Incorrect U$
I worked briefly for a company who changed thier policy on hiring reps without a book within 3 months of my hire. They said that we would all to be laid off. I just found out today that they have “poor performance” on my u4 as my reason for being laid off. This is not true and is affecting some other areas of my life (getting on with a new broker dealer). I have written proof that it was to be a lay off and had nothing to do with performance, and everything do do with the company policy change, and my perfomance based on the original contract and my being a new rep was fine. How can this be corrected on a U4? Anyone have any experience? How can these firms report something like that? I thought that creating a situation that disparages characters and keeps individuals from earning a living was illegal? Any tips, and thanks.
[quote=bullbear98444]I worked briefly for a company who changed thier policy on hiring reps without a book within 3 months of my hire. They said that we would all to be laid off. I just found out today that they have "poor performance" on my u4 as my reason for being laid off. This is not true and is affecting some other areas of my life (getting on with a new broker dealer). I have written proof that it was to be a lay off and had nothing to do with performance, and everything do do with the company policy change, and my perfomance based on the original contract and my being a new rep was fine. How can this be corrected on a U4? Anyone have any experience? How can these firms report something like that? I thought that creating a situation that disparages characters and keeps individuals from earning a living was illegal? Any tips, and thanks. [/quote]
Go ask your previous employer to ammend the U-5.
If you have "written" proof that it was a simple lay off why not present that proof as part of your application process?
What you do not need is a lawyer--there is no reason to pay somebody to do something as simple as asking to have a form ammended.
As I've said elsewhere managers are innundated with "education" about the U-5 and how important it is to make sure it's correct.
If you pick up the phone and call your previous boss and tell them that your U-5 is not really reflective of why you are no longer there your manager will change it.
They're people too--and they know that they would want their own U-5 to be as positive as possible.
Are you really Bill Singer, using another ID to invent a problem that Bill Singer can recommend that you need to contact Bill Singer?
What NASD district are you in?
[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]
What NASD district are you in?
[/quote]
At this moment 10, but tomorrow I expect to be in 7. Is it important for me to keep track of this? Will I be stopped and asked to present my papers, and they had best be in order?
I was directing that to the kid with the messed up U-5.
Am sure your U-4 is in order so proceed about the country without fear of regulatory sanctions!
I also have my "Letter of Introduction" signed by Harvey Pitt.
It gets me 5% off at National Rent A Car and 10% off at Shoneys nationwide.
Life is good.
Mine's signed by Arthur Levitt. I get discounts on NetJet.
Life is "Beary" good indeed!
A Levitt will always trump a Pitt.
I yield.
[quote=bullbear98444]I worked briefly for a company who changed thier policy on hiring reps without a book within 3 months of my hire. They said that we would all to be laid off. I just found out today that they have “poor performance” on my u4 as my reason for being laid off. This is not true and is affecting some other areas of my life (getting on with a new broker dealer). I have written proof that it was to be a lay off and had nothing to do with performance, and everything do do with the company policy change, and my perfomance based on the original contract and my being a new rep was fine. How can this be corrected on a U4? Anyone have any experience? How can these firms report something like that? I thought that creating a situation that disparages characters and keeps individuals from earning a living was illegal? Any tips, and thanks. [/quote]
Get a good recruiter involved (there are several on this board, myself included).
Managers seem more likely to listen to ‘stories’ when packaged by a recruiter they know and trust. It’s not that they don’t believe you, it’s just that recruiters are somewhat objective third parties that can verify the story. The managers who use my firm know that I won’t waste their time.
And whatever you decide to do, let us know how it works out. Okay?
Donaldson didn't like me. Cox tolerates me. Levitt still loves me and I love him (in a platonic sort of way).
Pitt wasn't my type. I like mine clean shaven and fit (as in not fat).
Jeff, thanks for offering to help this kid. You, too, Bill.
Do you suppose either Jeff or Bill prowl these parts seeking to do good deeds for free?
I repeat, there is not need to pay somebody to help you do something as simple as getting a misleading U-5 changed.
Personally I do not think an attorney who threatens to sue to get something changed is doing the industry a favor.
