MS G Day Friday

Good Article!!!! Glad I left MS to go Indy. 

couldn’t read the whole article

[quote=frumhere]couldn't read the whole article[/quote]

frumhere,   You may have to register at investmentnews.com to see the full article. At any rate if I was a MS broker doing under 400k, I would be getting ready to move before the sh*t hits the fan.  IMHO

doing under 400, but under 5 years.

[quote=frumhere]doing under 400, but under 5 years.[/quote]

Frumhere, keep working hard to get over 350k and you should be ok.

At least for a year or two.

NY_Broker, according to your sources how much should brokers with an LOE between 3-5 years be doing to be insulated from management restructuring?

It's a wide range.  At 5, I'd imagine you would need to be at at least $250k or so.  I would imagine the would start out at the old $50k/year rule.  Could be wrong.  Happens all the time. 

Just my opinion, but it sounds like Gorman will be cutting overhead before he starts chopping brokers.  My guess is goodbye RVP’s, sales managers, proprietary fund wholesalers, etc.  I could also see him consolidating branches and closing unprofitable ones.  All good moves as far as I’m concerned. 

If you look at his track record at Merrill, he did all of these things very early on.  There are already a handful of branches on a short list of those to be closed, that were announced to the brokers a few weeks ago. 

such as

I have a buddy at MWD who works in a small satellite branch with about 7 FA’s. The capacity is for around 18-20. A few weeks ago a ‘consultant’ came through the branch to check things out. He is thinking that the branch will get closed or another nearby branch will be merged into that one. Either way, he is speculating that some brokers will be doing some interviewing in the next few months…

Who knows.  My question is, who gets hit most when the $hit hits.

http://registeredrep.com/news/gorman-at-morgan/

I read in the article that minimum production is now 250k with los greater than 8 years. When did they increase it. Also in the investmentnews.com article it states that the minimum is going to 350k under Gorman.

If anyone knows offices that are closing, post the locations please.

250k was with the last cuts, but i think there was some kind of age addendum. 

I thought it was 225k. What do you mean age addendum?

The locations I have heard of are in small cities where the cost of running the business is not justified.  From what I’ve heard, they would rather these producers go to the competition, simply because they’re not 1st or 2nd quintile producers anyway.

did not effect me, but i think there was something in there about people older than 50 or something like that, but i can’t remember that. 

[quote=NY_BROKER]

http://registeredrep.com/news/gorman-at-morgan/

I read in the article that minimum production is now 250k with los greater than 8 years. When did they increase it. Also in the investmentnews.com article it states that the minimum is going to 350k under Gorman.

If anyone knows offices that are closing, post the locations please.

[/quote]

There was a cut, it effected LOS8 and greater with under 225k trailing twelve. There is no "250k minimum" and any talk of cuts for those below $350k is a guess. If you look at the median production point, making a cut at $350k lops off better than 3000 brokers.

Cuts $350k and under would be a nightmare for MS.

[quote=BrokerRecruit]Cuts $350k and under would be a nightmare for MS.[/quote]

Perhaps, but you should NEVER undersestimate the long-term stupidity of wirehouse management…

We have a town hall today.  Someone I know on our other platform said Gorman said there will be a shrinking of current FA’s with a re-hiring to follow.

ditto Joe.

pre-word is that your “old timers/lifers” will have the biggest issues.

At MER Gorman cut a third of Merrill's brokers and closed a quarter of it's offices (see http://english.people.com.cn/200508/19/eng20050819_203467.ht ml ).

To think he won't do the same at MS is just utter denial of the facts. He won't be happy till MS brokers are producing more than Merrill's brokers. IMHO.

he will.  it’s those 10 LOS and up doing under 300k that will be up sh*t’s Creek

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BrokerRecruit]Cuts $350k and under would be a nightmare for MS.[/quote]

Perhaps, but you should NEVER undersestimate the long-term stupidity of wirehouse management.....
[/quote]

There's stupidity and then there's empty speculation. The current median production for MS means that a cut below $350k would be a very, very large number of brokers. People seem to confuse average with median quite often.  

