ML Brokers Pissed about BofA Coup
87 RepliesJump to last post
I call bs on Coach K being taller than he looks, next you’ll say that Duke players don’t flop on defense. Kentucky will be winning again soon, now that they have Calipari and his rule bending ways. How do you land the #1, #2, #22, and #23 recruits in the land and two other highly recruited players.
[quote=jkl1v1n6] I call bs on Coach K being taller than he looks, next you'll say that Duke players don't flop on defense. Kentucky will be winning again soon, now that they have Calipari and his rule bending ways. How do you land the #1, #2, #22, and #23 recruits in the land and two other highly recruited players. [/quote]
Unfortunately, I don't really know that much about basketball, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I was looking at it from a purely academic standpoint. I figured something where I had no bias was the best thing to talk about.
Wow did this thread head off course or what
Look at the advertisement at the top of this page, I think Rep magazine is looking at the wrong end of the Bull! If you are a ML rep you got shoved up the other end of the Bull. Hope you like it in there.[quote=Greenbacks]Wow did this thread head off course or what
Look at the advertisement at the top of this page, I think Rep magazine is looking at the wrong end of the Bull! If you are a ML rep you got shoved up the other end of the Bull. Hope you like it in there. [/quote] Yeah, we get it, Greenbacks. You hate wirehouses. JFC, talk about a one-trick pony.If you think ML FAs are the only ones who are arrogant and selfish. Think again.
Numbers don't lie. Go look at the number of threads/posts on the FA Forum home page that revolve around the actual client experience vs. babbling nonsense by the majority of FAs here. It is 1905 vs 60. I worked at ML for 7 years. I learned more and was around some of the most talented brokers in the industry. It was one of the most profitable and best experiences of my life. I will even go as far as to say that it completetly changed my life. The culture at that time was second to none. I was fortunate and graduated early from PDP all on my own. It was hard, but worth it.[quote=Behavioral_FA] If you think ML FAs are the only ones who are arrogant and selfish. Think again.
Numbers don’t lie. Go look at the number of threads/posts on the FA Forum home page that revolve around the actual client experience vs. babbling nonsense by the majority of FAs here.
It is 1905 vs 60.
I worked at ML for 7 years. I learned more and was around some of the most talented brokers in the industry. It was one of the most profitable and best experiences of my life. I will even go as far as to say that it completetly changed my life. The culture at that time was second to none. I was fortunate and graduated early from PDP all on my own. It was hard, but worth it.[/quote]
There is arrogance, and then there is arrogance. I think you don’t understand what these forums are about. These boards are for advisors to talk about what they want. This particular set of threads is about “What’s up at firms”. My guess is that if you looked under the “Clients” area, then the numbers would be less skewed.
[quote=buyandhold]
[quote=Moraen]
A great example is college coaches v. professors. Why does Mike Alphabet soup from Duke get paid more than a brilliant economics professor from the same school? He has the ability to do what others do not. Win basketball games.
[/quote]Coach K gets X Million per year 1) Because you can’t pay the producers – the players – so there is money available to throw at him.2, the big reason) The people who write the checks at Duke have a hard-on for basketball. There is no economic reason to pay Coach K that kind of money. Studies have shown that there is no economic benefit to winning college basketball games for a university. It’s a net zero revenue producer. [/quote]
How is there no economic reason for paying Coach K what he makes? Do you have any idea how much revenue Duke’s mens basketball program generates for the university. I’d venture an educated guess that it’s north of $20 million a year. Coach K’s presence as Duke’s coach is every bit a reason for that.
Now, I’m the first to admit that professional athletes are extremely overpaid, but the fact is, they justify their enormous pay per the revenue they generate for their respective organizations. This is capitalism, plain and simple.
Advisors are no different. Most advisors generate 1.5 to 2 + times the revenue at their firms than what they make in compensation. It’s merely pay for performance.
[quote=buyandhold]
[quote=Moraen] [quote=buyandhold]
[quote=Moraen]
A great example is college coaches v. professors. Why does Mike Alphabet soup from Duke get paid more than a brilliant economics professor from the same school? He has the ability to do what others do not. Win basketball games.
