Mike my avg. account is 67K. I will take it all day long even though it is lower than some wires minimum, Bill Good on his website says wirehouse brokers are lucky to add I think he said 8 new HNW (250K+) relationships per year, might of been 4 I will check it out I add a few every month. As for IRA’s I open a lot of them I have no shame in that.

[quote=bankrep1]Mike my avg. account is 67K. I will take it all day long even though it is lower than some wires minimum, Bill Good on his website says wirehouse brokers are lucky to add I think he said 8 new HNW (250K+) relationships per year, might of been 4 I will check it out I add a few every month. As for IRA's I open a lot of them I have no shame in that.
[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[quote=bankrep1]Mike my avg. account is 67K. I will take it all day long even though it is lower than some wires minimum, [/quote]

Given there are a limited number of hours in a day (much less what you have in the lobby) what's the max you can make dealing with smaller, less profitable households? Either you're screwing yourself on potential income or you're screwing them by shortchanging them on the time required to do the job right. I'd rather spend that time dealing with people with real assets, giving them real time and attention.

[quote=bankrep1]Bill Good on his website says wirehouse brokers are lucky to add I think he said 8 new HNW (250K+) relationships per year, might of been 4 I will check it out I add a few every month.[/quote]

I couldn't care less what fiction Goode spits out in order to sell his marketing system. Anyone adding only 8 households above $250k, much less 4 a year is on his way out of the business.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=bankrep1]Mike my avg. account is 67K. I will take it all day long even though it is lower than some wires minimum, [/quote]

Given there are a limited number of hours in a day (much less what you have in the lobby) what's the max you can make dealing with smaller, less profitable households? Either you're screwing yourself on potential income or you're screwing them by shortchanging them on the time required to do the job right. I'd rather spend that time dealing with people with real assets, giving them real time and attention.

[quote=bankrep1]Bill Good on his website says wirehouse brokers are lucky to add I think he said 8 new HNW (250K+) relationships per year, might of been 4 I will check it out I add a few every month.[/quote]

I couldn't care less what fiction Goode spits out in order to sell his marketing system. Anyone adding only 8 households above $250k, much less 4 a year is on his way out of the business.

There definitely seems to be a disconnect concerning running your business in the bank setting.

I've been in my practice two years and have never solicited an annuity product.  

How did bank brokerage get this perhaps undeserved repuatation?

Whether we are working in a bank, wirehouse or Indy channel make sure your setting is what works best for you and your clients.   Hardly makes a difference which of the three is chosen.

scrim

[quote=scrim67]

There definitely seems to be a disconnect concerning running your business in the bank setting.

I've been in my practice two years and have never solicited an annuity product.  

How did bank brokerage get this perhaps undeserved repuatation?

Whether we are working in a bank, wirehouse or Indy channel make sure your setting is what works best for you and your clients.   Hardly makes a difference which of the three is chosen.

scrim

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=scrim67]

There definitely seems to be a disconnect concerning running your business in the bank setting.

I've been in my practice two years and have never solicited an annuity product.  

How did bank brokerage get this perhaps undeserved repuatation?

Whether we are working in a bank, wirehouse or Indy channel make sure your setting is what works best for you and your clients.   Hardly makes a difference which of the three is chosen.

scrim

[/quote]

Perhaps because you are the exception that proves the rule....
[/quote]

I had little idea what the proverb actually means.   Here is what I found:

You’re right to query the expression. It has caused as much confusion as any other in the language and is often argued about. The misunderstanding has been amplified by well-meaning but incorrect attempts going back a century to explain it.

These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the existence of a case that doesn’t follow a rule proves the rule applies in all other cases and so is generally correct, notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the logical implication of finding that something doesn’t follow a rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove the rule that all crows are black.

It has often been suggested in reference works that prove here is really being used in the sense of “test” (as it does in terms like “proving ground” or “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”, or in the printer’s proof, which is a test page run off to see that all is correct with the typesetting). It is said that the real idea behind the saying is that the presence of what looks like an exception tests whether a rule is really valid or not. If you can’t reconcile the supposed exception with the rule, there must indeed be something wrong with the rule. The expression is indeed used in this sense, but that’s not where it comes from or what it strictly means.

The problem with that attempted explanation is that those putting it forward have picked on the wrong word to challenge. It’s not a false sense of proof that causes the problem, but exception. We think of it as meaning some case that doesn’t follow the rule, but the original sense was of someone or something that is granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise applies. The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which may be translated as “the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted”.

Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a notice which says “Parking prohibited on Sundays”. You may reasonably infer from this that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week. A sign on a museum door which says “Entry free today” leads to the implication that entry is not free on other days (unless it’s a marketing ploy like the never-ending sales that some stores have, but let’s not get sidetracked). H W Fowler gave an example from his wartime experience: “Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight until 11pm”, which implies a rule that in other cases men must be in barracks before that time. So, in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that the existence of an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the existence of the rule.

