Another MS broker leaves

[quote=aldo63]A large producer and another broker in baltimore left for wachovia last week. he said he knew more people in the wachovia office than his old office. [/quote]

Funny, his old office looked pretty stable;

what is the problem in the office? Manager or firm?

[quote=whats up]what is the problem in the office? Manager or firm?[/quote]

Nothing is wrong with the firm.  Each office has its own personality though, so its not surprising to see people leave from time to time.  On the other hand, we have some offices that are recruiting from the competition like crazy.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=aldo63]A large producer and another broker in baltimore left for wachovia last week. he said he knew more people in the wachovia office than his old office. [/quote]

Funny, his old office looked pretty stable;

[/quote]

Oh my God Mike....I now know just how full of sh*t you are.  I looked up my old office and it is missing almost half of the Advisors!!! 

[quote=dude]

Oh my God Mike....I now know just how full of sh*t you are.  I looked up my old office and it is missing almost half of the Advisors!!! 

[/quote]

Dude, I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Aldo the disgraced said the guy said knew more people at Wachovia than his MS office, so I simply cut an paste from that office link. Seems there are plenty of folks there that have been there a long time. What was your point, as I seemed to have missed it.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

Oh my God Mike....I now know just how full of sh*t you are.  I looked up my old office and it is missing almost half of the Advisors!!! 

[/quote]

Dude, I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Aldo the disgraced said the guy said knew more people at Wachovia than his MS office, so I simply cut an paste from that office link. Seems there are plenty of folks there that have been there a long time. What was your point, as I seemed to have missed it.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

Oh my God Mike....I now know just how full of sh*t you are.  I looked up my old office and it is missing almost half of the Advisors!!! 

[/quote]

Dude, I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Aldo the disgraced said the guy said knew more people at Wachovia than his MS office, so I simply cut an paste from that office link. Seems there are plenty of folks there that have been there a long time. What was your point, as I seemed to have missed it.

[/quote]

Mike your logic is flawed.  What that page does not show is all the advisors who are (may not) not still there. That post isn't evidence of much other than the folks who ARE still there have largely been there for a while.
[/quote]

Well, joe, my point was that there are plenty of people there who have been there a significant amount of time. Therefore I find the he-said-he-knew-more-people-at-Wachovia-than-his-own-office dubious, at best. It sounds too much like last week's drive by about an office closing, people getting no warning and the cops being called.

BTW, notice how there's never any evidence, no names, etc? Not to say that people don't move, they move all the time and for many reasons. If someone big moved there would be, no doubt, evidence of it somewhere and a name. They're not leaving because the sky is falling, Mack and Gorman are actually pretty popular in the ranks.

I hate to disappoint, but there just isn't chaos here. Things have improved dramatically and moral is high (especially after the positive changes to the comp plan). No place is perfect, and wirehouses, like every other channel have pros and cons, but the endless “they’ve about to have another round of cuts” and “they’re about to be sold” and “they’re closing offices everywhere” stuff is just silly.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

From Citi’s latest on MS

“..The retail brokerage turnaround is rapidly gaining momentum...It’s interesting to think it was only about a year ago that there was a fair amount of skepticism that resulted in some views that MS should sell this business as it was beyond repair. After our meeting with James Gorman, we’re convinced that not only is the business being turned around more quickly than expected, but also that this business has the potential to be a very powerful source of growth within the Morgan Stanley franchise. In our view, MS has the potential to

be the most productive full-service franchise in the business (measured by revenue per advisor). A core component of Mr. Gorman’s strategy is to leverage the unique strength in Morgan Stanley’s other businesses including the institutional franchise, the global relationship base and the asset management business.”

Wow Mike sound like a manager talking, if you were so smart you would have realized that although they raised comp by 1%, they lowered your deferred comp by 1-1.5%. Sounds like a wash. Oooops forgot about the discount Sharing. Oooops forgot about the raising of commissions and then the discount sharing. Sounds life after they raise fee's for clients, they also squeezed the brokers. Oh i forgot all firms have discount sharing? (smith barney?)

[quote=Elvis]

Wow Mike sound like a manager talking, .. [/quote]

I suppose anyone not screaming (as you have) MORE LAYOFFS!!!, CUTS IN COMP!!!! sounds like a manager to you.

