This Should Be Interesting

57 replies [Last post]
doberman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-22

I have a client event planned in a few weeks.
What might make this event "different" from the previous ones I've held, is the appearance of two recently divorced clients. They were my clients when they were married (to each other) and both remained my clients after the divorce. However, it was a very ugly, very public divorce. When I say ugly, I mean ugly.
The ex-husband has indicated that he's bringing a guest. No doubt the guest will be the "floozie/hereford/jezzabel"* his wife caught him with. The ex-wife has not indicated she will be bringing a guest.
The divorce was only 2 months ago. Hmmm, maybe I should hire security and have metal detectors set-up at the entrance.
Anyone else handle a similar situation? I've considered calling both parties and telling them that their ex- will be there, as well. Warning them ahead of time, so to speak.
I wouldn't mind my event making the news, just not starting with the phrase, "Police were called to ...."
 
* - Southern derogatory expressions.

Incredible Hulk's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-03-24

They say any publicity is good publicity.
Let us know how it turns out.

blarmston's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-26

Jezzabel, eh???? I think I may have to use that one out here.... Although it will probably be met with the usual confused expression I get....
In all seriousness, I would simply alert both parties to the situation, and perhaps one would decid eagainst attending... Perhaps email format would work the best....

Incredble Hulk's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-26

They say any publicity is good publicity.
Let us know how it turns out.

iconsult100's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-06

I definately want to hear how this goes.  I'll be in the exact same situation this September.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Anyone else handle a similar situation? I've considered calling both parties and telling them that their ex- will be there, as well. Warning them ahead of time, so to speak
NO!! It was probably bad enough being involved in their personal life the first time.  I wouldn't call them.  They probably want you to take sides anyway, especially the scorned wife to try to get even with the husband and the new floozy.  I would alert my assistant to try to keep the two of them separated during the event and if things really get ugly you could ask to speak privately and in nice words ask them to get the *#ck over it and act like adults in public.  Ask them to be the better man/woman.
You need to take the high road. After all if they make a spectacle of themselves you want to be perceived as cool calm and collected.  Professional detachment. Your other clients will admire you for it.

Ready2Jump's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-30

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Hulk.....
Invite their attornies AND the local paper...

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

If I were either of the divorced people I would pull my account because
I would not want to think I was dealing with an advisor who was so out
of touch with common courtesy that he or she would invite my ex spouse
to a function while also inviting me.

If I were there and knew either of the divorced people I would pull my
account because I would not want to do business with an advisor who was
so out of touch with common courtesy that he or she would invite ex
spouses to the same affair.

If I were the financial advisor I would cancel the entire event. 
I cannot imagine an easier way for somebody to blow up their book.

Ready2Jump's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-30

Hmmm... pretty good points....

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

NASD Newbie wrote:If I were either of the divorced people I would pull my account because
I would not want to think I was dealing with an advisor who was so out
of touch with common courtesy that he or she would invite my ex spouse
to a function while also inviting me.

If I were there and knew either of the divorced people I would pull my
account because I would not want to do business with an advisor who was
so out of touch with common courtesy that he or she would invite ex
spouses to the same affair.

If I were the financial advisor I would cancel the entire event. 
I cannot imagine an easier way for somebody to blow up their book.

Wow you're seriously negative!!!I think the best way to handle it would be to call each of the parties, express your concerns and sensitivity to a clearly difficult situation, and apprise them that the other is bringing a guest.....and offer to take them out(individually of course) to a nice dinner for their own 'client appreciation night' if they don't feel comfortable attending your event.

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

babbling looney wrote:You need to take the high
road. After all if they make a spectacle of themselves you want to be
perceived as cool calm and collected.  Professional detachment.
Your other clients will admire you for it.

I would think that the host was the most untrustworthy person at the event and transfer my account the next morning.

What an insane idea.  It is not like this is a family wedding
where waring parties may be the mother and father of the groom.

Again, there is no quicker way on earth to cause you book to blow
up.  The two clients both leave, pissed off at being put in that
position, and so would anybody who saw it happen or heard about it
happening.

Perhaps not right away, but can you imagine the damage done to the reputation of the host.

Stupid idea, really really stupid.

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

joedabrkr wrote:Wow you're seriously negative!!!I
think the best way to handle it would be to call each of the parties,
express your concerns and sensitivity to a clearly difficult situation,
and apprise them that the other is bringing a guest.....and offer to
take them out(individually of course) to a nice dinner for their own
'client appreciation night' if they don't feel comfortable attending
your event.