[quote=NY_BROKER]

At MER Gorman cut a third of Merrill's brokers and closed a quarter of it's offices (see http://english.people.com.cn/200508/19/eng20050819_203467.ht ml ).

To think he won't do the same at MS is just utter denial of the facts. He won't be happy till MS brokers are producing more than Merrill's brokers. IMHO.

[/quote]

That's the typical exaggeration of what Gorman did. Yes, ML's number of brokers shrank dramatically, but so did every other major firm during that time period (2000-2005) as the market itself culled thousands of brokers. Gorman trimmed real estate, which I believe he’ll do again. There’s also talk of investment in systems and technology. I’ve spoken to management who says that before they can compare MS brokers to ML brokers they’ll have to give them the same support in terms of products and technology. The process of turning the old “socks and stocks” nature of DWR (stocks, bonds and proprietary MFs) isn’t completely done in terms of personnel.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Having said that, if your over LOS 8 and doing 300k, you may not have realized it, but you’ve been working your way out of the business for years.

"The current median production for MS means that a cut below $350k would be a very, very large number of brokers"

By my calculations, about 4,000

[quote=Spook5365]

"The current median production for MS means that a cut below $350k would be a very, very large number of brokers"

By my calculations, about 4,000

[/quote]

4,000 of what, about 9,000 or 10,000?  The chance of a 40% cut sounds pretty remote to me.

There is a group, like the guy quoted in one of the newspaper links here who feels MS should end its broad retail business and go to a GS business model. They're the ones that cheer the idea of gutting the sales force and get snarky when Mack says he's sticking to the broad retail plan. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that their POV sould be considered when you read their comments.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=NY_BROKER]

At MER Gorman cut a third of Merrill's brokers and closed a quarter of it's offices (see http://english.people.com.cn/200508/19/eng20050819_203467.ht ml ).

To think he won't do the same at MS is just utter denial of the facts. He won't be happy till MS brokers are producing more than Merrill's brokers. IMHO.

[/quote]

That's the typical exaggeration of what Gorman did. Yes, ML's number of brokers shrank dramatically, but so did every other major firm during that time period (2000-2005) as the market itself culled thousands of brokers. Gorman trimmed real estate, which I believe he’ll do again. There’s also talk of investment in systems and technology. I’ve spoken to management who says that before they can compare MS brokers to ML brokers they’ll have to give them the same support in terms of products and technology. The process of turning the old “socks and stocks” nature of DWR (stocks, bonds and proprietary MFs) isn’t completely done in terms of personnel.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Having said that, if your over LOS 8 and doing 300k, you may not have realized it, but you’ve been working your way out of the business for years.

[/quote]

Gorman fired 12000 Merrill employees in 1999/2000. See http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B9C5 CED16%2DF5A2%2D4C3A%2D83EE%2DBB493017312B%7D&siteid=goog le&keyword=

Think about it John Mack + Jim Gorman = more like a GS type firm rather than a weak Merrill type firm. 

"4,000 of what, about 9,000 or 10,000?  The chance of a 40% cut sounds pretty remote to me. "

That what I meant.  Didn't word it correctly.  There are only ~ 7500 left, so I doubt they're gutting 4000 of them

[quote=NY_BROKER][quote=mikebutler222][quote=NY_BROKER]

At MER Gorman cut a third of Merrill's brokers and closed a quarter of it's offices (see http://english.people.com.cn/200508/19/eng20050819_203467.ht ml ).

To think he won't do the same at MS is just utter denial of the facts. He won't be happy till MS brokers are producing more than Merrill's brokers. IMHO.

