Why are you at a wirehouse at all may be the best question? 

This article from “OnWallStreet.com” is pretty on target

Wirehouses are projected to lose $188 billion in client assets this year due to advisor migration, according to a new report from Cerulli Associates. And those losses are expected to continue over the longer term as well.

The channel’s market share of assets under management will be at 40.7% by 2012, down from 47% as of year-end 2008, according to the report. Wirehouses will still dominate the market, but the downward trend will continue as more advisors seek out the independent channel, according to the Cerulli’s report entitled, “Advisor Migration: The Changing Landscape of Retail Distribution.”

Scott Smith, the analyst who wrote the report, said the main driver behind these moves is brand erosion of the wirehouses. “There’s a lot of investor dissent [at the wirehouses]. Some advisors told me that their clients said ‘What took so long?’ when they moved.”

At the same time, the independent channel, which includes independent broker-dealers, registered investment advisor firms and dually-registered advisors, are gaining market share. The independents will nearly match wirehouses’ market footprint by 2012, with a 39.3% market share of assets under management, the report said.

This year’s decline is just part of the industry’s overall advisor migration that will put $800 billion of client assets in play as advisors move from job to job.

For wirehouses, the diminution of headcount will be significant. By 2012 they will account for 13.7% of the job market, down from 20% as of the end of 2008, the report predicted. But that may not be all bad news. “While this represents a significant loss, we expect the wirehouse advisor of the future will be relatively more productive, resulting in a highly effective and profitable sales force," says Smith.

For instance, the report cited the joint venture of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney as being in an “enviable position of being able to select top talent from two skilled organizations.” The firm will be able to capitalize on a position as a “pure play” for wealth management-focused advisors, the report said.

However, the picture isn’t quite as rosy for a couple of its competitors. The report said Bank of America’s controversial purchase of Merrill Lynch could threaten the historic dominance of Merrill’s sales force. The report also stated that there is a concern about UBS among both advisors and product manufacturers about how the corporate ownership of that firm will play out over the next several years.
 
Overall, Smith viewed the report’s findings as a “slow erosion” of the power of the wirehouses.

If you’re doing between $400k and $500k a year,
I’m just curious.   

I love articles talking about how indy is going to over take wirehouses… Where do you think all the indys came from? Most of them got a start at a wire. Most of the big producers(no $600K doesn’t count) are still there…

If you’re doing 400-500k after 10+ years the question isn’t why haven’t you left MSSB or MER it’s why haven’t you left the business?  There has to be something you’re good at.

Of course the majority came from wirehouses. In the old days the wirehouses provided immediate name recognition and some training. These days who wants the name recognition of the old wirehouses? The advisor spends half the day explaining to their clients why they are still associated with their firm.

Don’t get me wrong, the current wirehouses still have an attraction for the advisors who are scared or to lazy to make the move. How can you call yourself a “financial advisor” when you have decided to allow your firm to keep the lion’s share of your gross? The world can only handle so many leaders. It’s OK that you would prefer to be a follower since the world needs its share of people (sheep) who just follow the herd.



   

[quote=Apollo 13] The world can only handle so many leaders. It’s OK that you would prefer to be a follower since the world needs its share of people (sheep) who just follow the herd.



   [/quote]





The 400-500k Stifel Nation leaders?    funny

Again, SN makes some great points and nothing really has changed since i started in 1981.   Regionals and Indy provide a great place for smaller producers to make a living.   

Its a great little niche.    Its not a bad thing and guys can feel good about themselves doing these low numbers.

Indie firms, like the one I found, are willing to give newbies, and smaller producers a place to learn and grow.  The wire houses don’t want us simply because we don’t make “them” enough money.

My Stifel office has 2 $1MM+ producers out of 6. Keep watching us grow. Yes, we are a GREAT place for $500K, but we’re increasing our $1MM+ advisor force monthly.