If you were fired for screwing off I suppose a Bill Singer type could threaten to drag the issue through the system, costing the B/D lots of money--so the B/D just rolls over and changes the U-5.
I do not see that as having done a good deed for the industry or a potential employer who is relying on a U-5 that was changed from being truthful to being untruthful because of the threat of a lawyer.
Shakespeare was right.
Why do you suppose this forum allows blatant advertising free of charge?
I wonder if the advertisers in the magazine would like to know that others are advertising for free on these forums?
I sometimes help honest/ethical brokers and/or clients gratis (that means totally for FREE).
Hopefully the kid with the messed up U-5 can get his former broker-dealer to amend it without getting a third party involved.
Bill does pro bono once in a while for kids like that. I don't know Jeff well enough to know if he does or not. A kid with no book can't be peddled to any wirehouse for a headhunter's fee, that I do know.
I believe it's an ethical problem to attempt to change a U-5.
The point of a U-5 is to accurately reflect the opinion of the manager who is signing it.
If the manager signs it, "Terminated due to poor production" the trust should be in the manager rather than the producer who is feeling insulted by the statement.
Does it make sense that the manager doesn't really know why the manager is terminating that individual?
Why should that manager come under legal assault for having spoken his or her mind in the carrying out of their duties?
I think it's best for disputes like this to be settled between the broker and the manager, ADULT to ADULT.
IF the kid was only there 3 months and hired in with no book and IF the kid was terminated due to headcount reductions I don't think it's fair to use "poor production" as a reason. It's pretty hard to build a decent book in 3 months at any firm.
Again, we've only heard the kid's side of the story. I don't know who the manager is or which wirehouse the kid was let go from.
[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]
Bill does pro bono once in a while for kids like that. I don’t know Jeff well enough to know if he does or not. A kid with no book can’t be peddled to any wirehouse for a headhunter’s fee, that I do know.
[/quote]Full disclosure: Some of my clients pay a small fee for experienced brokers without a book. This is, however, a fraction of the fees we charge for revenue deals, sales managers or branch managers. We handle “no-book” brokers because the cash flow is nice and because it keeps us in contact with all of our branch managers on a regular basis. We’ve also gotten some very large referrals from our “Transition” practice.
Most of the candidates that I help through this board do not have NASD licensure, and are therefore not ‘billable’ candidates.
[quote=Knows Wall St.]
Do you suppose either Jeff or Bill prowl these parts seeking to do good deeds for free?
I repeat, there is not need to pay somebody to help you do something as simple as getting a misleading U-5 changed.
[/quote]Actually, I was thinking about getting the guy a job now, rather than after a very long arbitration process. I'm willing to invest the time to verify his story. After that, I can probably find a local BOM willing to go to bat with compliance.
I can't guarantee anybody a job (or even an interview), but I'm willing to help him with his situation. What are you willing to do to help this kid?
[quote=Knows Wall St.]
Why do you suppose this forum allows blatant advertising free of charge?
[/quote]This entire industry revolves on networking. Why should things be any different for recruiters?
KnowsWallStreet: There has been some recent discussion as to whether or not you are a reincarnation of another poster named NASD Newbie.
If you're new, then please use the search function. You'll see that I give cogent and relevant advice to all sorts of people without expectation of compensation. That includes lots of 'pro-bono' work.
I have also gotten a few lucrative leads through networking on this board, but nobody in this business should be ashamed of making a profit.
Personally, I don't think you're Newbie. NASD Newbie knows me too well to question my motives. He would also have less faith in the word of a BOM.
Finally, Newbie has better grammar and punctuation. You're not Newbie. You're just new.
The reason I am being so nice right now (altruistic) is because Yom Kippur's right around the corner and my "naughty girl" list is long again. I figure I can cross a few of those "naughty girl" items off that list if I am especially altruistic right now.
I know a rookie (2.5 years) kid who got the MS boot a few months ago. Not sure what his manager put on his U-5. The kid's working at a small private equity shop right now. He was canned for not being in the top 25% of 2 to 5 year in the biz rookies, I think. Not sure what the cut-off was on production but he was a little under and is now gone. He's glad not to be in the wirehouse biz anymore, too.