[quote=Elvis]...if you were so smart you would have realized that although they raised comp by 1%, they lowered your deferred comp by 1-1.5%. Sounds like a wash.[/quote]

Pure and complete fiction. They did nothing of the sort, (in fact they created an entire new, 2nd deffered comp plan) and they increased larger transactional trades by 3 bps. This move was not "revenue neutral". I have no idea where you get this stuff....

[quote=Elvis] Oooops forgot about the discount Sharing. Oooops forgot about the raising of commissions and then the discount sharing. [/quote]

More fiction. The fact is, unless you're spending your day doing small transactions you've seen a significant increase even AFTER any discounts you give. Before you didn’t “share” discounts, but you were paid as Tier II business. Now you’re paid Tier I on trades over $500 regardless of discounts. BTW, what’s with discounts as a regular feature of business to begin with? I can see doing it for significant clients (those that aren’t flat fee to begin with) but as a normal course of business thing? No way.

[quote=Elvis]

Sounds life after they raise fee's for clients, they also squeezed the brokers. Oh i forgot all firms have discount sharing? (smith barney?)

[/quote]

They did raise client fees, but brokers were anything but "squeezed". You're still just sore because there were no layoffs, comps went up, the stock price is climbing and the firm is recruiting well.

For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would stay where they're unhappy, or how someone could succeed in this business when they're so unrelentingly negative. Then again, maybe those people stay where they are because no one else will hire them because they’re not succeeding because they’re unrelentingly negative….

Wachovia and Shearson Lehman Hutton Amex Solomon Citigroup Smith Barney seem to get the lion’s share of MS FA’s that make the leap to another wirehouse. I’m sure that if you think about individual offices of either Wachovia or SB, many have at least half a dozen former MS FA’s, and the production/AUM that went with them.  ML & and UBS less so. Wachovia & SB seem closer to MS in culture. Ironically, when Wachovia recruited the Structured Products group away from MS, it was seen by some as the last nail in Purcell’s coffin. Some coffin!! I can think of many MS FA’s who are still unsure of what the exact impact of the grid changes will be, once the discount sharing and household changes are factored in. At first blush, the grid changes appeared to be a pay raise, but the devil is in the details. The promised software to compute the impact based on last year’s production was never forthcoming. Wonder why?         &n bsp;

mikebutler222, please look at pay out for 1 million plus. down from 7.5 % to 6%.

No layoff that is good. We only have 6600 real brokers. God forbid we go down to 5000. Also did you hear that we are now expecing to train 1000 new FA's? Milking the same story Mike. I am not against the firm, but i dont believe everything is rosy either. You sound like a YES man everything the firm does is great.(probably thought so when Phil was CEO) Granted things are better,but Pleasssse if you are anytype of real broker you would realize that the meat and potatoe trades are between 100-400. Charging 150 to buy 100 IBM is sick!

[quote=BondJamesBond]Wachovia and Shearson Lehman Hutton Amex Solomon Citigroup Smith Barney ;[/quote]

And MS seems to be having their best recruiting successes from those very same firms... yawn.

BTW, why is it you disappear everytime I ask about your shilling for Wachovia?

[quote=Elvis]

We only have 6600 real brokers. [/quote]

It's over 8,000. Are you ever accurate?

[quote=Elvis]Also did you hear that we are now expecing to train 1000 new FA's? [/quote]

No doubt the same accurate rumor mill you're always getting your facts from...

[quote=Elvis]Milking the same story Mike. I am not against the firm, but i dont believe everything is rosy either. [/quote]

Nothing is ever all rosy. OTOH, your constant whining, the unending negative predictions....

[quote=Elvis]You sound like a YES man everything the firm does is great.[/quote]

That must be how everyone not part of your "the world is ending" crew must sound...

[quote=Elvis] Pleasssse if you are anytype of real broker you would realize that the meat and potatoe trades are between 100-400. Charging 150 to buy 100 IBM is sick![/quote]

If that's your "meat and potatoes" I now understand why you're negative, why you can't move and why you're never going to succeed.

Best of luck to you, btw, I hear BAC is hiring, check into them...

[quote=Elvis]

mikebutler222, please look at pay out for 1 million plus. down from 7.5 % to 6%.