Every firm has it’s knocks, but over the last two years our stock price has gone up 55%, we won the Starmine award for earnings accuracy and stock selection (no other firm has one both in one year), and we were named in Fortune 100’s list of fastest growing companies.



My last two years at MS watched my stock go from $70 to $29, after going down to $6, fines in the billions for auction rate securities, TARP money, staff reductions, decreasing payouts constant changes in Senior Management.



All facts, not my opinion.

Stifel Nation… maybe you should change the title of your thread to: “Why is everyone not at Stifel”… dude… we get it… Stifel rocks the free world and we’re all blind for not seeing ourselves there right now 

I’m down with that. New topic. "Why aren’t you at Stifel?

[quote=Stifel Nation] My Stifel office has 2 $1MM+ producers out of 6. Keep watching us grow. Yes, we are a GREAT place for $500K, but we’re increasing our $1MM+ advisor force monthly.



Every firm has it’s knocks, but over the last two years our stock price has gone up 55%, we won the Starmine award for earnings accuracy and stock selection (no other firm has one both in one year), and we were named in Fortune 100’s list of fastest growing companies.



My last two years at MS watched my stock go from $70 to $29, after going down to $6, fines in the billions for auction rate securities, TARP money, staff reductions, decreasing payouts constant changes in Senior Management.



All facts, not my opinion.[/quote]



Do regionals, like Stifel, hire newbies?

[quote=tqspygame] [quote=Stifel Nation] My Stifel office has 2 $1MM+ producers out of 6. Keep watching us grow. Yes, we are a GREAT place for $500K, but we’re increasing our $1MM+ advisor force monthly.



Every firm has it’s knocks, but over the last two years our stock price has gone up 55%, we won the Starmine award for earnings accuracy and stock selection (no other firm has one both in one year), and we were named in Fortune 100’s list of fastest growing companies.



My last two years at MS watched my stock go from $70 to $29, after going down to $6, fines in the billions for auction rate securities, TARP money, staff reductions, decreasing payouts constant changes in Senior Management.



All facts, not my opinion.[/quote]



Do regionals, like Stifel, hire newbies?[/quote]

That looks like a no…

[quote=Stifel Nation] [quote=tqspygame] [quote=Stifel Nation] My Stifel office has 2 $1MM+ producers out of 6. Keep watching us grow. Yes, we are a GREAT place for $500K, but we’re increasing our $1MM+ advisor force monthly.



Every firm has it’s knocks, but over the last two years our stock price has gone up 55%, we won the Starmine award for earnings accuracy and stock selection (no other firm has one both in one year), and we were named in Fortune 100’s list of fastest growing companies.



My last two years at MS watched my stock go from $70 to $29, after going down to $6, fines in the billions for auction rate securities, TARP money, staff reductions, decreasing payouts constant changes in Senior Management.



All facts, not my opinion.[/quote]



Do regionals, like Stifel, hire newbies?[/quote] [/quote]



Strange, it told me I have responded too many times and it wouldn’t post my response. Most Regionals have a training program, but they do not hire very many trainees a year. Stifel hires about 50 - 75 trainees a year.

So the only way they grow is by aquiring or underperforming wire guys(not a crack. honestly curious)

SN



more importantly



why the f&^% is Joe B so GD bearish?



In the 90’s   he thought nasdaq was going to 100,000

Pretty much… call any AMP manager… they’ll have 10 canned stories for you about the ‘big’ wirehouse broker they just moved over.  True… but yes, they’re growing because they’re recruiting hard, not because they’re a great firm, brand, value, have excellent FAs, etc. But, they have $7B in cash… did I tell you that?  Sorry for the sarcasm, AMP is not bad… just not for everyone IMHO

To Squash’s question. We’re much more profitable on a $400,000 since we don’t have layers and layers of management. So “underperforming” to a wirehouse is not the same to us.



To A B’s question. I’m not sure why Joe B. is so negative, but he performed pretty well last year, so I’m sticking with him. It’s been tough though since the market has had a strong rally.