[quote=Elvis]Mikebutler, please look at your ranking within the firm. You are currently ranked out 6600 retail brokers. [/quote]

Golly, Elvis, you're a genius (it’s 6,664 “ranked FAs”), except further down that form you'll find you're ranked out of 8,386, which is just about what the firm announced on the 3QTR report in FA count. PWM, btw, isn't part of that number. You could have played that "look at "real brokers"" game long before Mack came on board. Every firm on the street reports ALL brokers in their counts...so you had a point, somewhere?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

BTW, Elvis, I've been giving your situation some thought and I can see why you're so unrelentingly negative. You really are the guy in the cross-hairs. If 100 shares of IBM really is your meat and potatoes trade, you have large numbers of small households as you’ve said and you discount the daylights out of trades (because you don’t think you bring much value) you really are just the guy being pushed to change, and I genuinely can understand your frustration.

Dean Witter used to be a firm where you could stuff people into B shares, do $200k in production, have tiny little accounts all over creation, wear your polyester slacks with the mutual fund embroidered  golf shirt to work and drive home in your six year old Dodge feeling like a pro. That changed a little over a year ago when new management said deadwood goes. Those guys that hung around the office as an example of how not to be a financial services professional, how to retire on active duty and infecting entire complexes with sub-par performance had to go. Last year came the stick with the layoff of over LOS eight, under $225k. Then came the carrot this year of higher payouts (and non-revenue neutral, at that)  and better deferred comp if you could drag yourself across what should be the bare minimum for a pro of $300k. Some people aren’t reacting well to the changes in the firm, and perhaps that’s a signal they should examine further.

Mike, was that former MS broker (Suzanne LaTour) a Dean Witter broker? She’s the one who was featured in that NY Times’ article over the weekend (the NASD arb one).

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]Mike, was that former MS broker (Suzanne LaTour) a Dean Witter broker? She's the one who was featured in that NY Times' article over the weekend (the NASD arb one).[/quote]

Your article was behind the NYTimes reg wall, so I didn't see it. I can tell you someone with a similar name started at DW in 1993 and is with SB now. Interestingly enough, that person has no "Disclosure Events" on their file.

Here’s a free link to the article…



Gretchen Morgenson: An arbitration nightmare for a former Morgan Stanley

investor (International Herald Tribune)



Here’s my favorite part…

"A single woman living on a fixed income … Starting in 1998, she placed

her life savings of $1 million…"

My guess is there’s more there than meets the eye since a three man panel

decided against her in arbitration. I’d like to see full details, without the

writer’s obvious bias.

That's the one---thanks for posting it over here.

I think that broker was Dean Witter by the way and you're right, she's with Smith Barney now.

After reading the lawsuit, The lady deserved only a 5k settlement. At least

she did not ask for the march 2000 market high amount. It is not the

brokers fault that she lost money in the market and it is time for people of

every age to take a little personal responsiblity for their actions. Also if she

kept her investments she would probably be whole now. But she panick and

sold at the bottom as some people did. As for technology stock in the funds,

it represented almost 30% of the S&P in 2000. An index fund ,a mutual fund

wrap account, or a managed account would have performed the same. here

is the link.



After a Legal Victory, an Investor Remains at a Loss (blackenterprise.com)

The biggest problem most retail clients/brokers had in 2000/2001 was they watched too much CNBC and thought the bull market would never end.

Merrill had Blodget shilling internet securities.

Morgan Stanley had Meeker (plus Maryree Clark) shilling the same.

Smith Barney had Grubman shilling telecom.

Lehman's Ravi Suria and Holly Becker told it like it was in 2000---SELL that crap, it's overpriced!

I am sure Lehamns clients lost an equal amount of money. I doubt if the held conference calls for all the brokers and said here is why you need to get out now.I will admit as a former MS employee that their reseach was awful and the kept the stocks on the buy list because of the  corporate finance deals. They were fined for this.

This situation sounds like she lost money cause the market went down, not because she was in Tech stocks.  She would have been down much more if that was the case. The Nasdaq went down 79%. then she would have had a case. I bet you during 1998 and 1999 she was not complaining about anything. Lehman, merrill,  would have lost her an eqaul amount.    personal responsibilty....