No layoff that is good. We only have 6600 real brokers. God forbid we go down to 5000. Also did you hear that we are now expecing to train 1000 new FA's? Milking the same story Mike. I am not against the firm, but i dont believe everything is rosy either. You sound like a YES man everything the firm does is great.(probably thought so when Phil was CEO) Granted things are better,but Pleasssse if you are anytype of real broker you would realize that the meat and potatoe trades are between 100-400. Charging 150 to buy 100 IBM is sick!

JoeDa, clean out your box, man!

uhhh... ICK!

Too much information!

Mr. A

Mikebutler, please look at your ranking within the firm. You are currently ranked out 6600 retail brokers. Let me educate you. Go to ideas, then comp, then summary. Look on top of the YTD and you are ranked against your piers. the 8000 you claim includes private wealth brokers and whatever is left of the trainees. Think before you critcize. i guess you are not as smart as you think you are.

[quote=Elvis]Mikebutler, please look at your ranking within the firm. You are currently ranked out 6600 retail brokers. [/quote]

Golly, Elvis, you're a genius (it’s 6,664 “ranked FAs”), except further down that form you'll find you're ranked out of 8,386, which is just about what the firm announced on the 3QTR report in FA count. PWM, btw, isn't part of that number. You could have played that "look at "real brokers"" game long before Mack came on board. Every firm on the street reports ALL brokers in their counts...so you had a point, somewhere?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

BTW, Elvis, I've been giving your situation some thought and I can see why you're so unrelentingly negative. You really are the guy in the cross-hairs. If 100 shares of IBM really is your meat and potatoes trade, you have large numbers of small households as you’ve said and you discount the daylights out of trades (because you don’t think you bring much value) you really are just the guy being pushed to change, and I genuinely can understand your frustration.

Dean Witter used to be a firm where you could stuff people into B shares, do $200k in production, have tiny little accounts all over creation, wear your polyester slacks with the mutual fund embroidered  golf shirt to work and drive home in your six year old Dodge feeling like a pro. That changed a little over a year ago when new management said deadwood goes. Those guys that hung around the office as an example of how not to be a financial services professional, how to retire on active duty and infecting entire complexes with sub-par performance had to go. Last year came the stick with the layoff of over LOS eight, under $225k. Then came the carrot this year of higher payouts (and non-revenue neutral, at that)  and better deferred comp if you could drag yourself across what should be the bare minimum for a pro of $300k. Some people aren’t reacting well to the changes in the firm, and perhaps that’s a signal they should examine further.

Mike, was that former MS broker (Suzanne LaTour) a Dean Witter broker? She’s the one who was featured in that NY Times’ article over the weekend (the NASD arb one).

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]Mike, was that former MS broker (Suzanne LaTour) a Dean Witter broker? She's the one who was featured in that NY Times' article over the weekend (the NASD arb one).[/quote]

Your article was behind the NYTimes reg wall, so I didn't see it. I can tell you someone with a similar name started at DW in 1993 and is with SB now. Interestingly enough, that person has no "Disclosure Events" on their file.

Here’s a free link to the article…



Gretchen Morgenson: An arbitration nightmare for a former Morgan Stanley

investor (International Herald Tribune)



Here’s my favorite part…

"A single woman living on a fixed income … Starting in 1998, she placed

her life savings of $1 million…"

My guess is there’s more there than meets the eye since a three man panel

decided against her in arbitration. I’d like to see full details, without the

writer’s obvious bias.

That's the one---thanks for posting it over here.

I think that broker was Dean Witter by the way and you're right, she's with Smith Barney now.

After reading the lawsuit, The lady deserved only a 5k settlement. At least

she did not ask for the march 2000 market high amount. It is not the

brokers fault that she lost money in the market and it is time for people of

every age to take a little personal responsiblity for their actions. Also if she

kept her investments she would probably be whole now. But she panick and

sold at the bottom as some people did. As for technology stock in the funds,

it represented almost 30% of the S&P in 2000. An index fund ,a mutual fund

wrap account, or a managed account would have performed the same. here

is the link.



After a Legal Victory, an Investor Remains at a Loss (blackenterprise.com)

The biggest problem most retail clients/brokers had in 2000/2001 was they watched too much CNBC and thought the bull market would never end.

Merrill had Blodget shilling internet securities.