Thanks for the helpful information, all of you have given me tremendous relief. I would ask the former manager, except he is no longer at the firm, and the person who put through the wrong info on my U5 will not help. Does anyone know if I should approach the company itself?
Knows Wall Street,
To correct wrong or misleading information is not unethical, its the right thing to do, every check your credit report? Credit card companies have opinions to, but it does not make it a correct relfection on credit history as we all know. Just because someone is in management, does not make them right.
[quote=bullbear98444]
Thanks for the helpful information, all of you have given me tremendous
relief. [/quote]
Glad we could help.
[quote=bullbear98444]
Thanks for the helpful information, all of you have given me tremendous relief. I would ask the former manager, except he is no longer at the firm, and the person who put through the wrong info on my U5 will not help. Does anyone know if I should approach the company itself? [/quote]
Sounds like you’ve given them an opportunity to fix it without pulling out the big guns. Remember what rrdblawyer said earlier:
[quote=rrbdlawyer]
Finally, you might wish to contact your former
employer and see if they would voluntarily change the U5. Again, I
would not suggest you do this without a lawyer IF you are contemplating
filing an arbitration complaint as you might make statements that could
harm your case.[/quote]
[quote=bullbear98444]
Knows Wall Street,
To correct wrong or misleading information is not unethical, its the right thing to do, every check your credit report? Credit card companies have opinions to, but it does not make it a correct relfection on credit history as we all know. Just because someone is in management, does not make them right.
[/quote]
I do not disagree--and actually I was talking more about the attorneys who take cases such as yours. They are Wall Street's equivalent of a guy who fixes traffic tickets and gets you off on a DUI.
The problem, in your case, is this. You were in the business for only a few months so of course your production was insignificant.
I don't disagree with the fact that that assessment is unfair.
What I am asking is why not just solve it yourself? All you'd have to do is drop by and chat with your ex manager for about two minutes.
Why in the world would you pay a lawyer to do that for you?
[quote=Knows Wall St.]
What I am asking is why not just solve it yourself? All you’d have to do is drop by and chat with your ex manager for about two minutes.
Why in the world would you pay a lawyer to do that for you?
[/quote]Actually, he's already tried that. His former manager has left the firm, and the new guy is not interested in fixing the problem.
[quote=Knows Wall St.]
The whole story doesn’t pass the smell test.
[/quote]I’m not saying you’re wrong. I have no reason to believe this story until I see the ‘written proof’ and do a little digging myself.
I certainly won’t bring this up with one of my clients until I’m 100% convinced.
But I’m willing to give the kid a chance.
I am willing to give the kid a chance, too.
Kid, do a GOOG(le) search on this e-mail address:
If you are for real and not blowing smoke over here, then e-mail me and I will try to help you.
FD: not a headhunter, not with a wirehouse, not shilling for any lawyer or lawfirm.
What do you envision being done?
IF the kid's legit and not a front to trash the NASD, then I will find out what NASD district the kid's in and also what wirehouse might have stiffed him. Then IF the kid's legit, I might chat with his former regional manager or the DA of the NASD district and get this problem RESOLVED without the kid having to pay off a LAWYER.
IF the kid's blowing smoke, then shame on him or her. I won't lift a finger.
Should we call her "Mistress Yolanda"?: The Wall Street Journal has a piece on corporate Gadfly Yolanda Holtzee who seems to have the ear of regulators owing to her excellent instincts on corporate shenanigans. A quote from her made us laugh:
"I wish I were a securities regulator sometimes. I would very much enjoy levying fines on StanLEH Morgan and making Gary Lynch cry like a baby!" she wrote in a March email to a number of SEC officials. Morgan Stanley has recently drawn regulatory fire for its inability to produce documents in a number of cases, a subject Ms. Holtzee has focused on. Mr. Lynch is Morgan Stanley's chief legal officer and a former regulator.