[/quote]Coach K gets X Million per year 1) Because you can’t pay the producers – the players – so there is money available to throw at him.2, the big reason) The people who write the checks at Duke have a hard-on for basketball. There is no economic reason to pay Coach K that kind of money. Studies have shown that there is no economic benefit to winning college basketball games for a university. It’s a net zero revenue producer. [/quote]
Untrue. If there were thousands of Coach K’s, basketball coaches would get paid less. Think about it, if you are a booster would you pay more for Coach K, when you could pay less for Coach Y? Not likely.[/quote]I’ll try to find some studies that back me up. As to the Coach K/Coach Y argument – if I could make $1 million a year paying for Coach K to win a title, or $1 million a year paying for Coach Y to finish .500, then there is no economic benefit to paying Coach K more. In fact, that money is wasted, since it could be used to create economic benefit elsewhere.You have to remember that college athletics is revenue neutral and simply don’t generate revenue for the colleges.[/quote]
Okay, to support my other post, here is a link to a study done on Duke athletics and the revenue all of the programs generate:
http://www.math.duke.edu/~hain/athletics/
How you make a comment that college athletics is “revenue neutral” is mind-boggling. Why would any school with any iota of business sense continue to fund a program that makes no money?
And coming from another school that has a premier basketball program myself, trust me, there is a BIG difference between having support (read: increasing revenue) for a .500 program and one that wins national titles. BIG DIFFERENCE, and it’s not even close.
Show me a program with 5-10 years of .500 performance and I’ll show you one with an apathetic fan base that gets zero television exposure.
Some highlights from an NCAA study:
• For every additional dollar spent on daily operations in football and men's basketball, schools typically realize only an additional dollar in revenue.
• Spending changes have no impact on win-loss records, alumni donations or incoming students' academic standing.
• Of the 117 Division I-A programs, 40% reported an operating profit in 2001. But without state and school subsidies, only 6% made money.
So, schools like Ohio State and Texas MAKE a lot of money in college football, but they spend the most, on facilities and training tables. The last blurb is a killer. Without outside money (and also without the tax deduction for giving money to State U) college athletics is not only revenue neutral, it's revenue deficient.
You want a program with 5-10 years of .500 performance an an apathetic fan base -- Northwestern. And Rice. Great academic schools, similar to Duke except they don't have Coach K. Now, granted, Duke's students and alumni have an intangible benefit watching their team win, but that's it.
[quote=buyandhold]
<p =“inside-copy”>Some highlights from an NCAA study:
operations in football and men’s basketball, schools typically realize
only an additional dollar in revenue.
<p =“inside-copy”>• Spending changes have no impact on win-loss records, alumni donations or incoming students’ academic standing.
<p =“inside-copy”>• Of the 117 Division I-A programs, 40% reported
an operating profit in 2001. But without state and school subsidies,
only 6% made money.<p =“inside-copy”>So, schools like Ohio State and Texas MAKE a lot of money in college football, but they spend the most, on facilities and training tables. The last blurb is a killer. Without outside money (and also without the tax deduction for giving money to State U) college athletics is not only revenue neutral, it’s revenue deficient.<p =“inside-copy”>You want a program with 5-10 years of .500 performance an an apathetic fan base – Northwestern. And Rice. Great academic schools, similar to Duke except they don’t have Coach K. Now, granted, Duke’s students and alumni have an intangible benefit watching their team win, but that’s it.<p =“inside-copy”><p =“inside-copy”><p =“inside-copy”><p =“inside-copy”>[/quote]
We are not talking strictly about spending. We are talking about what the coaches are paid. Coach K is a great coach (I’m assuming this - I’m not sure, but they keep asking him to be the Olympics coach don’t they?) and so gets paid as a great coach.
Duke is not a State school. They are an Ivy League private school. They make a ton of money. They are in that six percent. I bet if they other 94% could get a Coach K (and pay him what Duke pays him), they would be making that kind of jack too.
Do you really expect every school to make as much as Duke, or UNC (which also makes money without state subsidies, even though they are a state school) or Kentucky or Florida State? If they had the money to pay for Coach K, they’d do it in a heartbeat.
How many coaches get asked to coach the USA Olympic team?
The original issue was physicians. Physicians get paid because they have a skill that is in demand. How many physicians pass the MCAT v. how many become brain or heart surgeons? Not many, right?