Morgan Stanley had Meeker (plus Maryree Clark) shilling the same.

Smith Barney had Grubman shilling telecom.

Lehman's Ravi Suria and Holly Becker told it like it was in 2000---SELL that crap, it's overpriced!

I am sure Lehamns clients lost an equal amount of money. I doubt if the held conference calls for all the brokers and said here is why you need to get out now.I will admit as a former MS employee that their reseach was awful and the kept the stocks on the buy list because of the  corporate finance deals. They were fined for this.

This situation sounds like she lost money cause the market went down, not because she was in Tech stocks.  She would have been down much more if that was the case. The Nasdaq went down 79%. then she would have had a case. I bet you during 1998 and 1999 she was not complaining about anything. Lehman, merrill,  would have lost her an eqaul amount.    personal responsibilty....

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]

Merrill had Blodget shilling internet securities.

Morgan Stanley had Meeker (plus Maryree Clark) shilling the same.

Smith Barney had Grubman shilling telecom. [/quote]

Remember that old kid's song "One of these things is not like the others"?

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]Lehman's Ravi Suria and Holly Becker told it like it was in 2000---SELL that crap, it's overpriced!

[/quote]

Oh, I'd love to see the details on that, the research reports LEH was putting out and how many internet stocks they underwrote....

LEHman was pretty early to say SELL. Ravi's research report on AMZN was why we went SHORT on June 29th (I think it was), 2000.

He was in fixed income research.

The wirehouses (all of them) were still shilling those overpriced internet, biotech, and telecom securities in mid 2000 thru 2001.

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]

LEHman was pretty early to say SELL. Ravi's research report on AMZN was why we went SHORT on June 29th (I think it was), 2000.

He was in fixed income research.

The wirehouses (all of them) were still shilling those overpriced internet, biotech, and telecom securities in mid 2000 thru 2001.

[/quote]

Let me see if I understand you correctly, Yolanda;you say LEH called the top in the NASDAQ and the proof is that a FI guy saying "why we went short" AMZN in June of 2000?

WE went short AMZN in June of 2000. Suria and Becker put out downgrades on it, then. Price chart wise it was very topped out.

Meeker was still shilling it and so was Blodget as I recall.

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]

WE went short AMZN in June of 2000. Suria and Becker put out downgrades on it, then. Price chart wise it was very topped out.

Meeker was still shilling it and so was Blodget as I recall.

[/quote]

I think the name you're looking for when it comes to LEH and the tech bubble is Holly Becker, not the two above. Really not one of LEH's proudest hours....

opps, should read “not Suria”…

A blast from the past....

On AOL, Feb, 2001;

Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker captured the tone of slightly qualified credibility as it relates to AOL Time Warner's forecasts. "There's a 90%-plus probability that AOL Time Warner will meet its $40 billion revenue and $11 billion EBITDA [earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization] targets that it has set for 2001," she wrote in a report Thursday. In a more difficult economic environment, the EBITDA target is "especially attainable," she wrote. Meeker has a strong buy on AOL Time Warner; her firm advised Time Warner in its merger with America Online.

Alluding to AOL Time Warner's recently announced expense-cutting, and the possibility of an AOL service subscription increase, Lehman Brothers' Holly Becker calls the 30% EBITDA growth "well within reach." However, she says she's "less confident" that the 12% to 15% revenue growth forecast for 2001 will be as easy to achieve, given the economy in which AOL Time Warner is operating. That said, Becker believes that AOL Time Warner will accelerate its revenue growth. She has a buy on the company, for which her firm has done underwriting.

Yeah, good old Holly Becker, NasDaq wrecker.

The reason June 29th, 2000 was so "memorable" to me is I sent Stan O'Neal a copy of Ravi Suria's research report from the previous week and told him to have Henry Blodget read it.

Thanks for pulling those articles up, Mike.

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]

Yeah, good old Holly Becker, NasDaq wrecker.

The reason June 29th, 2000 was so "memorable" to me is I sent Stan O'Neal a copy of Ravi Suria's research report from the previous week and told him to have Henry Blodget read it.

Thanks for pulling those articles up, Mike.

[/quote]

Beecker was a wrecker, no doubt, but of her own career.

BTW, why would a fixed income guy's call be more important than the equity guy's call on the same stock?

