hominem argument:  Joe Donnelly says "The problem with religion is that people often replace reasoning with faith." and a respondent says "Joe, you Irish love to fight! That people replace reason with faith is not a problem with religion, it is a problem with people. They would do the same harm to themselves by putting their faith in reasoning, especially since most people aren't very skilled in it in the first place!" 

Clever.

Wow - This has certainly taken on a life of it's own!  Maybe topics should be automatically closed down after a week.  It seems that after a while any topic festers into argumentative banter...

Meanwhile, I've gotten about $70mm to stay so far.  Issue is that the rr has 14 months to bring his book to SB (for the back end of the deal) so this will be a long term fight.  The fact that he has 80 year old grandmas with sometimes 2%-30% in Fida Adv Emerging Asia T will help also...

That's right - he WENT to SB the very day 69 reps left...

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

No need, I get to air out my spleen on guys who say something stupid, fortunately there is no lacking of guys saying something stupid around here!

What you said before I responded was stupid on many many levels. It's stupidity was so deep, its almost a work of art.

Your retort shows a total imperviousness to logic. I called you names for sure, but that was how I responded to YOU, not to your "argument" which I refuted factualy.

The basis of the ad hominem attack is that instead of responding to the argument, you try to discredit the arguer. For example: Joe Donnelly says "The problem with religion is that people often replace reasoning with faith." and a respondent says "Don't listen to him, he's Irish, and we all know that the Irish love to drink too much!"

OTOH hand, this would NOT be an ad hominem argument:  Joe Donnelly says "The problem with religion is that people often replace reasoning with faith." and a respondent says "Joe, you Irish love to fight! That people replace reason with faith is not a problem with religion, it is a problem with people. They would do the same harm to themselves by putting their faith in reasoning, especially since most people aren't very skilled in it in the first place!" 

"Ok now that we've cleared up that point, how's this: ..."

"We've"? We is a group that includes the person saying we. You didn't clear up anything. I had to explain basic logic and argument to you. You turned around and showd absolutely zero practical understanding of what had been spoon fed to you.

You have a real bad habit of making pronouncements and then doing absolutely nothing to substantiate that claim. I'm not one of your clients, you have zero track record of being right, so I won't take your advice at face value.

If (or should I say When) you say something stupid you should be called on it, otherwise you might not know that it was stupid and you won't be encouraged to say something less stupid the next time. Constructing a defendable position is the first step to building a logical philosophy. Every person should have a logical philosophy (or be trying to build one) for themselves. I have only your best interests at heart when I challange you to build up your intellectual integrity.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

No need, I get to air out my spleen on guys who say something stupid, fortunately there is no lacking of guys saying something stupid around here!

Hell no!

But you have to prove it's stupid.

I've defended stupid things I've said before, and I've admitted to their being stupid too.

And its stupid trying to have an intellectual discussion with persons who refuse to use their intellect.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]And its stupid trying to have an intellectual discussion with persons who refuse to use their intellect.[/quote]

...and yet we continue to attempt to do so with you...shame on us...

NOFX-I can’t blame you for poaching this guy’s book.  I’m sure you haven’t received a quality referral in months.  Truth be told; if the program  over there was as good as advertised, you wouldn’t have time to dig through this book let alone post here daily.  You are and have always been a bottom feeder and I suspect 50% of your $400k in annual revenue comes from handouts from the “Firm”.  They know they have a genuine “rat” working for them and you will surely do all you can do bad mouth a hard working X-employee and preserve those clients. I’m sure you service them well.  Your allocation models are surely flawless as well.  Anyone can pick a part an allocation model after the fact so for you to brag about how you have “saved” some of these older clients from unsuitable recommendations is a Joke.  You’re a hack!!  Keep bragging about all the good you do for a firm everyone knows will throw you to the wolves as soon as they can figure out how save a few Xtra $$.   In 2 years you’ll be working for a modeste salary begging for a high client delight score so you can get your $10k bonus in 10 year restrcted stock.  Or perhaps you can go into management and F**K the brokers instead of just the ones who have the balls to leave. 

