[quote=EricCKS]

I have one of their reps calling offering me a position there. I turned them down back in December due to bad timing. And I was exploring some other things that have since not panned out. Aside from their legal problems what do you know.

Thanks

Eric

[/quote]

They have, literally, some of the lowest standards for hiring in the industry.

Managers of other firms know that.  W&R is a place that can actually ruin your resume--not because somebody will later think you're a ganster, instead what happens is they think of you as a somebody who was hired by the firm with no standards.

That's not good.

They have, literally, some of the lowest standards for hiring in the industry.

Managers of other firms know that.  W&R is a place that can actually ruin your resume--not because somebody will later think you're a ganster, instead what happens is they think of you as a somebody who was hired by the firm with no standards.

That's not good.

I knew from visiting around that they hired as many folks as they could and hope a few survive. I my area there are not too many reps aside from Reed, Jones, New England, and some other companies that generally do the same thing with a different store front. There are no "big" companies that are mentioned on this board in my area. KC and Wichita are more likely to have the bigger firms.

Thanks Eric

Two words: Stephen Sawtelle.

Google this, then declare end of thread.

Two words: Stephen Sawtelle.

Google this, then declare end of thread.

Wow, qualifies a few other things I have read. Not being argumentative here but don't all these companies have various abuses of authority? Seems like I read that one of Jone's folks was brought up on charges of some kind a few months ago.

Thanks Eric

[quote=RealityBichslap]

Two words: Stephen Sawtelle.

Google this, then declare end of thread.

[/quote]

Wow, I can't believe that story didn't make a memo that would have crossed my desk.  Every boy and girl should read the piece from "On Wall Street" that you can find with Google.

You may have to read it twice because of the "S" names and trying to keep them straight.

The lesson to keep in mind is this.  If you become embroiled in a significant customer complaint you're going to be walking a very fine line.  You do not want to have to hire your own counsel and you probably won't have to unless there is evidence that you were, in fact, a rogue or may end up being too cooperative with the customer.

Firms have a vested interest in keeping you on the plantation--the firm is the deep pockets that will be looked to to pay whatever damages may be levied and what they don't need is for you to (essentially) turn state's evidence and implicate your manager or the firm's supervisory procedures.

So they'll see to it that their attorney also represents you, for as long as they can logically do it.

And don't figure that this is a concern that won't affect you because you're honest.  Clients can demand an arbitration proceeding for no reason at all--and a well coached client will actually sit and say that you did not tell them something, or they did not realize something, or whatever it takes.

The way they see it, their money is gone but your firm has plenty of money so all they're doing is the kabuki dance that is necessary to get it back.

They have no intention of harming you--they see it as taking the steps that are necessary for them to get their money back.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Most don't even intend to ask for punitive awards, and if asked will swear that that was their attorney's idea and demand.  Probably was, attornies are whores.

If I've heard it once I've heard it a hundred times, "The guy was my friend.  We played golf at least twice a month.  Then one day he told me that he was going to sue me, that it wasn't personal, but it was something that he had to do."  His attorney will keep 1/3 of what they can get out of your employer, so why not?  Sure they're not going to be friends with you any longer--that's too bad but business is business.

It doesn't happen a lot, but parents who lost money in an account managed by their son or daughter will sue their child. It is normally concluded that the child is involved and will testify in a light that is negative to the firm, so almost always the firm will require that the broker obtain their own counsel.

Very often a broker will feel that he or she was somehow to blame for what happened to the client--taking on guilt for bad recommendations.  Often the broker will suggest that the client should sue the firm--but beg the client to never admit that the suggestion was made.  The client, not wanting to harm the broker, will agree to never reveal that--and they don't.

While that may seem like a good way to rectify a bad situation it is not.  Brokers who try that end up with all sorts of negative things on their U-4s and make themselves (essentially) unemployable elsewhere while also being a paraiah at the firm they're with.

My point is never--as in NEVER--think it would be a good idea to suggest that a client talk to a lawyer about ways to recoup their lost money.

In a lot of ways you have to become as disintersted as an oncologist who is treating a patient who is going to die.  You do the best job you can and you do not allow yourself to assume anything resembling guilt for the things that go wrong.