Anyone with experience who cares to trade a couple of PMs on this topic? No need to air in public. If you PM me, I’ll tell you what I’m wondering about.
3rdyrp2 would probably be the better choice but I will try my best to answer your questions…
Thanks, I PM’d you. Anyone else who cares to PM, I’m trying to get a strategic sense of where things are headed.
Thanks, I am trying to get a sense if the company will eventually eliminate p2 in favor of p1 employees. Is the company supporting P2 for the long term?
they are trying to get as many folks as they can back into P1. They are trying to go wirehouse model payouts, insurance company support.
they are offering many p2's bonuses and checks to go back to p1, including higher payouts, as well as they just changed and raised the restrictions for p1's going p2.
I believe you must be referring to larger metropolitan areas. I don’t believe there is one P1 office in the entire half of my state. We are all P2 offices. We haven’t heard anything about AMP and their desire to change back to P1. They did increase the requirements for AFAs to become P2 advisors though.I don't see the P1 model as being productive outside of metropolitan areas.
Yep, I am in the NJ/PA area, and have heard of multiple offers to large producers to get them to come back to P1, and many P1’s trying to go P2 being denied, even with fairly large production for amp.
Of course AMP is making the offers. Thats corporate America and AMP sees the value the P2 offices can add to HO if the can be transferred back into P1 models. I don’t see any P2s making the transition back though unless they are ready to retire or something. The P1 model is for those who do not want the equity in their business. I would say that AMP would like to have AFAs under a P1 instead of a P2. It would be more profitable to AMP. I would not be surprised if they do away with P2 and require practices to choose P1 or P3 but I don’t see them forcing a P2 to change to a P1.If you know someone that would like to be P2, I recommend they move to an AFA under a P2 then transition to a P2 themself.
Why not just go straight to p2 if coming from the outside? I wonder how the company’s recruiting effort at getting P2s from the outside, vs. trying to get experienced brokers at P1 (or starting from scratch). Just wondering how competitive AMP will be down the road, or if economies of scale will keep P2 viable vs. the competition. Around spinoff time from Amex,there were questions if AMP would eventually be sold. I just wonder if the company is growing in terms of number of reps or market share, how is the Cracchiolo strategy playing out. I see cost reductions and slow, positive changes, is the company changing fast enough?
Just like any other company, AMP will recruit what they believe to be most profitable to AMP.I believe AMP is suprised how profitable the P2 practices are as opposed to the P1 model that caused a lot of the bad rap Ameriprise recieved. P1s will not have equity in their practice so I do not see it as ever being a good option for independent minded advisors. I have not been around since the AMEX days but it does not seem like the number of reps is increasing because so many stay as AFAs under their P2 advisor to maximize payout %. The number of AFAs is increasing. Someone else will have to chime in as to P1's results because like I said earlier there is not a P1 office within 200 miles at least. As far as Cracchiola is concerned, I don't think he could move much faster. AMP has made a lot of aquisitions and the perks from HR Block will benefit probably more then any of the others.
I guess the AFAs represent the next generation, whether it’s an AFA who is gearing down to retirement or gearing up to possibly buy a practice.It is nice to see the aquisitions, a broader insurance portfolio would be a good sign. I guess the company's strength has always been the relative stability of the independent field force. Before P2 there were contractors, a fiercely independent breed. The franchise requirements have remained relatively unchanged for over a decade and have mostly been driven by the regulatory environment, not company policy. Cracchiola, on balance, seems to be a good captain of a conservative ship.
I live in an area where there are 5 P1 offices within a 40 mile radius and I’ll tell you one thing, there is ZERO way that more than 10% of P2 advisors in this area would accept any type of deal to go P1. There’s something to be said for being in total control of operations in your office (I’m an AFA so I’m not necessarily living the dream yet but I see it on a daily basis w/my senior advisor and the other senior advisor in the office) and working on your own schedule. Every P2 advisor in this area left P1 at some point in the past, so I don’t see what the corporate office could implement that would make them think that the P2 side would just accept some new “streamlined business process” or whatever corporate-speak that our execs annoying like to use to transition back to P1 and work in a corporate office and share staff/supplies/technology/resources with other advisors when you once had all that stuff to yourself. In short, I don’t think we’ve got anything to worry about.
Exactly. Our practice aquired an office from a retiring 50yr vet. He is transitioning to an AFA and one of our AFAs will transition to a P2 advisor.
I guess the AFAs represent the next generation, whether it’s an AFA who is gearing down to retirement or gearing up to possibly buy a practice.
[quote=Milyunair]Why not just go straight to p2 if coming from the outside? I wonder how the company's recruiting effort at getting P2s from the outside, vs. trying to get experienced brokers at P1 (or starting from scratch). Just wondering how competitive AMP will be down the road, or if economies of scale will keep P2 viable vs. the competition. Around spinoff time from Amex,there were questions if AMP would eventually be sold. I just wonder if the company is growing in terms of number of reps or market share, how is the Cracchiolo strategy playing out. I see cost reductions and slow, positive changes, is the company changing fast enough?[/quote]
amp changed the rules on the AFA to p2 route. they made it damn near impossible now for p1's to go afa under a p2, and then indy themselves.
most of the recruiting, at least here in the north east is to get people from the outside to a p1 platform.