[quote=Indyone]

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]And its stupid trying to have an intellectual discussion with persons who refuse to use their intellect.[/quote]

...and yet we continue to attempt to do so with you...shame on us...

[/quote]

Come on Indyone! I'm putting some effort into this. I'm making good, solid fourth and fifth level snarks. You're going for the gimmes!

Step Up YOUR game!

Freedom05!

It sounds like you know this situation, personally. I know that if I had 70,000,000 new dollars under management, this is the last place I'd be!

He must be taking a "Yeah! Right!" as a "Yes".

I’ll take all the lay-ups you want to shovel me…

As long as we’re all having fun!

[quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=Indyone]

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]And its stupid trying to have an intellectual discussion with persons who refuse to use their intellect.[/quote]

...and yet we continue to attempt to do so with you...shame on us...

[/quote]

Come on Indyone! I'm putting some effort into this. I'm making good, solid fourth and fifth level snarks. You're going for the gimmes!

Step Up YOUR game!

Freedom05!

It sounds like you know this situation, personally. I know that if I had 70,000,000 new dollars under management, this is the last place I'd be!

He must be taking a "Yeah! Right!" as a "Yes".

A blast. No only, hoomit, you came to mind off the forum last night, while listening to a conservative pontificate about liberals.

He said something like, the difference is, liberals are shameless and irreproachable and reckless, for example, in their public disdain for that which they oppose.

And I thought of you, pontificating at the pool table at the union hall. Actually, some of your stuff is pretty funny, and as you know, your intellect towers, so from my point of view, thanks for keeping me entertained ( call any vegetable).

A snark is like an insult without the intent of actual injury.

Ya' know, Planr, I like your style!

This reminds me of when I used to be in 6th grade. At recess we used to play this game; I would stand at one end of the field and the entire male population of the NYOBcentral school district 6th grade would be on the other end. Then we would run at each other and their object was to knock me down, trip me up before I could get past them all to the goal behind them.

I don't remember how this game got started, all I remember is that we all had a tremendous amount of fun and that I almost always made it through the crowd to the goal, and then we'd do it again.

I guess it was like our own mosh pit, long before there needed to be a band playing before boys could crash into each other without someone being called "Queer" (as we used to refer to each other... Just that I'm perfectly clear here, I'm married with two kids! I just mean that we used to... ah hell, if you don't know, I'm not going to be able to make you understand!).

I was popular and well liked, it wasn't like they were picking on me, its just that they knew that I could take them all on, and win.

Thanks for reminding me of that! That memory had faded!

I was popular and well liked, it wasn't like they were picking on me...

Left yourself open there.

We called in British Bulldog, played in the basement of the institution of the fictitious construct.

Problem was, when everybody got tired, and it was getting down to the end, the last kids usually got dropped on the cement floor.

There was a kid there that reminded me of you, a tough little scrappy kid, kind of obnoxious, but fun ... we nicknamed him oblong.

So back to the liberal conservative stuff, I am picturing this Sean Penn sort of tragic figure ( from that movie where the friend gets kidnapped in Bridgeport, CT, great movie) - I thing you might be that adult child. Lord (sorry) knows I was never obnoxious.

[quote=FREEDOM05]NOFX-I can't blame you for poaching this guy's book.  I'm sure you haven't received a quality referral in months.  Truth be told; if the program  over there was as good as advertised, you wouldn't have time to dig through this book let alone post here daily.  You are and have always been a bottom feeder and I suspect 50% of your $400k in annual revenue comes from handouts from the "Firm".  They know they have a genuine "rat" working for them and you will surely do all you can do bad mouth a hard working X-employee and preserve those clients. I'm sure you service them well.  Your allocation models are surely flawless as well.  Anyone can pick a part an allocation model after the fact so for you to brag about how you have "saved" some of these older clients from unsuitable recommendations is a Joke.  You're a hack!!  Keep bragging about all the good you do for a firm everyone knows will throw you to the wolves as soon as they can figure out how save a few Xtra $$.   In 2 years you'll be working for a modeste salary begging for a high client delight score so you can get your $10k bonus in 10 year restrcted stock.  Or perhaps you can go into management and F**K the brokers instead of just the ones who have the balls to leave. [/quote]

Mom?