In 2004, months before Krispy Kreme Doughnuts stock tanked amid an accounting scandal, securities regulators were getting an earful about the company from a 50-year-old Seattle woman who collects stuffed animals and uses the email handle LoveLEHGirl.
Yolanda Holtzee spends her days writing to the country's top stock cops and corporate executives. A money manager by trade, she devours news and surfs Internet chat rooms befriending stockbrokers and middle managers. She digs for dirt, passing on some of the tidbits she gets to regulators and journalists, sometimes well before they become public information....
Wall Street is full of corporate gadflies, many of whom agitate for corporate-governance reform or focus on arcane bylaw changes. Ms. Holtzee, a self-styled Internet investigator in sweatpants, focuses on exposing out-of-bounds behavior and catching bad guys. And after pointing regulators in the right direction more than once, Ms. Holtzee has achieved two things every gadfly craves: attention from those she targets -- and action.
"I think people take her seriously because she has good instincts and actually produces cases," says former senior SEC official Ari Gabinet, now an executive at Vanguard Group Inc., the fund management giant. "If I could have hired her, we would have had an endless stream of cases."
Ms. Holtzee swaps notes with regulators, including the enforcement chiefs at both the SEC and another Wall Street regulator, the National Association of Securities Dealers, according to people familiar with the matter. The SEC and NASD review her emails. Earlier this year, when Mary Schapiro was appointed to head the NASD, the Wall Street self-regulatory group gave Ms. Holtzee an early heads up, according to people familiar with the matter. She has been called by the SEC to testify in Washington, and a software firm sued her for her negative comments in an Internet chat room. The case was dismissed.
In February, she sent an email to Jefferies Group CEO Richard Handler to say she loved Jefferies stock but was sorry that he, Mr. Handler, had been born with a silver spoon in his mouth: "A silver spoon?" he fired back, saying he went to public schools and worked as a waiter on summer breaks. "I had a great upbringing and have zero complaints, but a silver spoon was not part of the picture." She apologized for the mischaracterization. On her Yahoo user profile, she lists her hobbies as: "Making $$$ for my clients" and for Bear Stearns Cos., Lehman Brothers Holdings and Jefferies, three of her favorite stocks.
Ms. Holtzee was born in Wisconsin and says she has a graduate degree from the University of Southern California in operations management. She has held a number of management jobs in the metal-packaging industry. In 1998, hoping to make more cash, she began managing money, she says, for a handful of wealthy individuals. She says she stopped taking in new investors in 2000 and won't disclose her firm's assets under management or its performance.
Ms. Holtzee refers to her company, Alcap LLC, as an "investment club" and says she employs two traders in Connecticut and a compliance officer. She works out of her house, which she shares with a friend. Her home is littered with cat paraphernalia, including a cat night light, kettle and cookie jar, and she has six actual cats, including two named Star and Buck, to keep her company.
Her trading is focused on a handful of sectors: beer and beverages, metals and financial services. She tends not to send emails on companies she owns and says she discloses her interest when she does. Despite her slashing emails, she is reserved in person. She seldom phones the people she corresponds with, and few have met her. In fact, some regulators have wondered whether Ms. Holtzee, despite her online name, might be a man....
I hate those WSJ ink sketchings!
Seriously, if this kid's telling the truth there's NO reason for his or her U-5 to reflect something which isn't the truth and maybe (all depends on which wirehouse/NASD District) I can help him or her without having to bring a lawyer in. There are good and bad regional managers at all wirehouses. Some NASD Districts are better than others with respect to the Director being into "fair play."
My advice to the kid if he or she is telling the truth and the current BM won't change that U-5 to reflect the truth is try the regional manager and be to the point about what happened. If he or she isn't taking a book out to a competitor, why should the regional manager not want his or her U-5 to reflect the truth and let the kid move on and make a living someplace else?
I agree. On an unrelated topic, I’m trying to figure out if you’re more investment manager or moral crusader?!! At any rate, keep up the good fight!
Both....and the SEC and I get along very well now after we cleared up a little "misunderstanding" as to "no need to issue subpoenas" if they want to chat!
Thanks and I enjoy crusading a little in my spare time.
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/legal-issues/incorrect-u