[/quote]

That's the typical exaggeration of what Gorman did. Yes, ML's number of brokers shrank dramatically, but so did every other major firm during that time period (2000-2005) as the market itself culled thousands of brokers. Gorman trimmed real estate, which I believe he’ll do again. There’s also talk of investment in systems and technology. I’ve spoken to management who says that before they can compare MS brokers to ML brokers they’ll have to give them the same support in terms of products and technology. The process of turning the old “socks and stocks” nature of DWR (stocks, bonds and proprietary MFs) isn’t completely done in terms of personnel.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Having said that, if your over LOS 8 and doing 300k, you may not have realized it, but you’ve been working your way out of the business for years.

[/quote]

Gorman fired 12000 Merrill employees in 1999/2000. See http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B9C5 CED16%2DF5A2%2D4C3A%2D83EE%2DBB493017312B%7D&siteid=goog le&keyword=

Think about it John Mack + Jim Gorman = more like a GS type firm rather than a weak Merrill type firm. 

[/quote]

Note Gorman fired 12,000 employees, not 12,000 brokers. The market cut the brokers at ML like it cut them everywhere else. With the market gutting the number of brokers, there wasn't as much of a need for back-office types and real estate. I fully expect that to happen at MS. Again, notice that Gorman didn't cut 40% of ML's brokers like you're saying he'll do at MS.

You may feel, as some others do, that MS would be better off as a GS type firm. I'm not saying that that's not a valid POV. I'm simply saying that's not the direction the firm is headed today, so don't expect Gorman to head tat way out of the box. Who knows, if Gorman fails, that may be the future of MS.

[quote=Spook5365]

"4,000 of what, about 9,000 or 10,000?  The chance of a 40% cut sounds pretty remote to me. "

That what I meant.  Didn't word it correctly.  There are only ~ 7500 left, so I doubt they're gutting 4000 of them

[/quote]

I'm with you.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=NY_BROKER][quote=mikebutler222][quote=NY_BROKER]

At MER Gorman cut a third of Merrill's brokers and closed a quarter of it's offices (see http://english.people.com.cn/200508/19/eng20050819_203467.ht ml ).

To think he won't do the same at MS is just utter denial of the facts. He won't be happy till MS brokers are producing more than Merrill's brokers. IMHO.

[/quote]

That's the typical exaggeration of what Gorman did. Yes, ML's number of brokers shrank dramatically, but so did every other major firm during that time period (2000-2005) as the market itself culled thousands of brokers. Gorman trimmed real estate, which I believe he’ll do again. There’s also talk of investment in systems and technology. I’ve spoken to management who says that before they can compare MS brokers to ML brokers they’ll have to give them the same support in terms of products and technology. The process of turning the old “socks and stocks” nature of DWR (stocks, bonds and proprietary MFs) isn’t completely done in terms of personnel.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Having said that, if your over LOS 8 and doing 300k, you may not have realized it, but you’ve been working your way out of the business for years.

[/quote]

Gorman fired 12000 Merrill employees in 1999/2000. See http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B9C5 CED16%2DF5A2%2D4C3A%2D83EE%2DBB493017312B%7D&siteid=goog le&keyword=

Think about it John Mack + Jim Gorman = more like a GS type firm rather than a weak Merrill type firm. 

[/quote]

Note Gorman fired 12,000 employees, not 12,000 brokers. The market cut the brokers at ML like it cut them everywhere else. With the market gutting the number of brokers, there wasn't as much of a need for back-office types and real estate. I fully expect that to happen at MS. Again, notice that Gorman didn't cut 40% of ML's brokers like you're saying he'll do at MS.

You may feel, as some others do, that MS would be better off as a GS type firm. I'm not saying that that's not a valid POV. I'm simply saying that's not the direction the firm is headed today, so don't expect Gorman to head tat way out of the box. Who knows, if Gorman fails, that may be the future of MS.

[/quote]

Gorman cut 6000 brokers, 30% of the then 20000 broker force.

