Based on the fact that within the past 4 hours that 3 brokers at MS called our directors office looking to set up a meeting, I would say that MS will continue to shed brokers to the other wires… Can anybody say HSBC Morgan Stanley??? What about B of A Morgan Stanley???

I wouldn't say that a spin-off of the retail arm is out of the question and brokers would be wise to look at their options. Having said that, I doubt it matters much to the average rep what the sign out front says, so long as it's reputable.

blamston, who are you with?

merrill… And the directors assistant just told me that the 3 brokers averaged about 7 years and about 600K in rolling 12, so these guys arent rooks trying to jump ship, they are decent producers looking to get off the titanic…

Rambo

So supposed someone says yeah forget MS, go th SB. Are you going to base your career decision on an anonymous post on a forum? How is Purcell resigning sometime over the next nine months going to effect you? No one can honestly answer that question for you.

[quote=blarmston]merrill.... And the directors assistant just told me that the 3 brokers averaged about 7 years and about 600K in rolling 12, so these guys arent rooks trying to jump ship, they are decent producers looking to get off the titanic...[/quote]

The "Titanic" line is a gross overstatement. After all, it isn't as if ML hasn't had high-profile personnel turn-over themselves in the past. Having said that, if they find their clients are talking more about Pursell than about doing business, and if ML's offering a nice check, this would be great timing to jump. It surely gives them a reason they can easily justify to clients they want to move with them.

You may be right about the titanic analogy… I have respect for MS and some of their brokers. 2 of my buddies are there so I have a decent understanding of what goes on at least in their branch… Of course, people are always jumping ship and going to other firms… I agree with you in that if they are being offered nice deals that this is an ideal time to move books… when you drill down to our small part of the world, and the fact that these brokers actively called in without being courted, it may signify a greater national trend… Of course I am just speculating…

[quote=blarmston].. when you drill down to our small part of the world, and the fact that these brokers actively called in without being courted, it may signify a greater national trend.... Of course I am just speculating....[/quote]

I think you could be right. Even if there's really no "there" there with the change in CEO at MS, it's still a nice catalyst to use with clients to move for the nice check to a good firm.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Its a very opportunistic time for MS brokers with established practices and loyal clients to make a move… Those who are upset for some reason at MS may want to consider a change of scenery… And of course those fat transition packages…

[quote=blarmston]Its a very opportunistic time for MS brokers with
established practices and loyal clients to make a move… Those who
are upset for some reason at MS may want to consider a change of
scenery… And of course those fat transition packages…[/quote]



It is a very opportunistic time for ANYBODY at ANY company to make a
move.  From all firms–not just from Morgan Stanley.  It is a
good time to leave Merrill, too. 



Quite frankly, I have no idea why there would be any sort of mass
exodus from Morgan Stanley because an embattled CEO has agreed to step
down.  It’s not relevant to anything and is nothing more than
hype.  It seems very silly to me the way they are carrying on.



If those Morgan reps want to leave, that’s fine.  I hope their
motivation ISN’T this BS involving Purcell, but rather considerations
for their careers, their clients, and their own financial well-being.



I have no idea why anyone would say “Titanic” in the same sentence with Morgan Stanley.  Silly.

[quote=Rambo]

Help me out here!

I'm about to sign with MS under their "rising star" package.  The news came out today about Purcell.  Should I punt the idea and go to Smith Barney?

Thanks, Rambo

I've spoken with inquisitive before on a number of issues within the industry.  I am a recruiter and work for several national firms.  I'll be honest, I called several of the people I have good relationships with at MS - since the news yesterday, I've probably visited with 10 or so.  No one is really alarmed since it was something they expected at some point.  He had announced that he was planning on retiring by 2008 anyway.  If the search takes longer, that period will only be cut by two years and he'll be out by next March.

Many of the brokers I've spoken with range in LOS and production and were proud of the fact that their CEO (while he had his struggles) jumped on the grenade for the sake of the firm, whether they liked him or not.

That said, there wasn't much he could change from the media's viewpoint.  Now was the best time for him to save face and move on. 

These are simply some of the things I have heard out there. 

