LPL purchases UVEST

[quote=BankFC]

My bank’s broker dealer has just been purchased by LPL.  Hopefully it will be a good thing. 

It would not surprise me to see LPL purchase the B/D of one or more insurance companies.

Right now, it is business as usual.  But I can’t wait until we can stop clearing through god awful Pershing.

What makes Pershing “God awful?”

Why do you ask?

Just wondering why you would say something like that about one of the country's premier clearing firms.  I figure that you have a reason to say that, I know I would if I had said it.

Pershing has poor communication/sharing of information within itself.  Slow turn around on issues and MULTIPLE levels of red tape.  No one there seems to take ownership of problems, which I would attribute to poor middle management and training of entry level people.

No common sense at Pershing. 

What would be an example of what you’re talking about?

Why do you ask?

[quote=BankFC]Why do you ask?[/quote]

For the same reason I asked before--it would seem to me that if you think there are issues at Pershing you'd be able to cite what you're talking about.

Otherwise it's nothing but empty rhetoric.

By the way, you shouldn’t end a sentence with “about.”  It’s poor grammer and since you are so high on proper grammer it lends me to think you don’t realize it is wrong.

[quote=BankFC]By the way, you shouldn’t end a sentence with “about.”  It’s poor grammer and since you are so high on proper grammer it lends me to think you don’t realize it is wrong.[/quote]

By the way it’s spelled “grammar”.

LOL, I have nothing to gain by stating Pershing has operational issues, or for that matter is "god awful." 

Further, I have no need or desire as to why I feel this way to you. 

[quote=BankFC]By the way, you shouldn't end a sentence with "about."  It's poor grammer and since you are so high on proper grammer it lends me to think you don't realize it is wrong.[/quote]

Nope, it is Latin sentences that should not end in prepositions.  There is no such rule in English.

Thanks, Joe.  Typo on my part.

I clear through Pershing and I have had some issues…not many.  Usually it just requires that we keep on top of activities and follow up more often so things don’t fall through the cracks.  Generally they are just as good as any other clearing firm that I have used. Every back office has its faults and weaknesses.

I try to find someone in the brokerage operations area that I can work with and who seems to be efficient and use that person as a liaison. 

BTW: It's not incorrect to end a sentence with about.

[quote=BankFC]Thanks, Joe.  Typo on my part.[/quote]

Nope, typos are things random letters appearing in the middle of words.

Mistakes are things like poor spelling, especially when confirmed by making the same mistake a second time in the same sentence.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=BankFC]By the way, you shouldn't end a sentence with "about."  It's poor grammer and since you are so high on proper grammer it lends me to think you don't realize it is wrong.[/quote]

Nope, it is Latin sentences that should not end in prepositions.  There is no such rule in English.

[/quote]

I don't believe you, but as I cannot with 100% certainty affirm or deny it I will simply defer to a later time.

Regardless, I am glad to soon be rid of Pershing for the aforementioned reasons and look forward to the acquisition by LPL. 

You are so sad.  I have noticed instances, actually I have pointed out instances, where you have simultaneously made grammatical errors (not typos) as you are complaining about other poster's grammar.

Were it not for the VOLUME of posts you make on a DAILY basis, I would take the time to display your ignorance AGAIN.

[quote=BankFC]

I don't believe you, but as I cannot with 100% certainty affirm or deny it I will simply defer to a later time.

Regardless, I am glad to soon be rid of Pershing for the aforementioned reasons and look forward to the acquisition by LPL. 

[/quote]

It's good for you that LPL has some of the lowest standards in the indy world.

But let's get back to an example of what makes Pershing so bad--others would like to know what they can expect if their firm switches to Pershing.

Somebody who uses the phrase "God Awful" must have an example.

Right?

[quote=BankFC]

You are so sad.  I have noticed instances, actually I have pointed out instances, where you have simultaneously made grammatical errors (not typos) as you are complaining about other poster's grammar.