May be at MS the thinking is cut 2000 to 3000 more and hire 1000 to 2000 more, (more productive brokers),  to bring the broker head count to around 7000. I allready heard that Gorman could pull up to 500 Merrill brokers over this year. The MS CFO is on record that broker head count will be down another 1000 by year end. As I recall, last year's published reports about Gorman's being hired also stated that the firm was looking at Gorman running a 6000 high gossing high profit broker force. I am confident that Gorman was hired to do more and better at MS than MER. Mack's not the type of boss to expect less. He wan't to fix MS as fast as possible. 

[quote=NY_BROKER]Gorman cut 6000 brokers, 30% of the then 20000 broker force. [/quote]

I don't think Gorman fired them, like every other firm, the market killed them.

[quote=NY_BROKER]

May be at MS the thinking is cut 2000 to 3000 more and hire 1000 to 2000 more, (more productive brokers),  to bring the broker head count to around 7000.

[/quote]

Gorman just said you're wrong.

[quote=NY_BROKER]

 I allready heard that Gorman could pull up to 500 Merrill brokers over this year. 

[/quote]

He said MS will recruit. Bringing over ML brokers (but remember, Gorman wasn't the most popular guy in the world there) would obviously be part of it.

[quote=NY_BROKER]

The MS CFO is on record that broker head count will be down another 1000 by year end.

[/quote]

I think I would have heard that. Got a quote?

[quote=NY_BROKER]

As I recall, last year's published reports about Gorman's being hired also stated that the firm was looking at Gorman running a 6000 high gossing high profit broker force.

[/quote]

Yeah, like the "published report stated" that MS was going to be a GS firm. The missing part, of course, was anyone at MS saying that.

[quote=NY_BROKER]

I am confident that Gorman was hired to do more and better at MS than MER. Mack's not the type of boss to expect less. He wan't to fix MS as fast as possible. 

[/quote]

Fix, yes. Gut the sales force? Well, he just said no....

[quote=NY_BROKER]

The MS CFO is on record that broker head count will be down another 1000 by year end.

[/quote]

I think I would have heard that. Got a quote  

http://www.onwallstreet.com/article.cfm?articleid=3206                                                                                               

[quote=NY_BROKER]

[quote=NY_BROKER]

The MS CFO is on record that broker head count will be down another 1000 by year end.

[/quote]

I think I would have heard that. Got a quote  

http://www.onwallstreet.com/article.cfm?articleid=3206                                                                                               

[/quote]

"In December, Morgan Stanley Chief Financial Officer David Sidwell said the firm plans to end this year with 1,000 fewer reps than it has now. Attrition will play a part in that reduction, which will leave Morgan with about 8,600 advisers."

Notice he was paraphrased. Here's another take on what he said;

Chief Financial Officer Officer David Sidwell in December said Morgan Stanley lost more "seasoned productive brokers" to competitors than it hired last year, resulting in a net loss of $8 billion of client money. The firm expects to lose another 926 brokers this year, due to smaller training classes and raids from competitors, he said.

Now, tell me where the "cuts" are in that comment.....

I'm not saying it's impossible. They could change their strategy tomorrow. However, the current plan, as Gorman said yesterday, is no new wave of cuts, MS won't be selling the business and MS will not be moving to a GS business model.

MikeButler222

I hope that you are not believing what management says 100%. Anyone that puts thier career in the hands of MS management has to be a newbee in the business or aspiring to get into management. 

NY_BROKER

You are 100% correct. Do you know what the MS town hall meeting was about yesterday?

[quote=NY_BROKER]

MikeButler222

I hope that you are not believing what management says 100%. Anyone that puts thier career in the hands of MS management has to be a newbee in the business or aspiring to get into management. 

[/quote]

I think if you read my post you'll see where I say they can change their minds tomorrow. Obviously someone who feels free to move as I have doesn't "put their career" in anyone else's hands.

All I've been doing is countering your comments about what MS's plans currently are.

[quote=downtown]

NY_BROKER

You are 100% correct. Do you know what the MS town hall meeting was about yesterday?