Good one, NOFX!

Planet,

Didn't see the movie. Not a big big fan of Sean Penn, surly without the humor.

His wife was over at my house, shooting that movie with Paul Newman and Kevin Costner, Sean kept sort of lurking around all morose and whatnot.

Funny thing about this is that the first time Paul Newman was in my neighborhood was because Joanne Woodward was shooting a movie and he was alley catting around.

I was watching Cool Hand Luke the other day (colorized version) MAN, says I, that guy can ACT! It's such a different level that Newman was at versus guys like Tom Cruise, today! Every cell in Newman's body was Luke! Today the character is the actor reciting different dialog.

Yeah, well that was my point, Sean is a morose liberal.

Cool Hand Luke, that is a movie. Newman walks the talk. I was living in a dump in West Virginia doing social work while he was camped out at the race track next door (Summit point). Chasing cars and women, I guess.  Yep, Tom C. looks silly at the Academies next to real character like Clint. Guess that is one way we keep track of time.

So I guess we can agree, the way to kick some b/d butt, in terms of the union thing and all that - is staying power. If we live long enough, we'll be all that's left that's real.

[quote=NOFX]

[quote=FREEDOM05]NOFX-I can't blame you for poaching this guy's book.  I'm sure you haven't received a quality referral in months.  Truth be told; if the program  over there was as good as advertised, you wouldn't have time to dig through this book let alone post here daily.  You are and have always been a bottom feeder and I suspect 50% of your $400k in annual revenue comes from handouts from the "Firm".  They know they have a genuine "rat" working for them and you will surely do all you can do bad mouth a hard working X-employee and preserve those clients. I'm sure you service them well.  Your allocation models are surely flawless as well.  Anyone can pick a part an allocation model after the fact so for you to brag about how you have "saved" some of these older clients from unsuitable recommendations is a Joke.  You're a hack!!  Keep bragging about all the good you do for a firm everyone knows will throw you to the wolves as soon as they can figure out how save a few Xtra $$.   In 2 years you'll be working for a modeste salary begging for a high client delight score so you can get your $10k bonus in 10 year restrcted stock.  Or perhaps you can go into management and F**K the brokers instead of just the ones who have the balls to leave. [/quote]

Mom?

[/quote]

Best one of the day!

"So I guess we can agree, the way to kick some b/d butt, in terms of the union thing and all that - is staying power. If we live long enough, we'll be all that's left that's real." Planrcoach

Your anti-union stance is really uninspired.  There's nothing new or insightful about the position you've mentioned.

Meanwhile, your "we'll wait them out" stance is insipid.

Sorry, that's just the way that it is.

Well, the love fest is over, then.

So you think unions are the wave of the future in this industry, or is this just wistful thinking?

Because the issue is to influence the behaviours of b/d.

Survival is not inspiration, but we were talking about people leaving b/ds - moving to so called independent bds, or RIA in droves, or whatever.

That's free market pressure, and there is a ton of it on b/ds now - margin compression, migration, regulation. The fancy wirehouses are trying to create unique products for the very wealth, in fact pushing out "lower" producing rrs.

BUT many mass market boomers are in trouble, and I think they will need access to risk transfer products (insurance, annuites) to solve the retirement income problem. Thus, the role of RIA is limited in terms of being full service, even to boomers with a few hundred thousand bucks, and the need for b/d platform at this mass market level, where I operate with great independence, is relatively assured, for now.

