Thinking about teaming up prior to being forced to may help one find the right partner. 

We'll never be "forced" into partnerships.  They will, however, make it financially rewarding to be in a partnership.  Management knows that the best motivation for us is the almighty $.  Sometimes these financial incentives are only temporary. 

[quote=frumhere]...butler e-mailed me...he concurs!   [/quote]

Huh?

only a joke butler…

It is interesting, in any case, that Gorman would set a goal, even if it’s a number of years out on the horizon, of $1 million in production per advisor. Smith Barney had set the very same goal for its advisors under Sally Krawcheck, and then decided to back away from it.

[quote=broker-editor]It is interesting, in any case, that Gorman would set a goal, even if it's a number of years out on the horizon, of $1 million in production per advisor. Smith Barney had set the very same goal for its advisors under Sally Krawcheck, and then decided to back away from it. [/quote]

He didn't really "set a goal" of a million.  His chart at a town hall meeting said "aspirations" and had $700k average figure (current average is about $520k) for a few years down the road. He then tossed off something like "I'd like to see the average above $1MM".

Suddenly that comment is being taken as a "goal" and recruiters are using that as a "Gorman says everyone has to be above a million, so you'd better get backing and take the offer I brought you" scare line. It's really pretty funny....

I certainly don't want to be accused of rumor or fear mongering, but I don't think it's so outrageous to posit that Gorman probably does have a goal of getting to $1 million per producer. I have my doubts that Gorman ever just tosses something off when he's talking to brokers. I think he's too smart for that. Aspirations is the same as goals. Of course that doesn't mean he's going to fire everyone who falls below that. He probably has a strategy for getting there. But it's still ambitious.

aspirations “are” the same as goals.

[quote=broker-editor]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I certainly don't want to be accused of rumor or fear mongering, but I don't think it's so outrageous to posit that Gorman probably does have a goal of getting to $1 million per producer.

[/quote]

Believe me, I'm not calling you either of those things, but I assume you mean $1 million AVERAGE per producer, right? Let's not forget he said $700k in his slide, and that was in 3 years+.

The problem is this gets translated to "every broker above" from average and the "in 3 yrs+" gets lost in the shuffle. Suddenly it's  "Gorman said every broker needs to get over $1 million".

Having said that, a $1 million average isn’t a nutso goal (see the details below) and I’d be surprised if every wirehouse boss doesn’t see it as a goal in some timeframe.

[quote=broker-editor]

I have my doubts that Gorman ever just tosses something off when he's talking to brokers. I think he's too smart for that.

[/quote]

Maybe you should have seen the meeting.  <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /> 

[quote=broker-editor]

Aspirations is the same as goals. Of course that doesn't mean he's going to fire everyone who falls below that. He probably has a strategy for getting there. But it's still ambitious.

[/quote]

I wouldn't say goals are the same as aspirations (and I think he didn't use "goal" for a reason in his slide), failing to meet goals can have serious consequences, failing to meet aspirations, well, not so much.

OTOH, I agree those numbers are ambitious, depending on how long you grant to attain them. Getting to $700k in three years from today requires, what, just over 11% growth? Big, but not scary big. Getting to $1million at the same pace takes three more years. If you up the pace to 15%, you’ve hit it in five years from today.

good points all. well taken.

Butler, to answer your previous question about what I mean about the firms possible being at a crossroads because of the overtime, work expenses, error account, registrations…I work in CA and have about 15,000 coming from the lawsuit settlements made earlier this year…The attorney who is winning these suits has told be that within 2/3 years the business will be completely different than now in terms of compensation in CA and some other states…workers have to have a salary in CA going forward or they (firms) will just get sued again.  Salary and sharply reduced payout looks likely…do you have any knowledge about the issue?

[quote=fritz]Butler, to answer your previous question about what I mean about the firms possible being at a crossroads because of the overtime, work expenses, error account, registrations...I work in CA and have about 15,000 coming from the lawsuit settlements made earlier this year...The attorney who is winning these suits has told be that within 2/3 years the business will be completely different than now in terms of compensation in CA and some other states...workers have to have a salary in CA going forward or they (firms) will just get sued again.  Salary and sharply reduced payout looks likely...do you have any knowledge about the issue?[/quote]

Did the overtime suits cover anyone other than trainees? Did it cover things like errors, registration and work expenses? I haven't been watching the detils for two reasons; 1) I think the lawsuit is a crock 2) It doesn't affect me at all.

But to answer your question, I haven't heard any discussion about the effects on the lawsuits on the rest of the biz.

But, it does seem logical that if the biz were to be ruined it would be by lawyers who file class action suits, give the "victims" pennies on the dollar and end up walking away with more money than God has....

How much are they raising the bar for Presidents Club / Directors ?

I hear that they also asked brokers to voluntarily give up accounts under $100,000 recently?

[quote=broker-editor]

How much are they raising the bar for Presidents Club / Directors ?

I hear that they also asked brokers to voluntarily give up accounts under $100,000 recently?

[/quote]

Don't know about # 1, on #2 I haven't seen anything like that.

I hear their maybe different solutions for different reps- some may get
salary, some stay administrativley exempt (granted they get the min.
$455 per week income), and others exempt through the “highly
compensated” exemption.

This could mean the guy next to you is getting paid by the hour and leaving at 5pm.