Its great that ML has what it takes to bring in the big accounts but I still havnt heard an answer to my question.

What major tools or resources set the two firms apart? (ML vs AGE) What makes that difference in the two firms?

List two to five things.  Im the client tell me what makes the difference.

Y"ou sure about that figure for Bernstein Private Wealth?  That's HUGE!"

JoeDaMan, these Bernstein guys are ridiculous. We had someone from their Alliance Advisor Insitutue speak to our complex, and he said the only focus on developing relationships with their local attorney's, CPA's, centers of influence, etc. They are REQUIRED to have 15 meetings a week with these people to develop referral networks, etc. Also, they only sell the proprietary Alliance Bern money management, nothing else. Talk about a closed platform eh???  The guy told us that their largest FA brought in $450MM last year alone, and half our FA's almost puked up their Evian... Scary thing is they are expanding from LA down to our area by early next year- it has some of our FA's fairly nervous...

[quote=blarmston]

Y"ou sure about that figure for Bernstein Private Wealth?  That's HUGE!"

JoeDaMan, these Bernstein guys are ridiculous. We had someone from their Alliance Advisor Insitutue speak to our complex, and he said the only focus on developing relationships with their local attorney's, CPA's, centers of influence, etc. They are REQUIRED to have 15 meetings a week with these people to develop referral networks, etc. Also, they only sell the proprietary Alliance Bern money management, nothing else. Talk about a closed platform eh???  The guy told us that their largest FA brought in $450MM last year alone, and half our FA's almost puked up their Evian... Scary thing is they are expanding from LA down to our area by early next year- it has some of our FA's fairly nervous...

[/quote]

Had a Hartford wholesaler by for lunch the other day.  He confirmed the Alliance Bernstein numbers.  It appears that they are putting most of their folks in the Alliance Bernstein Balanced Wealth Strategy.

Anyway, their presentation has moved away from "we can beat XYZ index", Monte Carlo simulations, tax advantaged investing, portfolio rebalancing, blah, blah, blah...

Their focus is on the "Individual Investor Index".

"Most of the smaller regionals can offer most of the products and services the big boys can offer.  They want the high net-worth clients, too, you know.  And they'll put in place what they need to get them.  They may be a year or two behind, but they'll get it."

And in a year or two the big boys will have something else the smaller firms don't have. If you're happy constantly being a year or two behind, or if your clients don't need whatever you're behind on, fine.

Joedbroker-

I think I clearly indicated that ML is not a sure fire magnet for large accounts.

I also think we have all been around long enough to not be overwhelmed by a Bernstein guy bringing in $450 mil. It happens at all firms. we had a guy  bring in that much last year.....it was a 401k, the broker was friends with the union leader, and had been working on it for years.

ABCD

ML v AGE ..... if you were a base ball player, would you rather play for the NY Yankees or cleveland gobblcoks. They are Big, Old, always lead innovation, have legendary brokers, and the bottom line is it's where an advisor would like to excell and build a career at. They have there problems and black eyes too, but they are just at the top. Also, choosing ML as an advisor would be a different conversation than as a client.  

[quote=moneyadvisor] if you were a base ball player, would you rather
play for the NY Yankees or cleveland gobblcoks.  [/quote]



Actually, the cleveland gobblecocks are ahead of the Yankees in the wild card race! 

[quote=Scorpio]Its not a matter of opinion that ML has the best tools, research (#1 according to WSJ),     [/quote]

ML #1 in research??  If you're talking about the WSJ article in May ("Best of the Street") that ranks firms by # of analyst awards you're only superficially right.  Yes, Merrill was #1 in terms of most analysts (ten) receiving awards, but Merrill also had 59 analysts in the survey.  If you look at that article's "batting average" calculation (which measures the # of analysts winning as a percentage of total analysts), Merrill is far down the list.  In fact, of the 20 firms in the survey, their "batting average" would have placed them 16th!!

So, to say ML is #1 is the same as saying that I'm #1 as a dart player if I threw the most bullseyes, but every other player threw half the number of darts that I did.

Go cleveland!!!

ML does not have higher payout on proprietary products, that was done away with almost 10 years ago

Its not a matter of opinion that ML has the best tools, research (#1 according to WSJ), services, software, specialists, resources…the list is too long to get into the specifics.  The only other firm that comes close is Smith Barney.  But in the end, all it comes down to is whether you can bring in assets or not.  At ML they will expect much much more out of you than at AGE, so that should be a factor in your decision as well.  If you think you can bring in 7.5 M+ per year, go with ML.  If you think you can only bring in 3-4 M per year, go with AGE.  If you don’t think you can even do that, find another line of work.  I’m not trying to be sarcastic…that is what these firms expect you to produce.      

[quote=maybeeeeeeee][quote=Scorpio]Its not a matter of opinion that ML has the best tools, research (#1 according to WSJ), services, software, specialists, resources....the list is too long to get into the specifics.  The only other firm that comes close is Smith Barney.  But in the end, all it comes down to is whether you can bring in assets or not.  At ML they will expect much much more out of you than at AGE, so that should be a factor in your decision as well.  If you think you can bring in 7.5 M+ per year, go with ML.  If you think you can only bring in 3-4 M per year, go with AGE.  If you don't think you can even do that, find another line of work.  I'm not trying to be sarcastic...that is what these firms expect you to produce.       [/quote] [/quote]

You can find research to name Raymond James #1 in Equity Research if you see the Penn State Study by J. Randall Woolridge.  Also, Barron's named Raymond James #1 with best returns over a 5 year period.

Culture and management.  RJ may not be the biggest, but I think we serve the $250,000 to 10M client the best.

I don't know about RJ.  I have only been in a couple offices, and to be honest, I have my doubts on the indy industry, especially with all of the crackdowns of late.

As far as the top advisors being at ML, that's a load of crap.  You can be with any firm (except maybe EDJ) and be a top advisor and have huge accounts (as long as you have the necessary products behind you).  I don't work for ML, but I do work for a large wirehouse.  And to be honest, people do business with 90% me and 10% my company.

The reason ML has larger average accounts per rep is because they dump mediocre reps a lot quicker than other firms.  What I like to refer to as "trimming".  Think about it, EDJ, AGE, SB, and any other firm could easily cut the lower end of the line and put accounts onto their top reps, and they have just increased their numbers.  They can also institute larger account minimums to bring the average account size up.  Those numbers are just crap.  Work where you feel comfortable and do what's best for your clients, and everything will be great!

[quote=Kargon]

I don't know about RJ.  I have only been in a couple offices, and to be honest, I have my doubts on the indy industry, especially with all of the crackdowns of late.

[/quote]

Just to be clear, RJ is not just an indy firm, but their indy side (RJFS)is the biggest part of the parent.  Raymond James & Associates (sister b/d to RJFS) is a full-service regional NYSE member firm, which is how RJ started out.  They subsequently (30 yrs ago) decided to also establish an indy b/d, which is now RJFS.

What he said.