The problem with creating a union, short of a professional consortium of the likes of the FPA, is, we are an intellectual and emotional diaspora, so we don't need more politics. I dranks some beers with an ex FPA president at a meeting out in the Oregon desert one night and this fellow seemed obsessed with some aspect of charging planning fees - his idea of planning. Whatever, it seemed like his entertaining  his own unique idea was more fun than doing the hour to hour work of the business.

However, to the the extent that and FPA as intellectual consortium and potential unifer in the sense of your Cesar Chavez notion, okay, let's get unified and start pushing back on the excesses of the broker dealers. That effort needs to be economic, there are two jug u lars. First, excesses of the industry of serving b/d changers. Second, the excesses of the b/d trainers. 

What your fruit picking constituants need to do is to figure out how to take responsibility for training the next generation of planners. Without having them being thrown to the wolves of big business. The way to do that is through mentoring.

So lets form a mentoring brother and sisterhood.

As a hobby, I started a little web site, just to try to give back a little. Not for personal gain, as the master I serve is my clients.

You can do Do DO your thing. Just do it. This is what I mean by staying power. There was a famous fellow in history - an intellectual construct if you will - who did that. In fact, there have been several, in different cultures. And recently, you had people like Mother Theresa, of course we could only emulate one small gesture of her behaviour. And I give you, Cesar Chavez.

"So you think unions are the wave of the future in this industry, or is this just wistful thinking?"

Unions ? Wave?

Calm yourself! Do I think that one day there will be a collective bargaining unit designed to represent the brokers in this industry? Hmmmmmmm? Do I?

Well I'll say this (first of all, Ever is a long time, Never, as in not ever, is too long of a time for me to project over.) there certainly ought to be.

You cannot have a free market unless all participants have the ability to influence the market. The only influence we can assert now is leaving. But, given the advantages that the firm has over the departing broker, the effect of our leaving is trivialized. And look at the story of the guy whoes leaving started this thread, he went to another wirehouse. That is a net zero effect on the dialog. SB doesn't care that 69 guys left, when they know they have 69 coming in and they come in with 8 year handcuffs!

NOFX's company isn't going to change their ways when they can keep a significant %age of the guy's assets anyway, and now they're in the hands of someone who is going to rip them a new bunghole just to prove to them that he is a much more dynamic broker than the last guy. A customer isn't a client until they buy something from you, don't forget!

The indy market is puny in comparison to the wirehouse. What are there? 13,000 at LPLRJ? Of whom 9,000 do north of $100,000 gross? Those are the major Indy names and from there you go into captured indys who work for/with an insurance companies b/d. And the insurance co.s don't look to be overly thrilled with the business model themselves, Pac Life looks to be getting out of the business(if I read it right).

RIAs? Did you read about the 15 year Ponzi Scam that is going to rock the RIA folks? (and don't think the wirehouse boys won't be behind the regulators and media to bring down the hammer HARD on those guys)  

Scattered resistance and splintered efforts don't lead to an effective campaign.

But, do I expect brokers to smarten up enough to join into a collective bargaining agreement? HELL NO! Haigh EE ELL ELL NO!

Most will want to sit back and not join until the unit has enough success, then they'll want to take advantage of that success and kibitz about how it was going to happen eventually anyway and so we'll wait to see what happens next. And then when the unit gets smashed and bashed and crashed and trashed, they'll be able to kiss the bossman's arse and say, "See? I told you it'd never work!"

Who else thinks these two are the same person…

Way to pick up the ball and run, blarm.

But, do I expect brokers to smarten up enough to join into a collective bargaining agreement? HELL NO! Haigh EE ELL ELL NO!

Most will want to sit back and not join until the unit has enough success, then they'll want to take advantage of that success and kibitz about how it was going to happen eventually anyway and so we'll wait to see what happens next.

So anyway, I basically agree with everything you are saying here. For that matter, I can see that there are plenty of salespeople affiliated with the profession that aren't even that bright.