[/quote]

If you saw the town hall you'd know that NY_BROKER is anything but right, except his last comment about not entrusting your career to any mangement.

[quote=NY_BROKER]

MikeButler222

I hope that you are not believing what management says 100%. Anyone that puts thier career in the hands of MS management has to be a newbee in the business or aspiring to get into management. 

[/quote]

It would be consistent for MikeB to believe 100% of what management says.  His posts almost always come across as a "company man".  Reminds me of my old Morgan Stanley manager. 

[quote=dude][quote=NY_BROKER]

MikeButler222

I hope that you are not believing what management says 100%. Anyone that puts thier career in the hands of MS management has to be a newbee in the business or aspiring to get into management. 

[/quote]

It would be consistent for MikeB to believe 100% of what management says.  His posts almost always come across as a "company man".  Reminds me of my old Morgan Stanley manager. 

[/quote]

Dude, grow up. You're letting the political talk here spill over into conversations on other subjects.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I think any fair reading of this thread (and despite what you’ve said on the political threads, I’ve found you reasonable on other topics) would show that NY_BROKER has floated rumors and misquoted the CFO of MS in an attempt to run with the “Gorman’s going to have a $350k cut line” line. That may be what happens some day, but it’s obviously not the plan now.

In fact, if you think back NY_BROKER (who has some sort of grudge against MS) has been floating the “They’re going to cut everyone below $350k” routine since last Summer. Several of his deadlines have already come and gone.

I’ve said all along that it’s foolish to entrust your career to anyone else, much less management which can and will turn their decisions on a dime. I’ve pointed out what the CFO REALLY said (as opposed to what BROKER was implying was said), I pointed out what Gorman and Mack have said, and I’ve pointed out how many people would be cut if $350k became a cut line. I’ve never, never said hand your career to management.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude][quote=NY_BROKER]

MikeButler222

I’ve pointed out how many people would be cut if $350k became a cut line.

[/quote]

Including MikeB?

Let's all cut the poor guy some slack, he is obviously worried about his future employment.  After all, we have all been concerned about our continuing employment in this industry at some point.  And obviously, jobhopper has had this concern more than most. 

[quote=jonesnewbie][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude][quote=NY_BROKER]

MikeButler222

I’ve pointed out how many people would be cut if $350k became a cut line.

[/quote]

Including MikeB?

Let's all cut the poor guy some slack, he is obviously worried about his future employment.  After all, we have all been concerned about our continuing employment in this industry at some point.  And obviously, jobhopper has had this concern more than most. 

[/quote]

I guess the good news for you, newbie, is that the Subway shop next to your office always has that “help wanted” sign hanging there for you to consider.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I suppose I’ll never understand those that fear controlling their own career and moving when they want. It is interesting how those same fearful souls hide behind their CRD behind screen name  anonymity.

[quote=mikebutler222]

I guess the good news for you, newbie, is that the Subway shop next to your office always has that “help wanted” sign hanging there for you to consider.

[/quote]

Sorry I have to be the one to disabuse you of that notion, but I work in an office building with attorneys. CPA's, mortgage brokers and other professionals. 

Of course, the good news for you is that Jones is always hiring brokers producing in the 250-250k range regardless of LOS, so you do have an exit option.  See you at the next Diversification Trip.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=mikebutler222]

I suppose I’ll never understand those that fear controlling their own career and moving when they want. It is interesting how those same fearful souls hide behind their CRD behind screen name  anonymity.

[/quote]

If you want to "control your own carrer" why aren't you independent?  That's my plan once I am 5 yrs LOS.

I predict a lot fewer posts from MikeB one the cuts are anounced. 

[quote=jonesnewbie][quote=mikebutler222] I guess the good news for you, newbie, is that the Subway shop next to your office always has that “help wanted” sign hanging there for you to consider.

[/quote]

Sorry I have to be the one to disabuse you of that notion, but I work in an office building with attorneys. CPA's, mortgage brokers and other professionals.