Were it not for the VOLUME of posts you make on a DAILY basis, I would take the time to display your ignorance AGAIN.

[/quote]

Please feel free--I learn by having mistakes pointed out.

The only mistake I routinely make is to improperly use an apostrophe in the word its.  I know better and have gotten much better about it by posting on message boards.

Are you saying that spelling grammar as grammer twice in the same sentence is a typo, or is it a mistake?

You also shouldn't capitalize the word god in "god awful."

[quote=BankFC]

You also shouldn't capitalize the word god in "god awful."

[/quote]

You don't capitalize the word in sentences like, "I look like a Greek god."

But statements like "God forsaken" or "God awful" or "God forbid" are using the word as a diety, making capitalizing it appropriate.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=BankFC]

I don't believe you, but as I cannot with 100% certainty affirm or deny it I will simply defer to a later time.

Regardless, I am glad to soon be rid of Pershing for the aforementioned reasons and look forward to the acquisition by LPL. 

[/quote]

It's good for you that LPL has some of the lowest standards in the indy world.

But let's get back to an example of what makes Pershing so bad--others would like to know what they can expect if their firm switches to Pershing.

Somebody who uses the phrase "God Awful" must have an example.

Right?

Newb,

What do you mean by lowest standards in the indy world?

Do you have an example?

I have heard LPL has very high compliance/credit standards in comparison to other b/ds.

He cannot back up his assertions.  That's why he tries (unsuccessfully) to antagonize others with questions, so his blanket statements get caught up in the sheer volume of his posts.

Sad little man.

I knew I could get NASD going.  He is so predictable and so easily stirred out of the bushes.

[quote=moleary]

Newb,

What do you mean by lowest standards in the indy world?

Do you have an example?

I have heard LPL has very high compliance/credit standards in comparison to other b/ds.

[/quote]

They have the reputation of being willing to accept producers with lower levels of production, AUM, number of clients, experience and so forth.

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=moleary]

Newb,

What do you mean by lowest standards in the indy world?

Do you have an example?

I have heard LPL has very high compliance/credit standards in comparison to other b/ds.

[/quote]

They have the reputation of being willing to accept producers with lower levels of production, AUM, number of clients, experience and so forth.

"They have a reputation"

Could you make a statement that is any more subjective?

Wait...of course you could, it is your specialty.

He can’t.  He knows he lost this debate, and he will fade into the corner now and try and wait for his gov’t cheese and peanut butter to be delivered.

Newb,

Just b/c they can facilitate working with advisors with lower production numbers (I think there OSJ min. is $125k compared to others at $200k or $250k) would not mean they have lower standards would it?

If their scale can allow them to have lower production minimums why does that matter?

Does it seem that other firms are "going up stream" in terms of producers to get higher margins?

Why fault LPL if they maintain their margins and still facilitate advisors doing $125K?

I don't understand your thinking on this.

[quote=moleary]

Why fault LPL if they maintain their margins and still facilitate advisors doing $125K?

[/quote]

They're losing money on producers doing less than $250,000 but for some reason they're willing to do that to maintain the #1 ranking for head count and total revenue.

No doubt because if they terminated anybody doing less than 250,000 their head count would fall very low, and their total revenues would fall even farther.

It's a nice firm--lots of mediocre brokers have found a home there.

Newb,

In your mind does production level equal quality of advice?

Low standards would be they take anyone who wants to join regardless of U4 history, etc...

As long as an advisor has a clean compliance background, how can you judge their quality as an advisor?

How do you know they are losing money on reps doing less than $250,000? Do you work there?

[quote=moleary]

Newb,

In your mind does production level equal quality of advice?

Low standards would be they take anyone who wants to join regardless of U4 history, etc...

As long as an advisor has a clean compliance background, how can you judge their quality as an advisor?

How do you know they are losing money on reps doing less than $250,000? Do you work there?

[/quote]

Because I read everything I can get my hands on and have seen it in print lots of times.  Does it make sense to you that a huge payout can be offered to the individual producer and the B/D turn a profit on what's left?