Seriously negative?  How about loaded with common courtesy and common sense.

exEJIR's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-12

NASD Newbie wrote:If I were either of the divorced people I would pull my account because I would not want to think I was dealing with an advisor who was so out of touch with common courtesy that he or she would invite my ex spouse to a function while also inviting me.If I were there and knew either of the divorced people I would pull my account because I would not want to do business with an advisor who was so out of touch with common courtesy that he or she would invite ex spouses to the same affair.If I were the financial advisor I would cancel the entire event.  I cannot imagine an easier way for somebody to blow up their book.
NASD,
When I first read your response, I thought it was a joke.  Your negativity will kill you in this biz.  If both parties can't be civil toward each other, then one will probably not show.
Dob,
I would just make sure that both parties are aware (thru general conversation) that this is a client appreciation for "all of my clients."
 

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

exEJIR wrote:
NASD,
When I first read your response, I thought it was a joke.  Your
negativity will kill you in this biz.  If both parties can't be
civil toward each other, then one will probably not show.
Dob,
I would just make sure that both parties are aware (thru general
conversation) that this is a client appreciation for "all of my
clients."

Both of the people will be uncomfortable, which makes it rude to intentionally establish such a dynamic.

As I said earlier, if this were a family wedding and the groom's
parents were divorced they will be able to set aside their "issues" for
the sake of their son.

However, a financial advisor's relationship with his clients is a bit more fragile than a son's relationship with his parents.

It will also cause both of them to reconsider the wisdom of doing
business with this advisor.  Would you want to do business with
your ex-spouse's financial advisor?  Seriously?

Then put yourself in the mind of a couple who is just there as a
guest.  Do you really believe that they won't hear the whispering,
"I can't believe that they were both invited, is the host crazy?"

How does that reflect well on the host?

Where is the upside to this gathering?

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

NASD Newbie wrote: babbling looney wrote:
You need to take the high road. After all if they make a spectacle of themselves you want to be perceived as cool calm and collected.  Professional detachment. Your other clients will admire you for it.
I would think that the host was the most untrustworthy person at the event and transfer my account the next morning.What an insane idea.  It is not like this is a family wedding where waring parties may be the mother and father of the groom.Again, there is no quicker way on earth to cause you book to blow up.  The two clients both leave, pissed off at being put in that position, and so would anybody who saw it happen or heard about it happening.Perhaps not right away, but can you imagine the damage done to the reputation of the host.Stupid idea, really really stupid.

This is just plain stupid.  These are supposed to be adults.  Unless they live in separate towns, I presume that they still travel in the same social circles, have friends in common, belong to common organizations and clubs and possibly have children together.  The OP is having a business function and if these people can't conduct themselves in an adult manner in public that is NOT the OPs fault.  There is nothing untrustworthy about having a business or public event where two childish people who can't control their emotions happen to bump into each other.
Is everyone around these two divorcees supposed to readjust their lives and tippy toe on eggshells because it might be uncomfortable for the poor injured spouses.     When you have an open house event you don't usually get to choose who comes.  If it is by invitation only and you pick one over the other, how is this any better?  I've seen this type of idiotic behaviour before, where the ex spouse (the wife usually) tries to suck everyone into the drama and make people choose sides. 
Joe's advice to take them out separately is probably good in some circumstances, but I would still stay out of their personal drama.   I do find it odd that one or the other of them hasn't moved their account just to avoid these types of conflicts or the feeling that there might be a conflict of interest.  If the clients feel that the advisor is able to maintain impartiality in their investment portfolio and they want to continue to do business with him that is their decision.
Sheesh.  People need to grow up and act like adults and women need to quit acting like martyred drama queens.

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

babbling looney wrote:Sheesh.  People need to grow up and act like adults and women need to quit acting like martyred drama queens.

All that you wrote is true, but this is the real world.

In the real world people carry grudges, people gossip, people have standards different than yours.

The mere fact that I suggest that it's a stupid idea indicates that at least one person thinks it's a stupid idea.

If you were divorced would you use the same financial planner used by
your ex?  I know I would not, neither would my wife (who would be
my ex).  Is it worth risking two accounts?

How about clients who are there.  Even if nothing happens between
the two individuals there will be "talk" among the guests about the
mere fact that they are both there.  If you've ever been to a
wedding or funeral where there two divorced people might show up
everybody who is there wonders, before the event, if they'll both be
there and then wonders, during the event, if something is about to
happen.

If you were giving a party and some, if not a lot, of your guests were
standing around gossiping about something such as this the entire
purpose of your party is compromised.

I am simply saying, "THINK," think of what could happen and the
ramifications of it happening.  Specifically the loss of both of
their accounts, but in addition to that the possible loss of more
accounts.

There is a vast difference between reality and what we wish reality
would be.  Why in the world would anybody want to tempt the fates?