More "who was shilling what" from 2000;

Lehman's "Uncommon Values" list <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

June 28, 2000

Several technology stocks climbed today after being included on Lehman Brothers' list of "10 Uncommon Values."

Agilent Technologies, Hewlett-Packard,  Nortel Networks,  BEA Systems,  Cendant, Gemstar International, Juniper Networks, Eli Lilly, Micron Technology,  Tellabs.

Suria was sharp as a tack, Mike. That's why he's a BUY side guy at a hedge fund now.

JNPR and GMST were great shorts in the summer of 2000, too.

Why no firm's "focus list" is to be trusted.

At AGE some old brokers I knew used to refer to the "focus list" as the "f**k us" list.

[quote=no idea]

At AGE some old brokers I knew used to refer to the “focus list” as the “f**k us” list.

Very appropriate name for any firm's focus list.

Goldman Sachs' ones used to be by far the most lucrative to short.

When I was with Dean Witter, the "Focus List" was shown to institutional clients prior to being distributed to retail brokers. At that time (early '90's), DW's "Focus List" had a good track record.

As for the "internet craze", I nor my clients ever bought in to it. Which is why I was never near being one of the top brokers at DW. Not that I'm a genius, but everything about the pricing of internet stocks did not make sense. "New Economy"? "It's different this time"? PE's of 100? 200? 300? I didn't buy it. (Of course, it took about 5-7 years, before I could be smug about being right.) 

I also didn't sell the new DW mutual fund based on the Mexican peso (just before the peso crashed) nor did I sell leveraged bond funds (just before rates went up in the mid-'90's). Hmmmm, maybe I am a genius!

This is why I like our Research Center at MS.  We can pull five reports from five different sources and form our own opinion.

A good broker (seasoned with some common sense) knows how the focus list game works and avoids it like the plague. The ones (almost all shops) who got schmoozed and wound up with NASD arb complaints are/were mostly rookies.

I was a tech bull in 1998 and 1999 not because I believed in tech but because of "don't fight the tape." What persuaded me that the party was over or close to over was a speech I heard at an institutional money managers' confie by Arthur Levitt (former SEC Chairman) in March of 2000. He was warning about the tech bubble. That warning sunk in because I never heard or saw an SEC guy with that much "concern" before.

This is why I like our Research Center at MS.  We can pull five reports from five different sources and form our own opinion."

Can you elaborate on that? You are able to pull research from different insitutions? Like S&P, ValueLine,etc? That is one thing I dont like at ML. They have great insight and research, but I wish we had access to other firms viewpoints, just to get other opinions....

[quote=blarmston]

This is why I like our Research Center at MS.  We can pull five reports from five different sources and form our own opinion."

Can you elaborate on that? You are able to pull research from different insitutions? Like S&P, ValueLine,etc? That is one thing I dont like at ML. They have great insight and research, but I wish we had access to other firms viewpoints, just to get other opinions....

[/quote]

Are you sure you can't? I thought everyone provided this as a result of the golbal research settlement. Anyway, it's 12 outside firms and it's available to clients as well as FAs.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=blarmston]

This is why I like our Research Center at MS.  We can pull five reports from five different sources and form our own opinion."

Can you elaborate on that? You are able to pull research from different insitutions? Like S&P, ValueLine,etc? That is one thing I dont like at ML. They have great insight and research, but I wish we had access to other firms viewpoints, just to get other opinions....

[/quote]

Are you sure you can't? I thought everyone provided this as a result of the golbal research settlement. Anyway, it's 12 outside firms and it's available to clients as well as FAs.

[/quote]

That's all acurate.  FA's have it on their workstation and Clients can get access to it via ClientServ.  Basically you put in the symbol and it gives you the most recent reports as well as a synapsis of that what each analyst currently says, Buy, Sell, Hold, & Price target.

Some of the companies are MS, S&P, Morningstar, & Argus.  Not all of the 12 companies cover all the stocks, but you can easily get 5 opinions or more most of the time.

you’re right. Let me clarify. We can access Morningstar and some independent research shops- all decent research. I was referring to the abiltity to pull outside firms research. I tend to focus on “big picture” economic research, and I think it would be useful to have access to MS, UBS, and CITI research to get a better idea of what other CIO and Chief Economists are saying…