Check out the YHOO board for Morgan Stanley (MWD:NYSE) once in a while. I have been posting information of interest to you all over there from time to time.

a 500k producer currently is ranked 1900 of the mwd brokers.

a 300k producer is ranked around 3000.

250 was @ 4500 (in july)

210 was @ 5100 (in july)

also there are probably 2000-3000 brokers that are under 5 years that are not doing 300k and will never reach 300k.

they are still employed and 225k brokers were cut?

[quote=frumhere]I concur.  Never believe the compnay cares about you.  One day they love you, the next day they don’t.  I have seen the biggest A-holes get accolades.  Why?  B/c they do alot of gross.  If they stopped tomorrow, no one would be interested in them. Don’t fool yourself.  Take care of you first.  Don’t assume your clients care about you or that your company cares about you.[/quote]

Somewhere a couple years ago I read a story about a decent producer (I don’t remember…maybe $500k?) who was in the process of transitioning to fee-based–as the firm requested–when his production dropped (as would be expected) and he was fired.

Well, if you do good by your clients, they will care about you.

I was wondering:  what if someone at Morgan Stanley had cancer or some other health problem and their production dropped as a result (expectable), would they be fired, too?

That happened.  MWD did not take illness into consideration.

[quote=ringo]

a 500k producer currently is ranked 1900 of the mwd brokers.

a 300k producer is ranked around 3000.

250 was @ 4500 (in july)

210 was @ 5100 (in july)

[/quote]

Ringo, keep in mind that these numbers are skewed.  There are vertical teams in place where the Jr. Brokers do minimal production, as well as a license CSAs, CACs, and Rookies that are mixed into those rankings as well.

[quote=iconsult100][quote=ringo]

a 500k producer currently is ranked 1900 of the mwd brokers.

a 300k producer is ranked around 3000.

250 was @ 4500 (in july)

210 was @ 5100 (in july)

[/quote]

Ringo, keep in mind that these numbers are skewed.  There are vertical teams in place where the Jr. Brokers do minimal production, as well as a license CSAs, CACs, and Rookies that are mixed into those rankings as well.

[/quote]

I couldn't tell you what a CSA or CAC is, but his numbers aren't skewed unless you begin to translate them into precentages, ie; "a 500K producer is in the top 25%". You might also want to consider production in "length of Service" (LOS) breakdowns, as that's what MS did with their cuts.

[quote=ringo]

also there are probably 2000-3000 brokers that are under 5 years that are not doing 300k and will never reach 300k.

they are still employed and 225k brokers were cut?

[/quote]

They did it by LOS. At LOS 8 and above the cut line was $225k. It was lower for newer people.

MSdog,  Call-Center FAs (CAC) are counted as brokers, but are paid salaries and do not actively look to generate revenue.  Essentially, they watch over the small clients.

Senior FAs sometimes partner with Jr. FAs and simply pay them a flat salary and the majority of the group's production goes to the Senior FA.

CAC's and Jr. FA's, and rookies are still Financial Advisors and are ranked, but their production is minimal.  So if an FA thinks they won't be fired because there are 4,000 people below them, they may be mistaken because 2,000 of those people may fit into these categories and therefor are not likely to be cut.

I don't know if it really matters, or not, but I have been told "No more cuts - Period.  We are going with the team that's on the field."

Now, this could just be a typical corporate answer, who knows.

[quote=iconsult100]

I don't know if it really matters, or not, but I have been told "No more cuts - Period.  We are going with the team that's on the field."

Now, this could just be a typical corporate answer, who knows.

[/quote]

Don't be stupid.  Don't trust them.....they'll tell you what they think you want to hear.....and then screw you when it suits their needs.....

I was told that I had nothing to worry about three weeks before I was fired. You know the statement buyer beware,        &nbsp ;         &nbsp ;             at Morgan Stanley it's broker beware.

[quote=frumhere]I concur.  Never believe the compnay cares about you.  One day they love you, the next day they don’t.  I have seen the biggest A-holes get accolades.  Why?  B/c they do alot of gross.  If they stopped tomorrow, no one would be interested in them. Don’t fool yourself.  Take care of you first.  Don’t assume your clients care about you or that your company cares about you.[/quote]

Somewhere a couple years ago I read a story about a decent producer (I don’t remember…maybe $500k?) who was in the process of transitioning to fee-based–as the firm requested–when his production dropped (as would be expected) and he was fired.

Well, if you do good by your clients, they will care about you.

I was wondering:  what if someone at Morgan Stanley had cancer or some other health problem and their production dropped as a result (expectable), would they be fired, too?

No… Not at ML anyway, I know this first hand. They have bent over backwards to help.

[quote=iconsult100]

MSdog,  Call-Center FAs (CAC) are counted as brokers, but are paid salaries and do not actively look to generate revenue.  Essentially, they watch over the small clients.

Senior FAs sometimes partner with Jr. FAs and simply pay them a flat salary and the majority of the group's production goes to the Senior FA.

CAC's and Jr. FA's, and rookies are still Financial Advisors and are ranked, but their production is minimal.  So if an FA thinks they won't be fired because there are 4,000 people below them, they may be mistaken because 2,000 of those people may fit into these categories and therefor are not likely to be cut.

[/quote]

I don't think MS employs call center brokers and jr reps working fully in a partnership only have a partnership rep number. You're right that saying "I'm safe because X number are below me" isn't wise because you have to take LOS into account. BUT, saying "I'm 4500" is just fine and you ARE safe unless the firm decides to cut down to 4500 or fewer reps. Hardly likely.

Just got a note saying “NO SIMILAR” cuts this year.  Either they mean, now that we cut those people, let cut the next tier up OR that there will be no more cuts.   

"We are moving forward and have no current plans for additional, similar reductions – in fact, for 2006 our plan is to grow our Financial Advisor force. "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /><o:p></o:p>

grow=recruit

similar=more cuts, but different then last time.

I think you’re right about the first one, at least until they revamp the training program. On the second one you have to be more cynical than l am to assume there will be cuts. It isn’t impossible, but just how would there be " more cuts, but different then last time"? Would they cut top producers instead of the bottom?

People, please use your heads. I dont know how many of you guys are rookies are in managment but our National Director just sent an email that there will be no more cuts. Why? Because rookies who have 2 year salary contracts will leave. We are not hiring anymore trainees (cut from 2400 to 1000) and there will be a fall out. 5 trainees just left my office this week alone. Many are sitting on a fence and already interviewing out of this business. We are losing brokers in droves. Not just Rookies but Club members.

[quote=MSdog]"We are moving forward and have no current plans for additional, similar reductions – in fact, for 2006 our plan is to grow our Financial Advisor force. "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />[/quote]

I saw that as well.  But they never says how they plan to accomplish this or what they are planning to spend.  Also, they never have addressed the issue of FA retention.