Active Duty Military RRs

21 replies [Last post]
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

As published in New York Times 10/28/2005:

After Uniform, White-Collar Blues 
By STACEY STOWE
Published: October 28, 2005

Michael Serricchio was an up-and-coming stockbroker, tending $250 million worth of accounts in Connecticut and earning $200,000 a year in salary and commissions. He was also a sergeant in the Air Force Reserve.
Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, his unit was called up and he began a two-year deployment that included a stint in Saudi Arabia. When he came back, his company had merged, his clients had been parceled out and there seemed to be no place for him at the newly constituted office of Wachovia Securities.

Michael Serricchio in a Black Hawk helicopter he flew at the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia in 2002.
Mr. Serricchio said he tried for more than three months to return to work, and when he finally was given a new assignment, it was making cold calls for a $2,000-a-month draw on commission.
"It's not like I was in jail," said Mr. Serricchio, 33, a reservist for 11 years and father of a 3-year-old girl. "You feel you should have something. You feel everything should be frozen in time while you're gone."
Wachovia will not comment on Mr. Serricchio's version of the events, saying that employee matters are confidential and that this complaint could end up in the courts. But the case of Mr. Serricchio points up another of the many complexities involved in fighting a war with a large contingent of National Guard soldiers and reservists - part-time soldiers who must disrupt their lives to fulfill their military obligation and fill the ranks.
Even for those who return home from service unharmed, healthy and fully ready to pick up their lives where they left off, re-emerging as a civilian can be tricky. For workers like Mr. Serricchio, it can be even more complicated, according to people familiar with the military and workplace issues.
A 1994 law, the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, commonly referred to as Userra, protects against losing a job because of military service. Even so, last year the Department of Defense handled 6,242 cases involving claims of job discrimination, job placement or inadequate pay or vacation, according to Maj. Robert Palmer of the Air Force, the spokesman for the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, one of two federal agencies that deal with employment complaints.
The agency could not provide a breakdown of complaints by profession nor an exact accounting of how the complaints were resolved.
"These are complex issues," Major Palmer said. "Sometimes the Guard and reservists have an unreal expectation of what they are due, and some employers don't know what they're supposed to do."
The issue becomes even more complicated when it comes to those who step off the corporate ladder for a tour of duty. And there are many of those reservists and guardsmen, the Pentagon says. Of the 500,000 reservists and guardsmen called up in the last four years, about one-third are in professional careers.
Many are people who leave behind clients and patients and accounts. In their absence, certifications can lapse, clients and patients can migrate elsewhere and sales territories can be poached. "I've heard stories of attorneys in big law firms who are deployed and when they return" their clients have been given to another lawyer, said Kevin P. Flood, a retired Navy lawyer. "The problem is out there, but I don't know how Userra can prevent what happens when you have people in partnerships or senior management experiencing difficulties."
Representative Robert E. Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey and a member of the personnel subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, said he had received almost a dozen complaints from constituents who are white-collar reservists. One of his constituents is an associate at a law firm who believes his deployment took him off the partnership track. "Technically, that might not be a violation, but these people are smart, they're not going to write a memo saying that military service might be the cause," Representative Andrews said.
In Mr. Serricchio's case, a bumpy stock market and the 2003 merger of his company, Prudential Financial, with Wachovia, further clouded an already murky work environment. While Prudential paid him $5,000 a month during his first year of deployment, far beyond what the law requires, he said he was forbidden to contact his clients, his name was taken off the accounts and he heard his clients were either dropped or doled out to other brokers. He said he called Prudential twice and Wachovia once during his deployment to question the removal of his name from his accounts but said he was told he was not actively working for the companies.(Page 2 of 2)