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]

Merrill had Blodget shilling internet securities.

Morgan Stanley had Meeker (plus Maryree Clark) shilling the same.

Smith Barney had Grubman shilling telecom. [/quote]

Remember that old kid's song "One of these things is not like the others"?

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]Lehman's Ravi Suria and Holly Becker told it like it was in 2000---SELL that crap, it's overpriced!

[/quote]

Oh, I'd love to see the details on that, the research reports LEH was putting out and how many internet stocks they underwrote....

LEHman was pretty early to say SELL. Ravi's research report on AMZN was why we went SHORT on June 29th (I think it was), 2000.

He was in fixed income research.

The wirehouses (all of them) were still shilling those overpriced internet, biotech, and telecom securities in mid 2000 thru 2001.

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]

LEHman was pretty early to say SELL. Ravi's research report on AMZN was why we went SHORT on June 29th (I think it was), 2000.

He was in fixed income research.

The wirehouses (all of them) were still shilling those overpriced internet, biotech, and telecom securities in mid 2000 thru 2001.

[/quote]

Let me see if I understand you correctly, Yolanda;you say LEH called the top in the NASDAQ and the proof is that a FI guy saying "why we went short" AMZN in June of 2000?

WE went short AMZN in June of 2000. Suria and Becker put out downgrades on it, then. Price chart wise it was very topped out.

Meeker was still shilling it and so was Blodget as I recall.

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]

WE went short AMZN in June of 2000. Suria and Becker put out downgrades on it, then. Price chart wise it was very topped out.

Meeker was still shilling it and so was Blodget as I recall.

[/quote]

I think the name you're looking for when it comes to LEH and the tech bubble is Holly Becker, not the two above. Really not one of LEH's proudest hours....

opps, should read “not Suria”…

A blast from the past....

On AOL, Feb, 2001;

Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker captured the tone of slightly qualified credibility as it relates to AOL Time Warner's forecasts. "There's a 90%-plus probability that AOL Time Warner will meet its $40 billion revenue and $11 billion EBITDA [earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization] targets that it has set for 2001," she wrote in a report Thursday. In a more difficult economic environment, the EBITDA target is "especially attainable," she wrote. Meeker has a strong buy on AOL Time Warner; her firm advised Time Warner in its merger with America Online.

Alluding to AOL Time Warner's recently announced expense-cutting, and the possibility of an AOL service subscription increase, Lehman Brothers' Holly Becker calls the 30% EBITDA growth "well within reach." However, she says she's "less confident" that the 12% to 15% revenue growth forecast for 2001 will be as easy to achieve, given the economy in which AOL Time Warner is operating. That said, Becker believes that AOL Time Warner will accelerate its revenue growth. She has a buy on the company, for which her firm has done underwriting.

Yeah, good old Holly Becker, NasDaq wrecker.

The reason June 29th, 2000 was so "memorable" to me is I sent Stan O'Neal a copy of Ravi Suria's research report from the previous week and told him to have Henry Blodget read it.

Thanks for pulling those articles up, Mike.

[quote=ymh_ymh_ymh]

Yeah, good old Holly Becker, NasDaq wrecker.

The reason June 29th, 2000 was so "memorable" to me is I sent Stan O'Neal a copy of Ravi Suria's research report from the previous week and told him to have Henry Blodget read it.

Thanks for pulling those articles up, Mike.

[/quote]

Beecker was a wrecker, no doubt, but of her own career.

BTW, why would a fixed income guy's call be more important than the equity guy's call on the same stock?

More "who was shilling what" from 2000;

Lehman's "Uncommon Values" list <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

June 28, 2000

Several technology stocks climbed today after being included on Lehman Brothers' list of "10 Uncommon Values."

Agilent Technologies, Hewlett-Packard,  Nortel Networks,  BEA Systems,  Cendant, Gemstar International, Juniper Networks, Eli Lilly, Micron Technology,  Tellabs.

Suria was sharp as a tack, Mike. That's why he's a BUY side guy at a hedge fund now.

JNPR and GMST were great shorts in the summer of 2000, too.

Why no firm's "focus list" is to be trusted.