[/quote]

Sure you do, newbie, that isn’t a dry cleaner next to your office and you haven’t spent your days doing the Jones door-to-door shuffle. You really should remain quiet when adults are talking about a business you’re still so very green to…

[quote=jonesnewbie]

Of course, the good news for you is that Jones is always hiring brokers producing in the 250-250k range regardless of LOS, so you do have an exit option. See you at the next Diversification Trip. [/quote]

Joining Jones would be a fate worse than death, and it says something about your firm that they’re happy to land those coveted $250k producers….. BTW, there already WAS a cut at MS that trimmed away the "big producers" Jones would love to land.

Having said that, unless your outfit drags along the bottom 15%, I doubt you'll be on any sales contest, er "diverisfication" trips.

[quote=mikebutler222]

I suppose I’ll never understand those that fear controlling their own career and moving when they want. It is interesting how those same fearful souls hide behind their CRD behind screen name anonymity.

[/quote]

[quote=jonesnewbie]

If you want to "control your own carrer" why aren't you independent? That's my plan once I am 5 yrs LOS.

[/quote]

I wouldn’t bet the farm on your surviving to LOS 5, newbie, much less that you’ll have the courage to leave the nest. After all, you seem to think moving is a sign of desperation. If your conduct here says anything about your nature, you’re a coward that will suckle at the Jones tit for as long as they’ll have you.

Something for you to ponder, you can own your own book in more ways than just owning the office, and owning your own transportable book is controlling your own career. Now, with your carrier pigeon technology and three mutual fund families you handle it’s all too new for you to grasp. Someday I may be able to do in an indy channel what I do now. In fact, Wachovia's indy channel looks pretty strong. OTOH, they don't seem to get rave reviews from those who've dug deeply into them....

[quote=jonesnewbie]

I predict a lot fewer posts from MikeB one the cuts are anounced.

[/quote]

I predict newbie will still be here pontificating from his strip mall office about his vast experience in the business as an LOS 2 working at the Amway of the brokerage business and hiding his CRD….

…just an aside…what is this hiding CRD talk?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude][quote=NY_BROKER]

MikeButler222

I hope that you are not believing what management says 100%. Anyone that puts thier career in the hands of MS management has to be a newbee in the business or aspiring to get into management. 

[/quote]

It would be consistent for MikeB to believe 100% of what management says.  His posts almost always come across as a "company man".  Reminds me of my old Morgan Stanley manager. 

[/quote]

Dude, grow up. You're letting the political talk here spill over into conversations on other subjects.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I think any fair reading of this thread (and despite what you’ve said on the political threads, I’ve found you reasonable on other topics) would show that NY_BROKER has floated rumors and misquoted the CFO of MS in an attempt to run with the “Gorman’s going to have a $350k cut line” line. That may be what happens some day, but it’s obviously not the plan now.

In fact, if you think back NY_BROKER (who has some sort of grudge against MS) has been floating the “They’re going to cut everyone below $350k” routine since last Summer. Several of his deadlines have already come and gone.

I’ve said all along that it’s foolish to entrust your career to anyone else, much less management which can and will turn their decisions on a dime. I’ve pointed out what the CFO REALLY said (as opposed to what BROKER was implying was said), I pointed out what Gorman and Mack have said, and I’ve pointed out how many people would be cut if $350k became a cut line. I’ve never, never said hand your career to management.

[/quote]

Sorry Mike, a little bit of a low blow.  Didn't know the history here.  Nothing personal, it's that sometimes you come across as "one pointed" (hope that makes sense) which can be good as well as bad.   

[quote=dude]

Sorry Mike, a little bit of a low blow. 

[/quote]

Not a problem, dude.

[quote=dude]

Nothing personal, it's that sometimes you come across as "one pointed" (hope that makes sense) which can be good as well as bad.   