Mr. Serricchio also said that, without notifying him, Prudential settled a legal claim against him by a client who had accused him of forging a document. Settling such a legal case without notifying a reservist is illegal under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, Mr. Flood said. Mr. Serricchio now has a mark on his record he insists is without merit.
Mr. Serricchio said that when he returned from active duty in November 2003, he asked his lawyer, David S. Golub, to notify the company that he was ready to get back to work. But it took 120 days until Mr. Serricchio was welcomed to the Westport office of Wachovia.
By then, he said, just four of his original clients remained and he was handed a book of dormant accounts and offered $2,000 a month that had to be repaid out of his commissions. He balked and told his manager that he would contact his lawyer, Mr. Golub. Three days later, he said, the company sent him a letter informing him that he had "voluntarily resigned." Mr. Serricchio said he intended to sue.
Tony Mattera, a spokesman for Wachovia Securities, said he could not speak about Mr. Serricchio. "We are dealing with his attorney and through the appropriate channels," Mr. Mattera said. "Also, some issues predate our merger."
Jim Gorman, a spokesman for Prudential, said he was unaware of any complaints from Mr. Serricchio.
Glenn Gotz, an economist at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally financed research organization, said it was often hard to prove that military service led to a job setback. "If companies want to get around Userra," said Mr. Gotz, who has studied the issue extensively, "in terms of promotion and hiring, they can."
But one returning reservist in Colorado who claimed he was a victim of job discrimination won a lawsuit against his former employer, Agilent Technologies. Judge Lewis T. Babcock said that Lt. Col. Joseph S. Duarte, a Marine reservist, had "paid a steep price for his military deployment" when he was fired from a job he had held for 19 years shortly after his return from active duty in July 2003.
The company claimed that it had shrunk its work force by 28,000 and that Colonel Duarte's dismissal was not related to either his performance or military service. But the judge ordered Agilent to pay Colonel Duarte, of Littleton, Colo., $380,000.
"It went way beyond money for me," said Colonel Duarte, 50, who sued after searching for a new job for more than a year.
"I told my wife, I might be sweeping floors somewhere if we lose this but I'm going to fight this in court because I don't want some private or lance corporal to come back, find their job gone, and not have the means to do what I'm doing."
Since 2001, the National Association of Securities Dealers has received 760 notifications of people registered with them being called up for active duty. Many who are deployed pass their clients to a colleague, said Bill Singer, a Wall Street lawyer who represents stockbrokers in labor disputes. The reservist and the colleague share in the commissions while the reservist is away. When the reservist returns, he picks up where he left off. But in some cases, clients end up staying with the colleague or moving on.
"The problem is that they're being asked to make two sacrifices; one is the sacrifice for their country, putting their life at risk," Mr. Singer said. "Then to some extent there is a penalty being imposed upon them when they return because they are being forced to lose their business."
Companies like the American International Group, New York Life Insurance, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and the Hartford Financial Services Group pay active-duty reservists a monthly salary that was the average of what they earned for the year before leaving, or the difference between their civilian and military pay for all or part of their deployment.
Several go beyond the federal law because it's the "right thing to do," said Axel Freudmann, senior vice president for human resources at A.I.G.
Mr. Mattera, of Wachovia, said about 300 of the company's 90,000 employees have been called to active duty in the last few years. "Our military leave policy is recognized by the Department of Defense," he said, adding that the company was proud of it. He pointed out that the company had received "dozens of testimonials from Guard and Reserve members."
Mr. Serricchio, who now lives in Westfield, Mass., said he would like to get back to the fast-paced arena of stock trading. Instead, he said, he is helping his wife, Maria, with her business, a tanning salon.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

That's just messed up.  Then again, what do you expect from a wirehouse?  To them it's all about the $$......their $$, not yours, nor you and your family's well being, nor your clients.
The sooner advisors get this, the better for them and the industry!

Greenbacks's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-21

joedabrkr wrote:
That's just messed up.  Then again, what do you expect from a wirehouse?  To them it's all about the $$......their $$, not yours, nor you and your family's well being, nor your clients.
The sooner advisors get this, the better for them and the industry!

Well said!

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Greenbacks wrote:joedabrkr wrote:
That's just messed up.  Then again, what do you expect from a wirehouse?  To them it's all about the $$......their $$, not yours, nor you and your family's well being, nor your clients.
The sooner advisors get this, the better for them and the industry!

Well said!

Thanks!  It's easy when you believe in what you say!

Proton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-28

This is an interesting topic to me in that I have first-hand experience with this issue.  I spent the better part of a year in the Desert and did not lose any clients.  My colleagues in my branch helped deal with client support and I actually did not even have to share in commissions.  
That said, it certainly hurt my business to be gone since it's kind of tough to prospect while stuck in the Middle East.   I'm not complaining since I volunteered and am well aware of the nature of the commitment.  
Like most things in this business, I think it depends upon the firm and the branch where you work.  I have seen both good and bad results at other firms and in other businesses. 
Many employers don't understand USERRA, but they usually come around as long as the reservist meets his or her obligations.  Most companies are also scared of the negative publicity that occurs when this sort of story hits the papers.
There is no question that being in the Reserves is a hit on both career and family, but, as I mentioned earlier, it is entirely voluntary and it is just something you have to understand going into he military.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

rrbdlawyer wrote:
Proton:
What struck me as so stupid about this case was Wachovia's response.  I mean, come on --- let's think this thing through fairly quickly and simply.  We've got a returning veteran.  We can welcome him back with fanfare.  Get some positive press coverage.  Have a cake and a band waiting for him at his "new" office.  Give him a nice check for his patriotism and sacrifice.  Make sure all the press is there to find out how great a place Wachovia is.  How important it was and is to Wachovia to let the old Pru crowd know that this is their home. How important it is to let the country know that Wachovia remembers how devastated Wall Street was by the 9/11 attacks, and how important it was for folks such as Serricchio to step up and serve his country.
Or, on the other hand, we can screw this guy up, jam him up on his U5, and let him know that we really don't give a rat's ass about his military service --- they're our accounts, our office, and we'll do whatever we want.
Yes, you're correct, there is always sacrifice in serving one's country.  My old man enlisted on December 8, 1941 in the Third Marine Division and needed his parents' permission because he was under age.  That's what old-fashioned patriotism used to mean.  And yeah, no one's jobs were really guaranteed during WWII, Korea, or Viet Nam.  You came back and basically started from scratch.  Except --- and this is the big point, there were always companies and folks who appreciated a veteran's sacrifice and gave him or her a hand, made a job where one didn't exist, kept one open when there was some strain involved.  Then again, we're always saddled with the Wachovias of this world who just don't seem to get it.  Who'd a thought that a company headquartered in Richmond, the heart of the Old Confederacy, a company that advertises itself as mainstream, conservative, and as American as you can get --- that this same company wouldn't see anything wrong in offering Serricchio a $2,000 a month cold caller's job rather than full reinstatement in his former role.
My two cents!

