You are kidding right?

No. 

I know some great advisors over there.  Ya there going through some S***.  Actually that would be an understatement. 

But still does anybody know if they wills start one up again?

They have always had a program, they just stopped taking newbie solo advisors.  You have to get a team (or veteran solo FA doing 700+) to want you, then you can go through the program.

Wirehouses have hard time building up broker head count

Competing for recruits is costly, and trainees face a tough market



By Dan Jamieson

February 14, 2010, 6:01 AM EST Post a Comment Recommend       





The big wirehouses face major challenges that could thwart their announced plans to recruit brokers aggressively and hire more trainees, recruiters and analysts say.

Like the industry as a whole, the wirehouses have an aging work force and need to replenish the ranks. But costly competition for top recruits and a tough market for rookies will make it difficult to increase head count, skeptics say.



“It’s tough to see how [big] firms can grow faster than their normal attrition rates,” said Danny Sarch, founder of Leitner Sarch Consultants Ltd., a recruiting firm.



Wells Fargo Advisors’ goal of adding 1,400 representatives — 400 of them trainees — and Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s reported plan to hire 2,000 brokers over the next year — most of them rookies — isn’t enough to make headway, he said.



For a firm such as Wells Fargo, “they’ve got to hire 1,500 just to stay even,” Mr. Sarch said.



Last year, Wells Fargo hired 1,700 reps, 400 of them trainees, company spokeswoman Teresa Dougherty wrote in an e-mail. Last year was an unusual year that saw more advisers in motion, she said.





Enlarge This Photo Merrill spokeswoman Selena Morris declined to confirm the 2,000-broker goal, but wrote in an e-mail that the firm intends to “bring in hundreds of trainees this year.”

The firm’s training program originated in the 1940s and has been running continuously ever since, she said.



In September, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC chairman James Gorman said that his firm planned to hire 2,000 trainees this year.



“We expect [financial adviser] head count to settle in at the 17,500 to 18,500 level for the foreseeable future,” Morgan Stanley Smith Barney spokesman Jim Wiggins wrote in an e-mail.



He declined to specify hiring goals for this year or disclose how many brokers the firm hired last year.



The firm reported 18,160 global representatives as of Sept. 30. It needs to hire about 1,800 reps annually to make up for a normal 10% attrition rate, Mr. Wiggins said.



Mr. Gorman “promised the 18,000 adviser number to analysts,” Mr. Sarch said, so the firm will have to at least make up for normal losses.



Last year, UBS Financial Services Inc. shut down its training program in the face of financial pressures.



Company spokesman Kris Kagel said that the firm still selectively hires new brokers to fill specific slots in adviser teams.



He declined to comment about the firm’s overall hiring or training plans.



Robert McCann, the firm’s retail chief, told Dow Jones Newswires in November that UBS will focus on retaining advisers rather than recruiting.



The wirehouses as a whole “haven’t increased broker head count in five years,” said Bing Waldert, a director at Cerulli Associates Inc.



“If you’re a major firm, with a significant market share, the issue of a shrinking adviser population affects you pretty deeply,” he said.



That is why Mr. Waldert and other observers welcomed the news that firms may be ramping up training programs, in addition to recruiting veterans.



“The big mandates [to add brokers] are a sign that at three of the four wirehouses, [top executives] are really positive” about building for the future, said Darin Manis, chief executive at RJ & Makay LLC, a recruitment firm.



With an estimated $40 trillion to $130 trillion in wealth transfers coming over the next 40 years, “I do think it’s a good idea to train new people,” said Tim White, managing partner at recruiter Kaye/Bassman International Corp. “It just makes sense demographically,” he said, because for every three advisers who retire, only one new one is being added.



AT A CROSSROADS



But Mr. White is also among the many skeptics who doubt that the major firms can significantly build their head count without breaking the bank.

Paying out recruitment cash is “insane,” he said.



“Tell me how paying 150% upfront and another 150% on the back end pays? How do they make money on that?” Mr. White said.



Competition from independent channels is another head wind that the major firms face.



The independents are “taking people out of wirehouse land” and helping to keep recruitment offers high, said Mark Elzweig, president of Mark Elzweig Co. Ltd.



And adding new brokers is always tough.



For trainees, it will “probably be more difficult than ever [to build a book of business],” Mr. Waldert said.



Do-not-call lists make cold-calling impossible, and clients expect some financial planning advice, he said. “It’s difficult to start that kind of practice from scratch.”



At the same time, firms have higher expectations for rookies, Mr. Waldert said.



“We’ve been talking to some reps with three to five years’ [experience] doing about $150,000” in annual production, a lower-than-normal result reflective of the difficult market, Mr. Sarch said.



If younger brokers aren’t able to stay at their firms, their opportunities are limited, he said.



At the same time, firms are bringing in rookies who probably won’t do any better, Mr. White said.



Even trainees who do well aren’t always welcome, said Matt Oechsli, president of The Oechsli Institute Inc., a training firm.”Rookies are high-maintenance,” he said.



“What’s the incentive for a manager to spend time with a kid who [is doing well]? That trainee is still a cost to the branch” compared with a veteran broker, Mr. Oechsli said.



Some managers and branches are good at coaching and teaming new brokers with experienced veterans, who act as mentors, he said. That is a practice that most observers say is required if a trainee is to have any chance of succeeding.



But in some cases, trainees get little support, Mr. Oechsli said.



“It’s almost a crapshoot,” he said. “There’s little quality control.”



E-mail Dan Jamieson at [email protected].

Don’t start at UBS.  Do any of the bank channels permit PIM or PMP or any discretionary portfdolio management?  If they did i would join a bank, go PIM after three years.

[quote=younggunz] No. I know some great advisors over there. Ya there going through some S***. Actually that would be an understatement. But still does anybody know if they wills start one up again?

[/quote]



Doesn’t matter where you go. You have to be on a team, with a “mentor” pending on how young and inexperienced you are.



It’s all about risk/reward.



Going on a “team” will lower your risk of failure, but at the same time hamper your overall compensation since there will be team revenue sharing and so forth.



Consequently, you go it alone, you have a 90% chance of failing. But don’t have to worry about anything but the firm’s haircut.



I’m 24, and look young, I would never have entertained the idea of going solo. Except maybe like Nova said, at a bank program, where you basically sit there and leads come to you, or you see someone has $50k in their savings account, and you sell them on some annuities.

Ah…the beauty of team agreements. Backdoor way to get a senior broker sign a team agreement and sneak in non solicitation verbiage. Bind both parties to this junk. It is done. This is a big reason they (management!) ‘encourages’ teaming because it makes things sticky!

From a senior broker perspective, it is a good deal until they try to tie you up with these agreements with language favoring guess who…neither Jr. or Sr., but the firm itself. Some managers are actually socialist when it comes to splitting up when a Jr. just isn’t working. Best to have a pre nup between you and other broker and less interference from firm.



From a Jr. perspective, why join a team that will canibalize your efforts; better off going to a bank, building relationships without getting too bogged down with too many households. Leave for indy once you have $50MM+. Not a bad formula, but you have to pay your dues. Seen many Jr.s eaten up and spit out. If you are good enough to last in the biz, stay solo! Not someone’s biach. This firm’s name is too tarnished. Go to MSSB or Merrill or better a regional with a good training program as long as they have support.



This business is for entreprenuers and not employees. The wires are snuffing out this concept. Once you get into the wore channel, it may be hard to get out. Check out regionals or RIAs. The wires are tarnished at least for a few years. It has been easier to get new money being away. Names done mean that much anymore.



Good luck!