I personally do not believe that a cloudy compliance record means that the advice is wrong.  In fact, I'd suggest that unless you've been dragged into arbitration there's a good chance you're being so conservative as to be on the verge of malpractice.

People do not need to pay fees to manage a very conservative portfolio--they seek you out because they need advice on how to be agressive in as conservative manner as possible.

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=moleary]

Newb,

What do you mean by lowest standards in the indy world?

Do you have an example?

I have heard LPL has very high compliance/credit standards in comparison to other b/ds.

[/quote]

They have the reputation of being willing to accept producers with lower levels of production, AUM, number of clients, experience and so forth.[/quote]

...and yet they recently said no thanks to a local EDJ rep more than 10 years out...go figure...

[quote=Indyone][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=moleary]

Newb,

What do you mean by lowest standards in the indy world?

Do you have an example?

I have heard LPL has very high compliance/credit standards in comparison to other b/ds.

[/quote]

They have the reputation of being willing to accept producers with lower levels of production, AUM, number of clients, experience and so forth.[/quote]

...and yet they recently said no thanks to a local EDJ rep more than 10 years out...go figure...

[/quote]

Did they ask you for an opinion?  Possible CRD issues?  Probably he said the wrong thing at the wrong time--there are a zillion reasons why you don't get an offer that you thought you would.

I think he’s clean…just a little goofy and probably not the sharpest crayon in the box.  Although he certainly would have qualified revenue-wise, they took a pass.  I’d like to think that shows they have some standards, anyway…

…and no, they didn’t ask me…just told me after the fact that they’d decided to take a pass based on a conversation with him after he’d approached them.

[quote=Indyone]I think he's clean...just a little goofy and probably not the sharpest crayon in the box.  Although he certainly would have qualified revenue-wise, they took a pass.  I'd like to think that shows they have some standards, anyway...[/quote]

Crayons are supposed to be sort of dull so that the kids don't put their eyes out.

The phrase "a little goofy" says it all--but being proud that your B/D won't associate with a goofy guy is faint praise indeed.

What’s that say about his current employer?

[quote=Indyone]What's that say about his current employer? [/quote]

Everybody seems to think that EJ will hire anybody--even goofy guys who are not sharp crayons.

Well, except for that soul who showed up here a few weeks ago after being turned down.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=Indyone]What's that say about his current employer? [/quote]

Everybody seems to think that EJ will hire anybody--even goofy guys who are not sharp crayons.

Well, except for that soul who showed up here a few weeks ago after being turned down.

[/quote]

They hired you didn't they???

Prooof that they'll hire ANYBODY!

Newbie,

You are just flat wrong - read everything you can get your hands on - hah?  LPL makes a profit on any advisor that is doing north of $50k in GDC.  That's not a guess, an assumption nor based on some random comment like you have, it's simply the fact.  If you wish to base a firm's ability to perform based on avg production you simply don't get this industry or the indy model.  What makes LPL unique is not only does their scale allow advisors who have been cast aside by others due to the production game, they have a model in place that keeps them profitable on that and also gives all its advisors FREEDOM to build their business model as they determine.  Frankly, I think they are dead right and are about the only firm that has figured it out. 

You should go back to your wild E&O discussion to show your ignorance some more.

[quote=csmelnix]

Newbie,

You are just flat wrong - read everything you can get your hands on -

hah? LPL makes a profit on any advisor that is doing north of $50k in

GDC. That’s not a guess, an assumption nor based on some random

comment like you have, it’s simply the fact. If you wish to base a firm’s

ability to perform based on avg production you simply don’t get this

industry or the indy model. What makes LPL unique is not only does their

scale allow advisors who have been cast aside by others due to the

production game, they have a model in place that keeps them profitable

on that and also gives all its advisors FREEDOM to build their business

model as they determine. Frankly, I think they are dead right and are

about the only firm that has figured it out.

You should go back to your wild E&O discussion to show your

ignorance some more.