Well said, Bill. Why isn't Wachovia paying a price in terms of public relations on this one? You'd think there'd at least be vet groups on it even if brokers won't stand up for the guy.

moneyadvisor's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-02

rrbdlawyer wrote:
As published in New York Times 10/28/2005:

After Uniform, White-Collar Blues 
By STACEY STOWE
Published: October 28, 2005

Michael Serricchio was an up-and-coming stockbroker, tending $250 million worth of accounts in Connecticut and earning $200,000 a year in salary and commissions. He was also a sergeant in the Air Force Reserve.
 
That's It.........A measily $200,000 off 250 million in assetts.....it's no wonder they gave his book away.
Mr. Serricchio, who now lives in Westfield, Mass., said he would like to get back to the fast-paced arena of stock trading. Instead, he said, he is helping his wife, Maria, with her business, a tanning salon.
 
I wonder if the wife is hot????
 
 

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

I have to wonder if we have the whole story here...$200,000 on $250 million in accounts is pathetic.  Perhaps he was part of a broker partnership?  If he was paid 40%, that's still only $500,000 production on a $250 million book, which doesn't sound like much (20bp average).  Also a strange choice of words...he was "tending" the accounts?!!  Was he taking care of things until "dad" got back to work?!!
Also, an up-and-coming stockbroker with $250 million in accounts?!!!  I realize that at 33, he's fairly young, but it sounds more like a veteran's book to me.  My guess is that many of these $250 million in clients were already there, unless this guy was superbroker or just plain lucky.
That's kind of beside the point though...it's still a crappy thing to do to a man who's served his country...and I hope Wachovia/Prudential gets it's ass kicked in court.

Proton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-28

As a guy that got tagged once (and I will probably be going to Afgahanistan next year) I appreciate the enthusiasm on this board from everyone to support RRs on active duty.  I don't doubt for a moment that there are firms that do not treat their employees appropriately.  I know another officer that works for a large wirehouse in our community and he caught a lot of static from his branch manager for getting deployed.  He is a good guy and he has a dangerous and important job in the military.  I prefer not to name the firm since I'm not trying to start yet another flap about firms on this site.  I will simply say that this incident further lowered my already low opinion of that company. 
On the other hand, I'd like to know more about this Wachovia guy's situation.  There are two sides to every story and it is entriely possible that there is more to the situation than the NY Times article indicates.   I know of cases where military people did not properly inform their civilian employers and then try use USERRA as a club.   I also know of cases where the employee's view of an "equivalent" job was not connected to reality.   As others noted, the Wachovia story just doesn't quite add up.
 

moneyadvisor's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-02

No doubt ......If the truth is even remotely accurate, Wachovia screwed up.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

moneyadvisor wrote:
No doubt ......If the truth is even remotely accurate, Wachovia screwed up.

 
And that should surprise us because?
Only those who are naive really expect the wires to do the right thing by them on a consistent basis.....expect them to act SOLELY in their best (short-term) interests, and you will rarely be surprised!

Proton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-28

Frankly, I agree with the assessment that Wachovia / Pru probably screwed this guy.  This is based on my general perception of the industry and my specific views of Prudential. 
That said, the article misses a couple huge points and I do not believe that it is definitive.
For instance, did this guy work with ESGR to press the issue with Pru?   USERRA is a powerful tool and the article makes no mention of this subject. 
I have to disagree with Bill a little in that I do not support the RR if he is trying to use the law to shake down Prudential.  It is at least possible that Pru has done everything properly and this guy simply got a reporter to swallow his side of the story.  Yes, it is terrible PR for Pru in any event, but we simply do not have enough information to make an informed decision.
I'd love to see this go to arbitration and I'd also like to know whether the RR pursued relief through ESGR.  I doubt that we will ever know the answer to these items.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

rrbdlawyer wrote:
All of which brings me back to my earlier question.  I think NASD should investigate Serricchio's claims and if they are substantially correct, the regulator should consider filing a regulatory action against Wachovia based upon:
2110. Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade

A member, in the conduct of his business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.
 
Seems to me our good friends at the SROs really have to cut out the crap whereby wirehouses get to pull all sorts of fast ones on their brokers, but when a broker engages in questionable conduct the SROs pull out all the stops.  If --- and I say this with all sincerity ---IF--- it turns out that Wachovia screwed Serricchio over, then I sincerely believe that such conduct did not "observe high standards of commerical honor and just and equitable principles of trade."  If that phrase means anything, it must mean that industry members should treat active duty personnel with some deference and must fully comply with all laws designed to protect those who are on the frontlines of the war against terrorism.
 
Let's see if NASD even opens an investigation.
 

 
I wouldn't hold your breath bill.....

AirForce's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-10-12

Interesting

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×