[/quote]

Point taken   ;)

[quote=frumhere]...just an aside...what is this hiding CRD talk?[/quote]

Nothing important, we just have a small contingent of cowards that want to yammer on with defamatory, fictional  spin about my identity and CRD, which was reviled a while back, while hiding their own.  I just remind them when they raise the subject how they're hiding behind their own skirts.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=frumhere]...just an aside...what is this hiding CRD talk?[/quote]

Nothing important, we just have a small contingent of cowards that want to yammer on with defamatory, fictional  spin about my identity and CRD, which was reviled a while back, while hiding their own.  I just remind them when they raise the subject how they're hiding behind their own skirts.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Mike,

Sorry , but there is nothing brave about the fact that most everyone on here knows who you are.

You pissed of some psycho that outed you twice, that's unfortunate.

Now you continue to post under the same screen name, that's just plain stupid.

[quote=jonesnewbie][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=frumhere]...just an aside...what is this hiding CRD talk?[/quote]

Nothing important, we just have a small contingent of cowards that want to yammer on with defamatory, fictional spin about my identity and CRD, which was reviled a while back, while hiding their own. I just remind them when they raise the subject how they're hiding behind their own skirts.

[/quote]

Mike,

Sorry , but there is nothing brave about the fact that most everyone on here knows who you are.

[/quote]

Is that right? Well I could have taken the cowardly route, as you suggested, and changed screen names. Then again, since I have nothing to hide, why change names? So that I could avoid pissants like you playing on the “outing”? You consider yourself far more important than you really are, little fella.

[quote=jonesnewbie]

You pissed of some psycho that outed you twice, that's unfortunate.

[/quote]

Seems to me by continuing to try to play that card, you're in the same category he is.

[quote=jonesnewbie]

Now you continue to post under the same screen name, that's just plain stupid.

[/quote]

Sorry, newbie, but the definition of cowardly seems to escape you. Let me give you a hint, someone who plays on the lost of anonymity of another while maintaining their own. THAT's cowardly, and you serve as a shining example..

[quote=jonesnewbie][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=frumhere]...just an aside...what is this hiding CRD talk?[/quote]

Nothing important, we just have a small contingent of cowards that want to yammer on with defamatory, fictional  spin about my identity and CRD, which was reviled a while back, while hiding their own.  I just remind them when they raise the subject how they're hiding behind their own skirts.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Mike,

Sorry , but there is nothing brave about the fact that most everyone on here knows who you are.

You pissed of some psycho that outed you twice, that's unfortunate.

Now you continue to post under the same screen name, that's just plain stupid.

[/quote]

Jonesnewbie:

If MikeB started posting under a different name, I think we'd all know.... he has a very distinctive approach.....if you know what I mean.  Why is it stupid to continue to post under the same screen name?  I guess if MikeB were insecure about being "outed" he would have changed (but like I said, I think we'd all know if he did) it. 

I think it's pansy a*s for these c*cksuckers to leverage the identity issue.  They use it 'cause they can't support their views with any logic or form so they digress into petty school yard pissing matches.  I don't always agree w/you (MikeB), but this sh*t is pathetic.

[quote=mikebutler222]

Is that right? Well I could have taken the cowardly route, as you suggested, and changed screen names. Then again, since I have nothing to hide, why change names?

[/quote]

Because your blood pressure goes up 40 points every time someone calls you a jobhopper.  All that anger can't be healthy.

And as for taking the "cowardly route" and changing screen names, well you already did that once, coward. 

 [quote=mikebutler222]

You consider yourself far more important than you really are, little fella.

[/quote]

Well obviously I am not important to you, why else would you bother responding.  And in just 11 minutes, too. 

[quote=mikebutler222]

Sorry, newbie, but the definition of cowardly seems to escape you. Let me give you a hint, someone who plays on the lost of anonymity of another while maintaining their own. THAT's cowardly, and you serve as a shining example.

[/quote]

Fair enough, by your definition we are both cowards, I can live with that. 