So much for trying to change the world, with regard to the power of the b/ds, then. As the Chinese say, " the nail that sticks up gets hammered down."

It just proves my point, find a niche, be a good person, try to lead by personal example. Suffer the slings and arrows, be ethical, be consistent.

And, I do respect you for getting a bit pissed off and blowing some steam about it. In fact, I have had to train myself to minimize contact with things that set me off. This too, has been a growing experience ( ultimately makes me a better person, at great financial cost, but over time, even that seems to be less important).

( Darn, I wish that Blarm character wasn't so perceptive, now everyone knows I  have become a schitzo.)

[quote=blarmston]Who else thinks these two are the same person…[/quote]

You may be right, adn if you are, then somebody has WAAAAAAAAY too much free time on their hands, and a morass of “issues” as well, IMHO.

Yeah, Joe, some real complex, esoteric stuff we're tackling here. Better stick with, "The only one making money passing are quarterbacks, and I dont see a number on your chest."

I'm not sure Joe even knows the one who I used to be yet. He knows the two that I am only because I told him.

And not everybody needs to strain their brain for thirty minutes before they can concoct bon mots like "You may be right, adn if you are, then somebody has WAAAAAAAAY too much free time on their hands, and a morass of "issues" as well, IMHO."

Sometimes when I read your posts Joe, I can almost see the arteries on the sides of your head popping out from the strain! It's like you're trying to take a poop through your fingers!

Hey. cool,If I have three identities and Planrcoach makes four, I'm a Quadrophenic!

Laugh and say I'm green

I seen things you never seen.

Talk behind my back!

I'm off the beaten track!

I'll take on anyone!

Ain't scared of a bloody nose!

Drin....err ummm we'll leave it at that...

[quote=blarmston]

I have never been a huge fan of inherited acoc**ts, but it sounds like there is true opportunity there. If the guy was indeed a HACk, it will give you a chance to position your services in a better light to the clients. Offer a full portfoilio review, make appropriate suggestions, and try to gather more assets or referrals. Referrals would be key since they may not hae been willing to refer their friends, etc to the departed rep.

At the end of the day- in business its war, and you have to do your best to retain these clients and develop the relationship.

[/quote]

HAhaha, ok so you're saying there are great non hack advisors who get the boot?

What difference does it make if he's a hack or not? At the end of the day it's simple, you treat the clients right and play it smart, you stay in this business regardless whether you're a "hack" or not (survivors are anything but hacks)

Can it not be argued that the clients are apt to receiving better service simply because they're being serviced by someone who has what it takes to still be with the firm?

I guess you don't really have any solutions to our little "issue" with this industry, then whomit.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I’m not sure Joe even knows the one who I used to be yet. He knows the two that I am only because I told him.

And not everybody needs to strain their brain for thirty minutes before they can concoct bon mots like "You may be right, adn if you are, then somebody has WAAAAAAAAY too much free time on their hands, and a morass of "issues" as well, IMHO."

Sometimes when I read your posts Joe, I can almost see the arteries on the sides of your head popping out from the strain! It's like you're trying to take a poop through your fingers!

Such anger. Such jealousy. Such a fragile self image.

Poor Joe.

[quote=anabuhabkuss][quote=blarmston]

I have never been a huge fan of inherited acoc**ts, but it sounds like there is true opportunity there. If the guy was indeed a HACk, it will give you a chance to position your services in a better light to the clients. Offer a full portfoilio review, make appropriate suggestions, and try to gather more assets or referrals. Referrals would be key since they may not hae been willing to refer their friends, etc to the departed rep.

At the end of the day- in business its war, and you have to do your best to retain these clients and develop the relationship.

[/quote]

HAhaha, ok so you're saying there are great non hack advisors who get the boot? Get the boot? The guy quit a loser firm that he had problem with the management of.

