If these firms were making money, i mean really really making profit, then the money paid for retention would be coming fom profit. But they arent. You can furk around with all the smoke and mirrors they want, fi there is no profit, then the money represents a deficit, and the deficits are funded by TARP. So call it whatever you want, its TARP.

Using a Recruiter - I couldn’t agree more with the earlier post regarding the need to use a recruiter. My partner and I recently moved from a large wirehouse to UBS and the consultative and professional approach of our recruiter helped us immeasurably to make the best decision for us and to maximize the economics. I am posting his name because he was so helpful to us that I truly think you would be doing yourself a disservice not to at least interview him before making a decision on how to proceed with making a move (we interviewed several and were very meticulous about the process). His name is Jordan Schultz and he is with Leitner Sarch and his number is 914-682-4000.He helped us navigate the landscape of wirehouses, regionals and independents, never showed any bias, negotiated on our behalf, gave us excellent perspective and advice and was a consummate professional. If you have questions you can email me privately. We are very happy with the outcome of the process Jordan helped us through and I am sharing this information only to be helpful to others FAs as they navigate these difficult times. Good luck.

This is great if you are working for these firms and producing. I just watched again this morning and all the news stations were really pumping this story. Dont want to sound political and like a crazy person, but it just confirms the whole globalist movement and how the banks really control this country and can do and get away with whatever they want. My cousin is really trying to get me in at Smith Barney so I will see what happens, I could have been working there in September but I did not like the way they approached getting me licensed. It was a waiting game and I did not want to sit on my hands. So I went out and got licensed and now I am waiting for them to hopefully open the doors again for me.

[quote=lelonyc]

This is great if you are working for these firms and producing. I just watched again this morning and all the news stations were really pumping this story. Dont want to sound political and like a crazy person, but it just confirms the whole globalist movement and how the banks really control this country and can do and get away with whatever they want. My cousin is really trying to get me in at Smith Barney so I will see what happens, I could have been working there in September but I did not like the way they approached getting me licensed. It was a waiting game and I did not want to sit on my hands. So I went out and got licensed and now I am waiting for them to hopefully open the doors again for me.

[quote=Sportsfreakbob] If these firms were making money, i mean really really making profit, then the money paid for retention would be coming fom profit. But they arent. You can furk around with all the smoke and mirrors they want, fi there is no profit, then the money represents a deficit, and the deficits are funded by TARP. So call it whatever you want, its TARP.

[/quote]



If I am making the firm $1,000,000 and only getting $500k for myself every single year, then it’s worth it for the firm to pay me to keep making them that money. The firm as a whole being profitable is not what I’m paid for. I do everything I can, and the remainder is up to the people that are paid significantly more than I am to do so. I do more than my part for the firm’s profit.



Anyone saying that my own income should be compromised because some jackass couldn’t run a company properly, is in the wrong business. My business is already being impacted by the incompetency of the people running my firm and yes, they need to compensate me for dealing with that and staying there. What you’re saying is like saying to you that since that rookie in your office didn’t make it, your payout is going to drop by 20%. It’s unrelated to what you do and what you bring to the table.

[quote=kaap]Using a Recruiter - I couldn’t agree more with the earlier post regarding the need to use a recruiter. My partner and I recently moved from a large wirehouse to UBS and the consultative and professional approach of our recruiter helped us immeasurably to make the best decision for us and to maximize the economics. I am posting his name because he was so helpful to us that I truly think you would be doing yourself a disservice not to at least interview him before making a decision on how to proceed with making a move (we interviewed several and were very meticulous about the process). His name is Jordan Schultz and he is with Leitner Sarch and his number is 914-682-4000.He helped us navigate the landscape of wirehouses, regionals and independents, never showed any bias, negotiated on our behalf, gave us excellent perspective and advice and was a consummate professional. If you have questions you can email me privately. We are very happy with the outcome of the process Jordan helped us through and I am sharing this information only to be helpful to others FAs as they navigate these difficult times. Good luck.[/quote]

I agree. Been there, done that. I know Sarch, his firm is solid although they have not been mine. There’s a load of recruiters out there and 5 of what I’d say are long time very reputable firms. Sarch, Peterson, Willis, Diamond,seem to be most often quoted. There are some bigger firms who’s names you’d know but I’ve found they tend to be lead ‘squatters’ and not really recruiters. Loads of cold callers who basically take your name, pass it off and you never hear from them again.  Personally I like Willis Consulting- Dave and Pat in their Scottsdale office are real pros. Those guys are very up on what’s happening and saved me a ton of leg work and mental fruhstration. 480-361-9490 I think

One more thought on this. Based on my experience in my ‘former’ career some years ago. I’ve come to appreciate the fact that my phone rings pretty often with RECRUITER cold calls. It’s a damn good sign that you’re ‘OK’ and you have options whether you want them now or not.