Watcher's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Me thinks NASD Newbie reminds me of someone...

no idea's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

Watcher, does he use emoticons?

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

NASD Newbie wrote: joedabrkr wrote:Wow you're seriously negative!!!I think the best way to handle it would be to call each of the parties, express your concerns and sensitivity to a clearly difficult situation, and apprise them that the other is bringing a guest.....and offer to take them out(individually of course) to a nice dinner for their own 'client appreciation night' if they don't feel comfortable attending your event.Seriously negative?  How about loaded with common courtesy and common sense.
No, I vote for paranoid.  I have a high profile couple who divorced, and client events caused no perceptible problem.  As Joe suggested, they were both apprised of the other's possible attendance, and no problems came up.  I lost zero accounts, and no one shamed me for including all my clients in a client appreciation event.  To this day, both are loyal clients and good referral sources.
You already sound a lot like Put Easy's alter ego.

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Indyone wrote:
No, I vote for paranoid.  I have a high profile couple who divorced, and client events caused no perceptible problem.  As Joe suggested, they were both apprised of the other's possible attendance, and no problems came up.  I lost zero accounts, and no one shamed me for including all my clients in a client appreciation event.  To this day, both are loyal clients and good referral sources.
You already sound a lot like Put Easy's alter ego.

This is not a discussion about what we wish would happen, or even about what normally happens.  It's about what could happen.
It is rude, no RUDE, to invite divorced spouses to social events.  It makes them both uncomfortable.  To deny that is ridiculous.
Then add that there will be whispers among the others, and those whispers will be aimed at the host for being so out of touch with social graces as to invite the two.
Manners, it's about manners.  People who don't have them will never understand how those who do have them will react.
Again, it is rude, and being rude never ends well.
 

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

Watcher wrote:Me thinks NASD Newbie reminds me of someone...Yes eerily familiar.  And yet here you are with only 4 posts, and suggesting NASD is someone you know from the past.....hmmmmm....So who are you then?

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

NASD Newbie wrote:Indyone wrote:
No, I vote for paranoid.  I have a high profile couple who divorced, and client events caused no perceptible problem.  As Joe suggested, they were both apprised of the other's possible attendance, and no problems came up.  I lost zero accounts, and no one shamed me for including all my clients in a client appreciation event.  To this day, both are loyal clients and good referral sources.
You already sound a lot like Put Easy's alter ego.

This is not a discussion about what we wish would happen, or even about what normally happens.  It's about what could happen.
If we spend all of our time worrying about what might happen, we will spend the rest of our lives paralized.
It is rude, no RUDE, to invite divorced spouses to social events.  It makes them both uncomfortable.  To deny that is ridiculous.
Oh... baloney.  It isn't rude at all.  They are business clients.  Separate business clients I might add, and when clients are invited to a business function they do not have the right to dictate who can and cannot be invited.  So they are uncomfortable. Who cares if they are uncomfortable.  Life goes on and they need to get over it or move out of town.  What is rude is to expect everyone else to change their lives and businesses because these people have had some issues with each other.
Then add that there will be whispers among the others, and those whispers will be aimed at the host for being so out of touch with social graces as to invite the two.
We aren't talking about a close family function here, like a wedding or child's birthday.  I agree with you on this point.  We are talking about a group of strangers to each other who probably haven't clue one that Mr & Mrs Whosit have had a nasty falling out or even that they were ever married.  The only way that would come up is through the lack of decorum from either of the two parties.  If there are people who whisper and gossip then they have also lost their sense of the social graces.  They probably don't use a napkin, pick their teeth and sit with their knees apart to boot.
Manners, it's about manners.  People who don't have them will never understand how those who do have them will react.
Again, it is rude, and being rude never ends well.
Having been in Mrs. Whosits position, that of the ex wife being confonted in public instances, such as Chamber and Rotary Club meetings, Graduation ceremonies and ball games by the nasty presence of both the Ex Spouse and the floozie jezzabel, I know the correct and socially graceful way to handle the situation is to ignore the discomfort, make small talk if necessary, get the h#ll away from them and do not make everyone else uncomfortable or a part of some 5th rate melodrama.  People only talk if you make a scene.

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

babbling looney wrote:NASD Newbie wrote:Indyone wrote:
No, I vote for paranoid.  I have a high profile couple who divorced, and client events caused no perceptible problem.  As Joe suggested, they were both apprised of the other's possible attendance, and no problems came up.  I lost zero accounts, and no one shamed me for including all my clients in a client appreciation event.  To this day, both are loyal clients and good referral sources.
You already sound a lot like Put Easy's alter ego.