What difference does it make if he's a hack or not? At the end of the day it's simple, you treat the clients right and play it smart, you stay in this business regardless whether you're a "hack" or not (survivors are anything but hacks) Yeah, I've seen it happen. A BOM comes in and doen't like the way the guy looks and decideds to flex his management muscles by forcing the guy out. Happens all of the time. (Which you would know if you had better better depth perception.)

Can it not be argued that the clients are apt to receiving better service simply because they're being serviced by someone who has what it takes to still be with the firm? Anything can be argued, I wonder if you'll be willing to argue in favor of this lame proposition? I will argue that a significant number of accounts are given to the manager's "pets." Mostly, a pet is the broker who does the things that makes the manager look good downtown. What makes the manager look good with "Mitch and Murray" is that his ratable numbers are up (How many shares of crapola in house fund the branch owns, how many checking accounts, how many "on-line" how much Managed Money" etc etc etc).

Neither of these things are intrinsically wrong, but the history of firms shows that they are not in the clients best interests (unless it is co incidental that their interests are alligned).

Imagine that!



Bye bye then.

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4067&amp ;PN=1&TPN=2

Where our (joe's and mine) discussion started.

" After all, I suspect in the end that the topic is not of great import to you, as long as you can monopolize and hijack threads, demonstrate your "intellectual superiority", and just plain draw attention to yourself."

I wasn't hijacking a thread, I wasn't monoplolzing I asked an open ended question that could have gone in any number of constructive directions. You didn't grasp the essence of the question.

I called you on it and you turned this into a series of personal attacks on me. You make unfounded leaps of "reasoning" and refuse to offer anything other than invective to back up your position. You adopt each piece of information that serves your purposes and backdate that "knowledge" as if you were operating with it all along, regardles of the fact that this "Act" is obviously an act given the herky jerky continuity in your posits.

As to my writing style. What you are engaging in is populist pandering. This is an ad hominem tactic of the worst sort in that what you are saying is that there is something wrong with being intelligent. I write the way I write because I write the way write. I use the words I do because they are the words that fit the situation (far as I know), because they are not the same old phraseology, and because we should never be afraid to aspire to the better itself.

Would you be happy if we spoke in Ebonics here? Of course you wouldn't, but you are derisive of someone who doesn't speak the Joe dialect of Joe Chardonnay (who is just this much "ll" more so than Joe Six Pack).

I have stayed on point and addressed each (non personal) point brought up by all posters. This does tend to draw attention to me (and draw my attention away from my other work) I won't lie to you, I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of it. It's like it was facing off against the entire sixth grade. Did I mention that I was bigger and stronger then all of them too (having failed first second and third grade twice each)? (actually, that's not true, but I tough I'd give you something to hang your hat on).

I'm not an interseting person to chat with. I hate chatting! Chatting is for customers' men. I discuss, I don't chat. I don't chit chat! I don't like chit chatery! Bull chitters chit chat! They talk about cars and sports and weather. I couldn't give a chit less about any of those things.

I riff! I love to riff, and I love it when I run into someone who is better at it than I am. Riffing is a brain game, chatting is mind numbing!

As to bannings. I've made enemies on a couple of sites around the web. But in my decade of internet blathering I was banned once because I was the target of a hive attack where Yamamoto (I think that was his name) and his crew swooped down on a board I was using and, if you defended the board you were branded as racist and all the bees in the hive then just kept repeating the slur until you yourself weren't sure! It was bizzarr, i was reinstated and I forced the admin to admit their mistake and take down the offending posts. (Yamamoto was infamous for this behavior. It had nothing to do with reality.) Once I was banned because I used the handle __God__ to post in a Religious Reich forum. Apparently somebody else had just been banned while using the handle _God__, so they figured I must have been him.

And this time, when I got tossed for trying to bring some levity to the "usual gang of idiots"'s response to someone they thought was best dealt with by direct blows.

If they throw me, I really don't care (except that you'll then slither out from under your rock and cast aspersions at my undefended character, like you did last time.)But the facts remain that I am in this business, I am successful in this business, I disagree with the status quo in this industry, and I'm damned entertaining. If/when they toss me, it's their loss. I'm one of the French, without me (without us), the forums will be more plain vanilla!