 I’ve enjoyed reading Mike Butler’s contributions.  When I read “hide the CRD” comment I looked him up on Morgan’s internal system to see where he was located.  Thank God Mike B is an alias.  The only Mike Butler listed was a guy that works for the debt collections dept. at Discover card.  Lets get this discussion back on topic.  Mike, what did you think about Gorman’s email where he lists “improve financial discliplin” as one of his objectives? 

[quote=jonesnewbie][quote=mikebutler222]

Is that right? Well I could have taken the cowardly route, as you suggested, and changed screen names. Then again, since I have nothing to hide, why change names?

[/quote]

Because your blood pressure goes up 40 points every time someone calls you a jobhopper.  All that anger can't be healthy.

[/quote]

Again, you over estimate your importance. You're a pissant

[quote=jonesnewbie]

And as for taking the "cowardly route" and changing screen names, well you already did that once, coward. 

[/quote]

It's just amazing how consistantly you're wrong, newbie. I didn't change names voluntarily, I did so at the administator's instruction.

 [quote=mikebutler222]

You consider yourself far more important than you really are, little fella.

[/quote]

[quote=mikebutler222]

Well obviously I am not important to you, why else would you bother responding.  And in just 11 minutes, too. 

[/quote]

You really think it takes much effort or time to counter your foolishness? Sorry, newbie, you're nothing more than a buzzing fly in an open window on my laptop. You're far from being a challenge, much less important.

[quote=mikebutler222]

Sorry, newbie, but the definition of cowardly seems to escape you. Let me give you a hint, someone who plays on the lost of anonymity of another while maintaining their own. THAT's cowardly, and you serve as a shining example.

[/quote]

Fair enough, by your definition we are both cowards, I can live with that. 

[/quote]

Here's a hint, pissant, only one of us is hiding, and that's you coward.

It must suck enough being at Jones, much less being a newbie, but you have to be a special sort of loser to pile coward on the resume of yours.

[quote=dude]

I think it's pansy a*s for these c*cksuckers to leverage the identity issue.  They use it 'cause they can't support their views with any logic or form so they digress into petty school yard pissing matches.  I don't always agree w/you (MikeB), but this sh*t is pathetic.

[/quote]

Dude, I'm loving it. I see it as's nothing but a chance to rattle the cage of a coward who sees himself as some sort of big man 

[quote=MWD123] Mike, what did you think about Gorman's email where he lists "improve financial discliplin" as one of his objectives?  [/quote]

I gotta believe that means real estate cuts and office combining where possible. 'Course that does sound funny coming from a guy that just took millions in company stock for joining the team 

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=MWD123] Mike, what did you think about Gorman's email where he lists "improve financial discliplin" as one of his objectives?  [/quote]

I gotta believe that means real estate cuts and office combining where possible. 'Course that does sound funny coming from a guy that just took millions in company stock for joining the team 

[/quote]

Make that Tens of Millions.

I have no problem with a guy that makes a lot of money…as long as he earns it!

[quote=jonesnewbie][quote=mikebutler222]

Is that right? Well I could have taken the cowardly route, as you suggested, and changed screen names. Then again, since I have nothing to hide, why change names?

[/quote]

Because your blood pressure goes up 40 points every time someone calls you a jobhopper.  All that anger can't be healthy.

And as for taking the "cowardly route" and changing screen names, well you already did that once, coward. 

 [quote=mikebutler222]

You consider yourself far more important than you really are, little fella.

[/quote]

Well obviously I am not important to you, why else would you bother responding.  And in just 11 minutes, too. 

[quote=mikebutler222]

Sorry, newbie, but the definition of cowardly seems to escape you. Let me give you a hint, someone who plays on the lost of anonymity of another while maintaining their own. THAT's cowardly, and you serve as a shining example.

[/quote]

Fair enough, by your definition we are both cowards, I can live with that. 

Hey guys,

GET TO WORK!