On the surface, vs a wirehouse, you get a bit higher payout at a lower level, and more promised support.
for the people already there, they are getting the short end of it.
p3 is not an option in the northeast, and never talked about.
P1 is basicly where they are investing the money into. Heck, they now even forced the fvp's (branch managers) to start producing and a reduced base.
Yeah, I get the impression the resources are going to P1. P2s probably have little incentive to pitch proprietary products, which are not bad in all cases (like insurance). I have to think the overall strategy leaves money on the table. Seems like so much potential not quite actualized, in terms of a mix of branding and independence, just from my POV. But overall, a decent value proposition with flexibility in terms of how you want to affiliate with a b/d. Never dull, since the IDS days.
Lets be honest.... p2 is positioned as independent, but lets be honest, you are not trully independent. You are still restricted to one variable annuity, and 3 insurance products.
Dont get me wrong, they are not bad products, but there are others out there.
P2 is ameriprise with a higher payout 81% to 91%, but you pay your own ticket charges, office space, the whole 9 yards.
essentially, you are paying all of your own expenses anyway, but giving up 20% or so of your pay on average, not including technology fees, ticket charges, etc, just so you have no FVP on your ass, supposed equity in your firm, but have the ability to hold your 7 and 66 just so you can do commissioned based business.
lets be honest, Amp can at any point in time choose not to renew your independent contractor status, keep the clients. Don't kid yourselves... Ameriprise thinks of your clients as their clients, and will fight for them.
P2 advisors are between a rock and a hard place honestly going forward. Amp is putting more into the p1 platform to get high producers there, raising the minimum production every year. when I was leaving a few years ago, I beleive the average p2 advisor was writing just shy of 150k? gdc. and for the most part, they were very happy, taking home after expenses and after the grid around 75k and coasting by.
Amp is no longer happy with that and trying to recruit those shyed out brokers writing 300k, whom to a wirehouse are a nobody in the big picture.
I understand in the midwest, p2 is the way of life, but not on the coasts. It will be very interesting to see where it ends up. Most people at amp i speak with, both in management, p1 and p2 all see pressure and requirements going up. I know of a few 250k - 400k producers at amp that were told they could not go p2.
Any p2 producer under 400k ought to be looking at the RIA route, most of them are using SPS wrap account anyway, and giving up 25bpts on administration fee, might as well go RIA, and keep 100% of the business.
the existing p1's are also in a hard place. They are not getting any support unless they are over 200k. the new recruits either got salary plus nice grid, others took a nice grid locked for a few years. Existing p1 advisors are essentially still on the base draw, and their payouts cut to nothing.
Only good places to be within AMP are P1 writing over 400k, or p2 with a million dollar practice.
With P2, what is great is that AMP is throwing money at you to go buy up existing books of businesses so you can replace those insurance policies and annuities and sell them RAVA and a VUL. They even forgive the loan after 7 years.... woohoooo.
Btw, for the AFA's.... why do you think your P2 took you on as AFA... your production gets pooled into theirs. This was shut down recently.
Alot of the AFA's that were brought in, are those P1's who couldnt hack it to 250k gdc or higher and were having their payouts cut even more. They called their P2 buddies and were offered the same gig but with the bigger payout. Its a win for the afa/p1 as they no longer had an fvp, and got a higher payout in alot of instances, and a win for the p2 advisor as they got some more production to pool together to get a higher payout. And of course... when the AFA fails out of the business.... freee clients.... wait wait... not anymore, P2 advisor has to pay to Corporate P1 on any p1 assets that go with advisor to AFA role.
really, the only winner here is ameriprise corporate. they have a wide distribution channel. Put advisors in a position to take the upfront comp, RAVA/VUL/A Shares, since there is no salary and only draw.... then... when advisor leaves business or leaves amp, they cant take anything away except assets, and all the RAVA and Insurance business... and oh yeah, REITS stay with the firm cause they dont have selling agreements with anyone else.
Humn.... so this is why all the P2's stay p2..... because they wouldnt be able to take 1/3 the assets away anyway.
sorry guys, that it turned into a rant... I really owe alot to my amp days, and enjoyed them every minute. The products are actually pretty good, and financial planning is the cornerstone.
My issue with amp is corporate values towards advisors.
Good grief. I don't even know where to start. Amp is a company and they, like all companies, will do what is best for Amp first. You either work with it or against it. For the practice I am with it seems to work great thus far. And must be far better then P1 since nobody is P1 anywhere near us.About the clients... What company doesn't think the clients belong to them. AMP, AMEX, IDS even when the company had or has contracts stating the ownership of client relationships advisors still sold them to each other under the table.
debolt, there are no p1 offices around you, as you said, because most are small p2 offices. p1 is primarily on the coasts, and TX. =)
Yes, advisors sold clients under the table. keyword, under the table.