"But in my decade of internet blathering...."

You are a joke..

"But the facts remain that I am in this business, I am successful in this business, I disagree with the status quo in this industry, and I'm damned entertaining. If/when they toss me, it's their loss. I'm one of the French, without me (without us), the forums will be more plain vanilla!"

There are some deep issues there. This from a guy whose wife probably left him years ago, drives the run-down '88 Subaru to the office, sits in his cubicle all day and noone talks to him, and posts on these websites to fuel his illusions of grandeur. What a life.....

Yeah, that's prolly it!

It probably isn't that he is who he says he is, it's much more probable that he's the typical internet putdown stereotype.

You don't even have the creativity to come up with an original insult.

BTW, they LOVE to come into my cubicle, all the usual morons who know they couldn't win an argument with me one by one but when they have four guys... We have a great time (or at least  they did and we did until I left the wirehouse and now I run my own multiman branch and people HAVE to pretend they like me!)

And it was a '91 Volvo, but now its the wife's 07 Mercedes (which the company leases! The company that I own.)

Thanks for playing.

Bye Bye Then!

[quote=blarmston]

“But in my decade of internet blathering…”

You are a joke..

There are some deep issues there. This from a guy whose wife probably left him years ago, drives the run-down '88 Subaru to the office, sits in his cubicle all day and noone talks to him, and posts on these websites to fuel his illusions of grandeur. What a life.....

There was a post, " All of you veteran financial advisors", put up by Closer the other day.

I was re reading it, and thinking about some of the above remarks about the culture of this forum, which is what you are really talking about.

Reminds me of a Chinese friend who runs a coffee shop. His wife is the "scowling face" Some customers really like that. He is the smiling face - others relate. This philosophy runs the shop.

Closer wanders in - really is just looking for a little advice. Does he get a smile, a scowl, or double teamed in some fashion?

Whomit, you like to play. Just not sure if the culture of

You don't even have the creativity to come up with an original insult.

and all of that, it takes a special kind of energy.

Most of us are bored, so I guess there is a market.

So you play in the fireplace, you really miss the old wirehouse cooler. Did you leave by choice, or did you get booted and you're angry about it? Or do you just like messing with people. Be honest.

My observation is, you come off like you want to dialog with the big intellect, but you don't really listen - so it comes off as being a bit disingenous.  FWIW.

My observation is that some posters with multiple personality disorder also are manic depressive.    I’ve had to deal with people like this in my life.  Fortunately we don’t have to deal with them in the virtual world.   Fear my back button!!!

Iff, then, good point, compassion is the order of the day.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /><o:p>

Look, if you want to make a specific thread about me, make it.

I addressed Jodabrkrs' comments and now I'm gonna be mired in a whole slew of "Me Too's"?

I don't have multiple personalities; I post under this one handle only, except for a slip that was explained. Nor did I try to hide the relationship between the last handle and the one before. I don’t ask anyone to play “Who am I”.  I was only pointing out Joe’s inconsistency vis a vis what is he knows about me and what he assumed about “Whomitmayconcer(n)”. Joe know who I work with and yet he expressed surprise that I would have a “Indy” mindset. That went to show me that he didn’t make the connection, which was something I did not try to hide (and my style is unique enough that I’m easily seen). 

No matter how many times you people repeat a non truth, it is still a non truth.

I'm only at issue here because Joedabrker can not carry his end of a conversation and so he constantly focuses on the style and never the substance of the discussion.

Then we're back to the culture of the forum. What you have here is everything from rational professional discussion to flaming. No one controls it, but the moderator tries to form the channel walls.

A very successful forum, by industry standards. Also call tawdry by some, but not entirely boring, given the #s.

Are you being the intelligent, overly expressive, analytical, overly sensitive Woody Allen. As a thinking person, you will always be accused of having too much time on your hands. Do you threaten the culture.  

