[quote=JCadieux] [quote=Indyone]

That was gool ole joedabrkr...something about a few less tacos at lunch or something like that, but if I remember right, he said it was all in jest and acknowledged that he liked food too...

[/quote]

I know.  I know.  You can't be too thin skinned around here.

But since that day I've never really been able to enjoy a good taco... 
[/quote]

There's a CERTAIN kind of taco that you can eat that is very enjoyable and has zero calories.

[quote=apprentice]

Reggin - I guess there's no way to verify your accuracy is there?  In fact - for all we know, you're probably in your parents basement watching star trek and surfing the net for various chat rooms.

Anyway - I think you mom is calling you for breakfast.

[/quote]

I know him personally. He was at almost $300,000 with just under 3 years in. The next year, he bought a nice, new Benz. That was 3 years ago. He's a cool guy and well-liked in real life. He works his ass off. He's also living proof that any knucklehead who can figure out what people want to buy and then sell it to them can make a lot of dough. Frankly...I think you've overestimated how much he really cares what you think about how much business he does.

[quote=Helter Skelter][quote=apprentice]

Reggin - I guess there's no way to verify your accuracy is there? 

[/quote]

I know him personally.

[/quote]

Of course you do, but I think we would all prefer it if you quit talking to yourself on these boards.

Production numbers are somewhat insignificant with regard to the quality of advice someone can contribute to the discussion.  Granted, experience is useful and wisdom (coupled with working hard/smart) tends to go along with higher production.

There are countless examples of advisors who were simply in the right place at the right time.  Others that have inherited their clients off the back of brokers leaving.  Etc etc.  The actual practice of managing money is another story altogether. 

"Titles" (not designations) is another subject that deserves some discussion.  They are solely based on production, irregardless of integrity and investment performance.  We have a broker in our office who inherited the father's huge client book.  Did something like 700k in their first year with it and earned a Senior VP title.  Many years' later they have managed to see the assets decline by 65% and production is approx. 250k.  Yet they are still a Senior VP because the title can't be taken away after it has been earned.  And what is this "Wealth Manager" title brokers are giving themselves? Months back I had a client forward an email from a "Wealth Manager" who was trying to push a new-offering closed end.  Give me a break- the broker was trying to pass the investment off as a hot IPO which would be in huge demand due to the "limited offering".  Of course, there was no mention of the "hidden" 3% commission and the reality that almost every new closed-end will fall dramatically after the penalty bid has been lifted due to the lack of secondary demand.  Some "Wealth Manager."

[quote=The Judge]

Production numbers are somewhat insignificant

with regard to the quality of advice someone can contribute to the

discussion. Granted, experience is useful and wisdom (coupled with

working hard/smart) tends to go along with higher production.

There are countless examples of advisors who were simply in the right

place at the right time. Others that have inherited their clients off the

back of brokers leaving. Etc etc. The actual practice of managing money

is another story altogether.

“Titles” (not designations) is another subject that deserves some

discussion. They are solely based on production, irregardless of integrity

and investment performance. We have a broker in our office who

inherited the father’s huge client book. Did something like 700k in their

first year with it and earned a Senior VP title. Many years’ later they have

managed to see the assets decline by 65% and production is approx.

250k. Yet they are still a Senior VP because the title can’t be taken away

after it has been earned. And what is this “Wealth Manager” title brokers

are giving themselves? Months back I had a client forward an email from a

"Wealth Manager" who was trying to push a new-offering closed end.

Give me a break- the broker was trying to pass the investment off as a

hot IPO which would be in huge demand due to the “limited offering”. Of

course, there was no mention of the “hidden” 3% commission and the

reality that almost every new closed-end will fall dramatically after the

penalty bid has been lifted due to the lack of secondary demand. Some

"Wealth Manager."

His point is that people who spend their time criticizing people for making a lot of money and accusing them of earning it dishonestly, think that they give the best advice. They don’t make any money. Therefore, there is an inverse relationship between quality of advice and amount of money earned.

Helty - excellent job, 'dumbing it down' for those who didn't get the point!!

I agree with 'the judge' to call a spade a spade.  People believe that they can better market themselves if they create this false image (Wealth Manager).  However, attorney's are quick to jump on this and have been bringing forth lawsuits to those who call themselves a wealth manager - but somehow only have purchased a couple tech stocks in a client's account.  Most 'wealth managers' today need credentials to back it up.

[quote=The Judge]

Many years’ later they have managed to see the assets decline by 65% and production is approx. 250k.  Yet they are still a Senior VP because the title can’t be taken away after it has been earned.

Couldn’t agree more.

[quote=BrokerRecruit]Couldn’t agree more.[/quote]

Perhaps we should refer those burnt-books to a Candidate Pays firm like the one that Seeker is starting.   

[quote=apprentice]

Helty - excellent job, ‘dumbing it down’ for those

who didn’t get the point!!

[quote=Reggin]Anyone doing it? Why bother scrubbing your list and excluding about 90% of
the available households? Think about it, some of these people havent
gotten called by a broker in 3 years. Talk about ripe for the picking.[/quote]

Even though you are making a joke it is an interesting concept.  My understanding is that you can still reach these 90% but that you need to call them at their office instead of their house.  Can anyone confirm that office numbers can’t be put on the DNC list?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

--WM

http://www.nasd.com

Citizen's Bank got popped yesterday. They're a subsidiary of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS.L). Part of what they got popped for was failure to supervise and DNC list violations.

The entire NASD complaint is available on the NASD's website. If you have a compliance officer on site, perhaps he or she can explain it to you so you don't have to say, "I wish I knew that," if you get caught cold calling persons/entities on the DNC list.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pounding via fines.

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]

 If you have a compliance officer on site, perhaps he or she can explain it to you so you don't have to say, "I wish I knew that," if you get caught cold calling persons/entities on the DNC list.

[/quote]

You can never be certain what's going on in another firm, but I'd be willing to bet the bank provided access to some form of the DNC list to allow reps (and in this case, non-reg bank employees) to scrub their call lists in advance. I've seen versions of this process where the system the firm provides is too bulky or inefficient to really help the reps, but only serves as a CYA ("Hey, we gave you a system, you didn't use it") for the firm.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

What would you like to bet that in this case the non-reg bank folks were calling known bank clients, trying to interest them in investment business, not bothering to screen for the customer being on the DNCL? No matter how it happened, somebody was asleep at the switch.

I think you're right about "how it happened" in that the list the reps got wasn't updated with DNC list names removed.

I read thru the entire NASD complaint and think there are similar ones on the way soon.