Despite the number of reference books which carefully explain the origin and true meaning of the expression, it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to strict correctness. The usual rule in lexicography is that sayings progress towards corruption and decay, never the reverse. Unless this one proves to be an exception ...

You don't have to say it:   Yes, I have way too much free time!

scrim

I service all accounts under 100K a year, one time per year when they are dropping off a check usually. At some point I will not open IRA’s, then I will hire a jr. broker to do it.



I do 0 stock business so I don’t spend time talking about portfolios, tinkering with research, looking up stuff, etc. I outsource prospecting, money management and all reporting, to me it is the most efficient path to success. If you like what you do good, you don’t hear me saying the wirehouse sucks even though I think it does.

[quote=bankrep1]I service all accounts under 100K a year, one time per year when they are dropping off a check usually. At some point I will not open IRA's, then I will hire a jr. broker to do it.

I do 0 stock business so I don't spend time talking about portfolios, tinkering with research, looking up stuff, etc. I outsource prospecting, money management and all reporting, to me it is the most efficient path to success. If you like what you do good, you don't hear me saying the wirehouse sucks even though I think it does.[/quote]

When you freely admit that you outsource everything, including the prospecting, it's a logical question to ask why the bank needs you.

How old do you figure you'll be when the bank fires you--well, let's say they downsize you?  You won't own your book, your clients are at the bank because they're afraid to be anywhere else, so what will you have to offer a future employer?

What happens to the entry level people in banks--your slot on the organization chart seems to me to be a revolving door to nowhere.

You say you do "zero" stock trades--so why in the world would a real brokerage firm want you when the bank explains that they're going to consolidate and the nice black woman from another branch will be handling your branch too since both of your branches are "mature" and need little more than once or twice a week coverage.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=bankrep1]Mike my avg. account is 67K. I will take it all day long even though it is lower than some wires minimum, [/quote]

Given there are a limited number of hours in a day (much less what you have in the lobby) what's the max you can make dealing with smaller, less profitable households? Either you're screwing yourself on potential income or you're screwing them by shortchanging them on the time required to do the job right. I'd rather spend that time dealing with people with real assets, giving them real time and attention.

[quote=bankrep1]Bill Good on his website says wirehouse brokers are lucky to add I think he said 8 new HNW (250K+) relationships per year, might of been 4 I will check it out I add a few every month.[/quote]

I couldn't care less what fiction Goode spits out in order to sell his marketing system. Anyone adding only 8 households above $250k, much less 4 a year is on his way out of the business.

[/quote]

MikeB don't forget it's easy to handle small accounts like that when you slam 'em into an annuity and never call them again......
[/quote]

You make that sound like a bad thing. Why call them if they can't do any more business?

[quote=bankrep1]I service all accounts under 100K a year, one time per year when they are dropping off a check usually. At some point I will not open IRA's, then I will hire a jr. broker to do it.

I do 0 stock business so I don't spend time talking about portfolios, tinkering with research, looking up stuff, etc. I outsource prospecting, money management and all reporting, to me it is the most efficient path to success. If you like what you do good, you don't hear me saying the wirehouse sucks even though I think it does.[/quote]

If I had your type of success, I'd call myself a failure.

I don’t need to defend myself I have several clients who would follow me if I decided to leave, but I don’t see why I would.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=bankrep1]

At the bank I get about a 40% payout, free office abd my calendar is pretty full without doing any prospecting. What exactly don't you get? while your looking for your next sale I am writing business all day long.

[/quote]

One $2k IRA at a time.....

[/quote]

I worked at Morgan Stanley as well as a bank.  For someone who so diligently corrects others on their inaccuracies and 'fear mongering; MikeButler222's comments are totally spoken from the a*s.

I spoke with exponentially more high net worth prospects in one month at the bank than I did in 2 years at Morgan Stanley.  Perhaps it had something to do with my natural market (I was even younger then) and not personally knowing alot of wealthy foks.  Never the less my average account was easily $100,000 plus...with quite a few $500,000 and above accounts.  I never opened an account less than $50,000 at the bank.  Small IRA's were for the bank CD's or the 'platform' rep.

As far as I know, I was not the exception among my other bank broker peers.

MikeButler222, I have been on both sides and can say that I had plenty of sophisticated clients (one was a senior executive of GE/Boeings' joint aircraft engine project) at the bank.  Many of them had acconts with major brokerage houses and were fed up with what they percieved as 'slicksters' running their money.

I have come to the conclusion that those who make broad, blind comments based on their own ego centered opinions (as opposed to what the truth is) are bad at giving good advice.