It’s when the recruiter calls STOP and you never get them that you know you’re in trouble. A clear sign of a drying ‘niche’. Ask your IB friends who’s phones were burned up for years with mega offers. Those guys are now dropping CVs by the hundreds and getting no love.

FA just joined UBS and was reportedly paid 220% -- he was a 600K producer.

[quote=MrBig] [quote=Sportsfreakbob] If these firms were making money, i mean really really making profit, then the money paid for retention would be coming fom profit. But they arent. You can furk around with all the smoke and mirrors they want, fi there is no profit, then the money represents a deficit, and the deficits are funded by TARP. So call it whatever you want, its TARP.

[/quote]



If I am making the firm $1,000,000 and only getting $500k for myself every single year, then it’s worth it for the firm to pay me to keep making them that money. The firm as a whole being profitable is not what I’m paid for. I do everything I can, and the remainder is up to the people that are paid significantly more than I am to do so. I do more than my part for the firm’s profit.



Anyone saying that my own income should be compromised because some jackass couldn’t run a company properly, is in the wrong business. My business is already being impacted by the incompetency of the people running my firm and yes, they need to compensate me for dealing with that and staying there. What you’re saying is like saying to you that since that rookie in your office didn’t make it, your payout is going to drop by 20%. It’s unrelated to what you do and what you bring to the table. [/quote]

I’m not saying that you (or I) shouldnt be rewarded for our production. Believe me, i have no problem with retention, recruiting or whatever. I am just saying, its tarp money. There is nothing wrong with that. The govt is giving this money to these firms and they are using it to stabilize their businesses, via retention and recruiting. Its still tarp money. I have more of a problem with the media and congressmen who are grandstanding without understanding how our business works.

Tarp money?   Do this, look up what the TOTAL expenses were for WFC last year, and their total income, and then tell me how you can assign tarp money to any specific expense item. 

Building the biggest brokerage firm on Wall Street is proving costly to Morgan Stanley and Citigroup Inc., which are planning to pay brokers about $3 billion to keep them from being poached away from the joint venture, people familiar with the matter said.

[quote=Go_Long]Tarp money?   Do this, look up what the TOTAL expenses were for WFC last year, and their total income, and then tell me how you can assign tarp money to any specific expense item. 

After 15 years in the industry on many levels I can tell all of you that they are paying big

Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, which are attempting to set up the biggest US brokerage firm, are planning to pay brokers nearly $3bn (€2.3bn) to prevent them from being poached away from the joint venture, sources said, according to report in The Wall Street Journal.

The payments range from 50% to nearly 260% of a broker's annual production, which can exceed $10m depending on the size of the individual broker's business, the WSJ report said.

Mr. Gorman said that he has received a number of e-mails from reps about retention awards since plans for the joint venture were unveiled Jan. 13.

At the time, Mr. Gorman had stated that reps would have the specifics of their retention payments within 30 days. Since then, however, no details have been given to reps.

The final details of these payments will now be outlined by the end of February, Mr. Gorman told reps during this week's call, a snippet of which made its way onto the Huffington Post website.

Some of the components of the retention awards, however, were disclosed on the call. For one, the payments will be identical for both Smith Barney and Morgan Stanley advisers. “What's fair and equitable is to treat everybody on the same basis,” Mr. Gorman said.

Also, he noted that the retention payments will be based on an adviser's production for 2008, not 2009, as some reps had feared. “I think I can hear you clapping from here in New York,” Mr. Gorman said. “You should be clapping because frankly that is a very generous and thoughtful decision that we have made.

“We spent a lot of time kicking this around. We could easily have done it from the point of closing, which is obviously going to be somewhere in the latter half of this year or around the middle of the year. But we just decided... that it was right thing to do, to give you that certainty that it would be based off '08. [2009] is a very difficult year and we understand that it clearly would have been cheaper to have done it off '09, but we think it's the right thing to do, and we've made that decision.

“So that degree of anxiety, which many, many of you have e-mailed me about,” Mr. Gorman continued, “is now off the table.” Morgan Stanley and Smith Barney both of New York have reportedly set aside $2 billion to $3 billion for retention payments. A spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley was not immediately available for comment.