Advisors - how many pass the series 7 vs. how many become million dollar producers?
What do Coach K, Brain surgeons and million-dollar financial advisors all have in common? They can do something that nobody else can, which is why they make what they do.
[quote=Wildcat02]Borker Boy,
Are you f-ing serious? FA’s, in most cases, work for peanuts initially to build their book of business.
Their first year or so in the business they live under constant scrutiny that they may not make the cut and get fired (90% attrition when starting out).
Then, after “making it” to the point where you’re not worried about management just simply cutting you for not making your asset hurdles, you end up starting out off salary, probably making less than your assistant.
It takes a good 3-5 years to get your business up to a point of making any real money. I can’t think of many professions where people put so much on the line to do what we do to finally make a good living.[/quote]
Well let’s see. A med student spends how many years in med school? They acquire how much more in debt? They work how long as an intern? How many hours at how much pay? Then specialists spend how many more years training in their field before the big dollars roll in?
Seriously, you should think a little bit before writing. I’ve got clients who are doctors earning $50k per year during fellowship training and they are 30 years old. Yeah, nobody works 3-5 years at their profession before the real money show up.
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Behavioral_FA] If you think ML FAs are the only ones who are arrogant and selfish. Think again.
Numbers don't lie. Go look at the number of threads/posts on the FA Forum home page that revolve around the actual client experience vs. babbling nonsense by the majority of FAs here.
It is 1905 vs 60.
I worked at ML for 7 years. I learned more and was around some of the most talented brokers in the industry. It was one of the most profitable and best experiences of my life. I will even go as far as to say that it completetly changed my life. The culture at that time was second to none. I was fortunate and graduated early from PDP all on my own. It was hard, but worth it.[/quote]
There is arrogance, and then there is arrogance. I think you don't understand what these forums are about. These boards are for advisors to talk about what they want. This particular set of threads is about "What's up at firms". My guess is that if you looked under the "Clients" area, then the numbers would be less skewed.[/quote] I was making a point reagarding a mindest and attitude overall. Obviously, you didn't understand. I can't help it if you are not very smart.
You weren’t making a point. You got your feelings hurt because you worked at ML, and people were bashing them. By the way, those arrogant SOB’s are some of the best advisors in the business.
You were trying to bring in numbers from threads and posts and skew them in your favor. You also said that they don’t lie. Which is true, the numbers themselves don’t lie, but you certainly arranged them to be misleading. Hardly objective.
You are right, you can’t help it IF I’m not very smart.
Anyone watching or see Ken Lewis grilled up like an Omaha steak? For all the bluster by these congressmen/women, this is such a tail chase! Does this stuff matter or hurt the brand or are people just immune after a year of it?
[quote=buyandhold]
<p =“inside-copy”>Some highlights from an NCAA study:
operations in football and men’s basketball, schools typically realize
only an additional dollar in revenue.
<p =“inside-copy”>• Spending changes have no impact on win-loss records, alumni donations or incoming students’ academic standing.
<p =“inside-copy”>• Of the 117 Division I-A programs, 40% reported
an operating profit in 2001. But without state and school subsidies,
only 6% made money.<p =“inside-copy”>So, schools like Ohio State and Texas MAKE a lot of money in college football, but they spend the most, on facilities and training tables. The last blurb is a killer. Without outside money (and also without the tax deduction for giving money to State U) college athletics is not only revenue neutral, it’s revenue deficient.<p =“inside-copy”>You want a program with 5-10 years of .500 performance an an apathetic fan base – Northwestern. And Rice. Great academic schools, similar to Duke except they don’t have Coach K. Now, granted, Duke’s students and alumni have an intangible benefit watching their team win, but that’s it.<p =“inside-copy”><p =“inside-copy”><p =“inside-copy”><p =“inside-copy”>[/quote]
buyandhold - can’t argue with those stats, but I think one thing you need to take away is that they are average figures. You simply can’t compare the value that high profile coaches have on high profile college athletic programs. They are typically the programs that turn in large profits for the school each year. The stats you point out I’m sure include all of the outlier schools who have a small or lower profile sports program.
Wow…Keith Banks is an empty suit D Bag! He used to head up GWIM. He worked in Mass for a short time and I didn’t know anyone who respected him. If this is the case, we are all screwed!