I have no idea why anyone would say "Titanic" in the same sentence with Morgan Stanley.  Silly.
inquisitive,while i feel that 95% of your posts contain great viewpoints and wisdom, i gotta say that you may be wound too tight at times... i quickly backed away from my titanic comment and admitted that i find ms to be a reputable firm- one of the best....

Maybe NOW would be the best time to stay at Morgan Stanley. Imagine all these brokers leaving. And what happens when a broker leaves? He/She has to try and transfer their book to the new firm.

By staying at MS, a broker may have a shot at retaining the leaving broker's clients, depending on how they're divied up, of course. Even if 80% of the clients transfer, that could leave some juicy ones in the remaining 20% who didn't.

Dob- thats a good point… We all know that as soon as a rep leaves the office for the last time, by the time they make it to the car the managers have the reamining brokers dialing his clients… I heard that the average broker with LOS 10 years or more has approx 40% of their book made up of orphaned accounts from failed brokers… Has anyone heard this stat before??? Or is it simply broker urban myth??? Example- guy in our branch ( LOS 16, 700K, approx. 230MM in AUM) says that about 60% of his book has been gained from leaving brokers over the years… It makes sense…

[quote=doberman]

Maybe NOW would be the best time to stay at Morgan Stanley. Imagine all these brokers leaving. And what happens when a broker leaves? He/She has to try and transfer their book to the new firm.[/quote]

Transferring client assets for a successful, high-producing rep is never a problem.  They didn't get successful by accident.  It's only the marginal ones that have to worry.  And even then, they can still take most.

[quote=blarmstrom]
inquisitive,while i feel that 95% of your posts contain great viewpoints and wisdom, i gotta say that you may be wound too tight at times... i quickly backed away from my titanic comment and admitted that i find ms to be a reputable firm- one of the best....
[/quote]

Wound too tight?  Why you little *&^^%% I'l rip your *&^%% head off!!!  Nah, just kidding! 

I get so sick and tired of all the negativity in the media.  Everything is oh-so terrible.  Job numbers can be great, corporate profits are great, everything can be going great, then you get this one little thing that isn't as great and the media jumps all over it and grinds it into the ground.

This Purcell business really is no big deal.  Especially not compared to all the tainted research scandals of a few years back.  That storm passed and, to my amazement, the industry was left unscathed.

[quote=blarmstrom]
Dob- thats a good point.... We all know that as soon as a rep leaves the office for the last time, by the time they make it to the car the managers have the reamining brokers dialing his clients... [/quote]
That much is true.

[quote=blarmstrom]
I heard that the average broker with LOS 10 years or more has approx 40% of their book made up of orphaned accounts from failed brokers... Has anyone heard this stat before???? Or is it simply broker urban myth???? Example- guy in our branch ( LOS 16, 700K, approx. 230MM in AUM) says that about 60% of his book has been gained from leaving brokers over the years.... It makes sense......[/quote]
Actually, that makes little sense to me.  If those accounts were so great the original reps wouldn't have washed-out in the first place.  Those typically aren't high quality accounts.

High producers, even at the $700k range, aren't successful because they scavenged some accounts off the carcass of a failed rep.  I couldn't imagine someone building his career off the failure of others!  Perhaps there may be one or two here and there, but not most.

I was recently made an offer by another firm to leave MS.  I spoke with a more senior broker, he recommended staying based on the old saying, keep your seat, get accounts.

Inqui- This broker told me that when a guy would leave, some accounts would be placed in his name. He would then contact them to mine for other assets, opportunities, etc. Admittedly he said that only 10-20% of those orphaned would ever get serviced and be considered true clients of his. So what he did was ferret out the service to junior guys to ‘mine for diamonds’ and split whatever business was found with them. This has happened consistently for about the past 12-13 years for this guy… MUST BE NICE…I agree that most accounts left behind may be cr$p, but its a nice way to get “free assets” and increase total AUM when brokers leave firms…

I am working with a MS broker who just inherited $8M when a large producer left for Merrill a few months back.  This person is less than 5 years in and found themselves with a 25% increase in business from one person.  Not a bad deal if you ask me!