[/quote]

Boy your really are stupid - that was a generalization on indy firms; like I said, what makes LPL unique is its scale which is why we are not in the boat that other indy’s are - nice try but if that’s all the reading you can get your hands on you ought to look for more to read. 

If, industry wide, 20% of the producers are supporting the other 80%--and the industry executives say that they "lose real money" on anybody doing under $100,000 it is impossible that LPL could bet that much different.

There is siimply not enough wiggle room in the B/D's share of the gross for all firms except LPL to make it on small producers.

What LPL is doing is this.  They're accepting small producers because the small producer may become a big producer--not likely, but possible.

That small producer becomes a blip on the "We are everywhere" maps that these firms are proud of.  It also allows LPL to hold the number one ranking as measured by number of reps and total gross.

These are images worth developing, and the loss incurred on the little hitters is not significant enough to not absorb it for the sake of the image.

LPL has more than 1,000 non-producing employees--y'all act like all there is to pay for with their share of your gross is a couple of people.  That just ain't so.

Has anyone else noticed that Putsy’s spelling and grammar got to pot when he knows he’s wrong, yet still tries to save face?

TYPO: go to pot

Keep sipping your own bath water there newbie.  I love the lack of insight and undocumented generalities you spew; it truly underscores how ignorant of this industry you are, particularly how certain channels operate. 

I got it, LPL is just hoax, running on pure luck w/ time it'll all prove itself out to your description.  Is it really like you say simply because....you say it?

No, it is like I say because I am a student of the securities industry.   I spent thirty five years learning everything there is to know about it.

At a point the NASD and the SIA formed Independent Contractor Firm committees--and serving on those committees when they first got started were wirehouse people who were there to offer advice on things that their people should look for in their recruits, as well as things their people should tell the new Indy brokers about running an office.

Does it occur to you that a guy who spent his life in branch office supervision would be a member of those committees.  Ever read that I am on a first name basis with Todd Robinson and have chatted with Mark Cassady--how do you suppose things like that happen?

That you don't see things through my prisms is not because mine are out of whack--you don't know enough to know better.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

No, it is like I say because I am a student of the securities industry.   I spent thirty five years learning everything there is to know about it.

At a point the NASD and the SIA formed Independent Contractor Firm committees--and serving on those committees when they first got started were wirehouse people who were there to offer advice on things that their people should look for in their recruits, as well as things their people should tell the new Indy brokers about running an office.

Does it occur to you that a guy who spent his life in branch office supervision would be a member of those committees.  Ever read that I am on a first name basis with Todd Robinson and have chatted with Mark Cassady--how do you suppose things like that happen?

That you don't see things through my prisms is not because mine are out of whack--you don't know enough to know better.

[quote=joedabrkr]
I am sure the wirehouse people were oh so happy to share their greatest wisdom with their competition.  Even more, I bet the management from indy firms were thrilled to hear how their high-overhead counterparts were going to tell them to run a completely different business model.  ::rolls eyes::

Why do I have a feeling that if Todd Robinson saw you across the room at a cocktail party that he would suddenly remember an important phone call he needed to make?
[/quote]

Joeboy, if you would set your prejudices aside, and if you had ever been anywhere except in a bull pen at UBS, you'd know that the industry actually cooperates with each other all the time.

For example, the SIA has dozens of roundtable groups where peers meet to discuss common problems, techniques that work, things that don't work and on and on.

There is no reason for Todd Robinson to not be interested in what men and women from wirehouses have to say about how they would do it if they were him--and in so doing everybody can learn.

Additionally sitting at the tables are leadership from other indy firms.  These meetings are among the most powerful tools in the world of networking.

There is no reason to think that the leadership at a place like FSC cannot suggest something to the leadership of Financial Network, and vice versa.

Nobody sits around and talks about truly sensitive material, but they get very close.

Wouldn't you benefit from spending time across the table from some guys who are affiliated with RJFS or an ING star?  Don't you suppose you could add something that they would apprciate?