I worked in a school for inner city teen agers once. We identified various roles: positive leader, negative leader, comedian, authority etc.. The negative leader always had " Sergeants" to do the double teaming dirty work. If you wanted to change the culture, you worked on the Sergeants first. You threaten the culture, you get double team.

Being negative is more immediate and fun, like candy. Channeling positive creative energy is rewarding longer term.

Little fish tank, big industry. The only thing worth doing is stuff which is better for our clients.

Here we have the American people, with a negative savings rate, in big trouble. The only people who can truly help them are professionals. These professionals spend a lot of time and energy being detracted by emotional and intellectual red herrings. If we ever get it together, it will be a transformational experience. But maybe we'll die of either boredom or adrenaline addiction before it happens.

"... Did you leave by choice, or did you get booted and you're angry about it? Or do you just like messing with people. Be honest. "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I'm ALWAYS honest. I have not told so little as a half truth (save the tongue in cheek comments like the one about failing elementary school) in any post. I am BRUTALLY honest at times. I am honest beyond the scope of ordinary honesty, for example:

Did I leave by choice or did I get booted? I left by choice, because the environment was being made more and more toxic around me so that I would make my move. And yet they were surprised and offended when it happened. I was seen by management as being the ringleader of the malcontents (I can't imagine why!) even though I was actually the rah rah guy among the malcontents (which was just about everybody in the branch).

They thought I was the bad seed because the brokers were constantly in my office spitting about this or that or, more often, just wasting theirs and my time. But our branch management was so paranoid that anytime they saw three brokers talking they were sure they were planning a coup d' etat (this is mostly because all the managers were guys who had jumped from Merrill and its normal human behavior to assume others are like you).  My office was the meeting place, and yes, we were wasting time arguing politics and world affairs and stock selection and mutual funds v. managed money and Barneys versus Brooks Brothers and whatever. Almost never did any of us discuss leaving (until it became time to make the final move). 

Because of this, and the fact that I am not cut from the Merrill Lynch cloth (I worked at Shearson) and management was guys from Merrill that took a deal that included going into management. I was targeted.  I don't disagree with their assessment, I was never going to be a team player for the team they wanted the branch to become. And when I left, management tried to make an example of me (it didn't work, and quite the contrary worked to their disadvantage in that when their predictions of my imminent demise didn't come to pass, it made it easier for others to leave behind me, including joining me at my firm).

Now here's a little honesty for you:  "My observation is, you come off like you want to dialog with the big intellect, but you don't really listen - so it comes off as being a bit disingenuous.  FWIW"

I listened and I tried to dispel your errant notions but, you clung doggedly to them. You wanted to believe with all your being that I am angry over what took place. I'm not. The passion that I have had in our conversation is directed towards those who will not see that there is a need for a collective bargaining group that represents the interests of brokers. You couldn't seem to get past the notion that I was upset over the 20% that didn't follow and that I should instead focus on the positive of the 80% that did. I'm far past caring about the 20% and I'm in a situation where I never have to worry about it ever again (unless I decide to take a huge check to join a wirehouse again). The tree frog has a PAC! There are lobbying groups for golfers, and yet we sit waving in the breeze because upper managements say "We're advocating for you!" Where has this advocation ever come down on our side? they say they are our advocates but every time they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar they say it was our fault and they'll make it harder for us to reach the cookie jar next time!

Am I right or wrong?

To be honest, it is YOU who does not listen.

To be honest, there are times when I can't follow your "sound of one hand clapping" fragmented sentence esoterica. It's your style, for sure and I don't ask you to change it. But being honest, there are times when you are unintelligible.

Good post. No one is required to read it, so don't even start in with the " too much time" crap.

But anyone could relate to your experience.

So, you have your own shop now with an independent (sorry if I missed that)?

I totally agree with you that the b/d industry needs to change - for its own survival, and the good of the American citizen, these are the same things. Just not sure how.