I would say, though, that I would prefer to work at a wirehouse far more than my previous bank program. 

Please ignore the grammar f*ck ups.  I understand that I may be asking too much though.

Dude, you make good points here.  I, too, spent some time in a bank program, and the program itself wasn't terrible for attracting assets...it was bank management that was my problem.  At one point, I had two accounts in the $5 million + range, and I had probably 12-13 in the million dollar plus range.

Mike zealously defends his platform and he's entitled to do so.  Many on here know that at one point, he & I had a pretty spirited debate about wirehouses vs. indies.  We later made nice and I respect his choice to affiliate with MS and defend them (even though one of the biggest lying @ssholes I ever competed against was from a Morgan Stanley office).

That being said, I do think that MB is too quick to generalize about bank brokers, as are others on these boards.  I certainly met some very stout advisors while I was in the bank channel, and certainly, there have been many successful migrations out of the bank channel to other platforms.  Although my production is modest, I would classify my move form a bank to indy as successful...I'm certainly making more than I did at the bank.  No doubt, there are some lazy bank brokers that perpetuate the stereotypes that many cling to, but I for one think that banks, for all of their warts, do a much better job of recruiting quality reps than they've done in the past.

...and Dude, after you're done reading this post, please log back on as Grammar Police and fix your post...

[quote=dude]

I worked at Morgan Stanley as well as a bank. For someone who so diligently corrects others on their inaccuracies and 'fear mongering; MikeButler222's comments are totally spoken from the a*s. [/quote]

You forget I was at a bank as well, dude, a national program that‘s mentioned here often... So who’s talking from where?

[quote=dude]I spoke with exponentially more high net worth prospects in one month at the bank than I did in 2 years at Morgan Stanley. Perhaps it had something to do with my natural market (I was even younger then) and not personally knowing alot of wealthy foks. [/quote]

I'm not trying to be cruel here, dude, but do you think it's because you didn't bring HNW to MS? I don't know what kind of bank you were at, but where I was HNW people went to private bank and the trust dept. They did not talk to the guy in the investment arm. The bank employees were paid to send them to PB and trust, not me. Furthermore, PB and trust had first crack at all accounts over $300K.

Most of the referrals I did get from bank people were either cranks that PB wouldn't work with or were opening an asset account they could borrow against with the bank folks with little or no work to be done with the investments. The average client there just wasn’t the same sort of investor I work with today and their asset levels simply don’t compare.

If the picken’s were that great, why would you leave?

[quote=dude] I never opened an account less than $50,000 at the bank. [/quote]

That would make you something of a rarity, dude.

[quote=dude] Small IRA's were for the bank CD's or the 'platform' rep.[/quote]

What's a "platform rep"?

[quote=dude]

MikeButler222, I have been on both sides and can say that I had plenty of sophisticated clients (one was a senior executive of GE/Boeings' joint aircraft engine project) at the bank. Many of them had acconts with major brokerage houses and were fed up with what they percieved as 'slicksters' running their money. [/quote]

Then your program was a marvel, because in most bank programs you wouldn't have gotten those folks, PB would have.

[quote=dude]

I have come to the conclusion that those who make broad, blind comments based on their own ego centered opinions (as opposed to what the truth is) are bad at giving good advice.[/quote]

Pot, kettle, black.

[quote=dude]

I would say, though, that I would prefer to work at a wirehouse far more than my previous bank program.

[/quote]

Now that surprises me given how positively you described it. Why is that?

[quote=dude] [quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=bankrep1]At the bank I get about a 40% payout, free office abd my calendar is pretty full without doing any prospecting. What exactly don’t you get? while your looking for your next sale I am writing business all day long. [/quote]

One $2k IRA at a time…

[/quote]

I worked at Morgan Stanley as well as a bank. For someone who so diligently corrects others on their inaccuracies and ‘fear mongering; MikeButler222’s comments are totally spoken from the a*s.

I spoke with exponentially more high net worth prospects in one month at the bank than I did in 2 years at Morgan Stanley. Perhaps it had something to do with my natural market (I was even younger then) and not personally knowing alot of wealthy foks. Never the less my average account was easily $100,000 plus…with quite a few $500,000 and above accounts. I never opened an account less than $50,000 at the bank. Small IRA’s were for the bank CD’s or the ‘platform’ rep.

As far as I know, I was not the exception among my other bank broker peers.

MikeButler222, I have been on both sides and can say that I had plenty of sophisticated clients (one was a senior executive of GE/Boeings’ joint aircraft engine project) at the bank. Many of them had acconts with major brokerage houses and were fed up with what they percieved as ‘slicksters’ running their money.

I have come to the conclusion that those who make broad, blind comments based on their own ego centered opinions (as opposed to what the truth is) are bad at giving good advice.