You insight from being a student of industry -

And all you had to back up your claim about LPL was the link that generalized the indy channel.  You made claims v LPL and couldn't back it up; you went on to splain that your knowledge is due to reading everything you can get your hands on; and now this answer.  Wow, did you run out of Prozac yesterday?  Well then again, since you once talked with Todd (btw - Todd has spent the better part of the last 2.5 years out of this country - it must have been a great conversation you had) and Mark, I must yield to you. 

When did I indicate that I spent time with Todd in the last two or three years?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]
I am sure the wirehouse people were oh so happy to share their greatest wisdom with their competition.  Even more, I bet the management from indy firms were thrilled to hear how their high-overhead counterparts were going to tell them to run a completely different business model.  ::rolls eyes::

Why do I have a feeling that if Todd Robinson saw you across the room at a cocktail party that he would suddenly remember an important phone call he needed to make?
[/quote]

Joeboy, if you would set your prejudices aside, and if you had ever been anywhere except in a bull pen at UBS, you'd know that the industry actually cooperates with each other all the time.

For example, the SIA has dozens of roundtable groups where peers meet to discuss common problems, techniques that work, things that don't work and on and on.

There is no reason for Todd Robinson to not be interested in what men and women from wirehouses have to say about how they would do it if they were him--and in so doing everybody can learn.

Additionally sitting at the tables are leadership from other indy firms.  These meetings are among the most powerful tools in the world of networking.

There is no reason to think that the leadership at a place like FSC cannot suggest something to the leadership of Financial Network, and vice versa.

Nobody sits around and talks about truly sensitive material, but they get very close.

Wouldn't you benefit from spending time across the table from some guys who are affiliated with RJFS or an ING star?  Don't you suppose you could add something that they would apprciate?

[quote=joedabrkr]

I did not spend ANY time in the bullpen at UBS, except perhaps when I dropped by a friend's desk to say hello on the way to my office.

Occasionally, yes, I like to pick the brains of extremely successful producers.  "Networking", however, is frequently a HUGE waste of time.  In my experience, those in this business who "network" with peers have too much time on their hands.
[/quote]

Whch is why you didn't go to San Diego a couple of weeks ago--or on any of the awards trips you won at UBS?

As for never in the bull pen--you are such a stud that they gave you an office on your first day just because you're so incredibly good looking?

maybe from this quote:

Does it occur to you that a guy who spent his life in branch office supervision would be a member of those committees.  Ever read that I am on a first name basis with Todd Robinson and have chatted with Mark Cassady--how do you suppose things like that happen?

Sounds like reality to this conversation is starting to sink in with you. 

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]

I did not spend ANY time in the bullpen at UBS, except perhaps when I dropped by a friend’s desk to say hello on the way to my office.

Occasionally, yes, I like to pick the brains of extremely successful producers.  “Networking”, however, is frequently a HUGE waste of time.  In my experience, those in this business who “network” with peers have too much time on their hands.
[/quote]

Whch is why you didn't go to San Diego a couple of weeks ago--or on any of the awards trips you won at UBS?

As for never in the bull pen--you are such a stud that they gave you an office on your first day just because you're so incredibly good looking?

[quote=csmelnix]

maybe from this quote:

Does it occur to you that a guy who spent his life in branch office supervision would be a member of those committees.  Ever read that I am on a first name basis with Todd Robinson and have chatted with Mark Cassady--how do you suppose things like that happen?

Sounds like reality to this conversation is starting to sink in with you. 

[/quote]

What does that statement mean to you?

Sounds to me like you just got caught spewing BS.

How would that be?

If you know Todd Robinson does that make the firm more legit?

[quote=no idea]If you know Todd Robinson does that make the firm more legit?[/quote]

What firm?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=no idea]If you know Todd Robinson does that make the firm more legit?[/quote]

What firm?

[/quote]

If you hadn't hijacked the thread with your ridiculous nonsense, you'd know.