I would say, though, that I would prefer to work at a wirehouse far more than my previous bank program.

[quote=bankrep1]
This sounds like my program, I do not have any 5 million dollar accounts, but probably 10+ over a million and many over 250K.

We do not have private banking, trust, or a platform program so I handle everything. Million dollar accounts to the 2K IRA and things are great. I have the option of dumping my branches for increased payout 40-55% when my book is large enough.
[/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You handle everything but don’t have any accounts over $5MM? Look, my jabs about $2k IRAs were 40% jest, and I’ll admit to blurring together a few of you folks with “bank” or “ez” in your names, but the prompting was the assertion by one of you guys that you essentially do what wirehouse (and I assume you’d include indies and regionals) do, except you don’t have to prospect.

My point was that that’s just not true. You (and these are generalizations across the bank world) have to deal with anyone referred to you (or you may p$ss off the referrer and thereby never get another) no matter how poor a prospect. You deal largely with smaller, less profitable accounts and that forces you, as you admitted, to under-service those accounts (once a year? Really?). You just don’t get much of a crack at the bigger, more profitable relationships that careers are built on.

Now, having said that, if I were a twentysomething and new to the industry, I may well try to earn my little broker wings at a bank rather than take the plunge (unless I had a network in place already) into a wirehouse or regional (and I wouldn’t even consider an indy role, there you really need to start seasoned). Even imagining having to go back to building a book as I did when I started out (if you even could with DNCL and the like) sends a chill up my spine and I’d even endure life at a bank to avoid it.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=bankrep1]
This sounds like my program, I do not have any 5 million dollar accounts, but probably 10+ over a million and many over 250K.

We do not have private banking, trust, or a platform program so I handle everything. Million dollar accounts to the 2K IRA and things are great. I have the option of dumping my branches for increased payout 40-55% when my book is large enough.
[/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You handle everything but don’t have any accounts over $5MM? Look, my jabs about $2k IRAs were 40% jest, and I’ll admit to blurring together a few of you folks with “bank” or “ez” in your names, but the prompting was the assertion by one of you guys that you essentially do what wirehouse (and I assume you’d include indies and regionals) do, except you don’t have to prospect.

My point was that that’s just not true. You (and these are generalizations across the bank world) have to deal with anyone referred to you (or you may p$ss off the referrer and thereby never get another) no matter how poor a prospect. You deal largely with smaller, less profitable accounts and that forces you, as you admitted, to under-service those accounts (once a year? Really?). You just don’t get much of a crack at the bigger, more profitable relationships that careers are built on.

Now, having said that, if I were a twentysomething and new to the industry, I may well try to earn my little broker wings at a bank rather than take the plunge (unless I had a network in place already) into a wirehouse or regional (and I wouldn’t even consider an indy role, there you really need to start seasoned). Even imagining having to go back to building a book as I did when I started out (if you even could with DNCL and the like) sends a chill up my spine and I’d even endure life at a bank to avoid it.[/quote]

You are making very BROAD and narrow generalizations Mike.  I told the tellers who I wanted to talk with and although I would receive some low quality referrals, most were well above my minimums.

A platform rep is 63 and 6 licenced and can sell a limited menu of mutual funds and annuities.  These reps would be more in line with your stereotypes.

I left the bank because I relocated to a new state to cover three branches in a very remote area where there are many wealthy retirees.  My wife ended up hating it because there was nothing for her and our two children to do...plus there was a significant culture shock for her. 

Then the bank started f*cking with the grid (within my first 4 months too) and I saw a 30% drop in income during a time when I had signed up based on the income I would be making.  I should also note that I lived in a very high cost of living area...the income drop crushed me.  It wouldn't have been so bad if I had a year to get settled in.

The combination of my wife's misery and the bank's bullsh*t persuaded me to leave.  I was pretty despondent about the whole thing since I was looking for an opportunity to live in one of the most beautiful places in this country and have enough time to be a father while doing the work I love.

MB, much of what you just said is a pretty fair assessment of what I saw.  I literally had to ignore 90% of the referrals I received and build my book with the remaining 10% that were worth something and my own prospecting efforts.  No doubt I irritated some folks by not qualifiying their referrals, but thankfully, most of the folks I worked with understood my dilemma and admitted to me that they knew most of what they sent me was crap sent just to hit goal numbers to keep bak management happy.

We didn't have it, but I've seen the platform licensed reps referenced earlier, which are often part customer service reps and part-time mutual fund/annuity sales people.  They are either series 6 reps or strictly insurance licensed for fixed annuities and are designed to handle the small prospects.  I think that kind of program is great for a full-time rep who wants to chase the bigger dollars while not being bogged down with the infamous "2K IRA"...