This is not a discussion about what we wish would happen, or even about what normally happens.  It's about what could happen.
If we spend all of our time worrying about what might happen, we will spend the rest of our lives paralized.
It is rude, no RUDE, to invite divorced spouses to social events.  It makes them both uncomfortable.  To deny that is ridiculous.
Oh... baloney.  It isn't rude at all.  They are business clients.  Separate business clients I might add, and when clients are invited to a business function they do not have the right to dictate who can and cannot be invited.  So they are uncomfortable. Who cares if they are uncomfortable.  Life goes on and they need to get over it or move out of town.  What is rude is to expect everyone else to change their lives and businesses because these people have had some issues with each other.
Then add that there will be whispers among the others, and those whispers will be aimed at the host for being so out of touch with social graces as to invite the two.
We aren't talking about a close family function here, like a wedding or child's birthday.  I agree with you on this point.  We are talking about a group of strangers to each other who probably haven't clue one that Mr & Mrs Whosit have had a nasty falling out or even that they were ever married.  The only way that would come up is through the lack of decorum from either of the two parties.  If there are people who whisper and gossip then they have also lost their sense of the social graces.  They probably don't use a napkin, pick their teeth and sit with their knees apart to boot.
Manners, it's about manners.  People who don't have them will never understand how those who do have them will react.
Again, it is rude, and being rude never ends well.
Having been in Mrs. Whosits position, that of the ex wife being confonted in public instances, such as Chamber and Rotary Club meetings, Graduation ceremonies and ball games by the nasty presence of both the Ex Spouse and the floozie jezzabel, I know the correct and socially graceful way to handle the situation is to ignore the discomfort, make small talk if necessary, get the h#ll away from them and do not make everyone else uncomfortable or a part of some 5th rate melodrama.  People only talk if you make a scene.

Nonsense.  People talk about each of us, behind our backs.
This is not a funeral or a wedding, nor is it the Rotary. It is a "by invitation" gathering and what I am saying is that there will be those who fault the host for inviting them both.
I say again, when given an choice it is rude to invite people into a situation where they will be uncomfortable.  Sneering "Get Over It" does not change the reality that the parties are uncomfortable.
If you were told by a finanical planner that he or she was going to be doing business with your ex would you be comfortable opening up to that planner?  Would your ex?
Do you think it's good social graces to create situations where people will feel uncomfortable?  It seems remarkably out of touch with manners, or a regard for the emotions of others, to do so.
My suggestion was from the very beginning that the event should be cancelled, or at the very least the two people in question should be asked to not attend after all.
The story itself caused somebody to say that the host should send an email to both of them explaining that they are both invited.  Email, yep there's a deeply personal way of communicating a sensitive topic.
Regardless, it is clear that the two don't know the other is coming.  I'll bet they don't even know that the host is still doing business with the other, and when they find that little detail out they'll be outta there in a heartbeat.
By cancelling the entire affair it can be rescheduled at a later date and everybody but those two can be invited.
Be selfish.  If you were the host do you think you'll be effective "networking" with your clients, or might you be preoccupied with those two, or three as it turns out.
We have no indication on the size of the town where this fiasco is scheduled to occur.  If it's a small town there is a good chance that everybody there will be aware of the situation.  To many the host will appear to be unaware of what is going on in town.  What is the upside of such an impression?
Even if it's a larger city, there is quite likely to be somebody there who will be surprised to see those two, er three, in the room.  That will get the tongues to wagging.  What is the upside of hosting a party where everybody is talking about what a social mistake you had made?
What the planner should have done is not invite either of them.  If the town is so small that they would have heard about it from somebody who was there you can bet that they would have been the topic of crazy conversations and the host would have been subject to withering second guessing.
By not inviting them the host will be thought of to have displayed far more class than would be displayed by not realizing that they will be uncomfortable.
"Joe, I'm having a client gathering again this summer.  I'm not going to invite you or Joan because I don't want to make the two of your uncomfortable.  Instead what Mary and I would like to do is take you and Bubbles to Ruth's Chris for dinner next Saturday."
"Joan, I'm having a client gathering again this summer.  I'm not going to invite you because I don't want you to feel uncomfortable in the same room with Joe and his slut.  Instead Mary and I would like to take you to Ruth's Chris for dinner next Sunday afternoon.  Please feel free to bring a friend if you'd like, we value our friendship and want to share some quality time with you."

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

NASD Newbie wrote:Indyone wrote:No, I vote for paranoid.  I have a high profile couple who divorced, and client events caused no perceptible problem.  As Joe suggested, they were both apprised of the other's possible attendance, and no problems came up.  I lost zero accounts, and no one shamed me for including all my clients in a client appreciation event.  To this day, both are loyal clients and good referral sources.
You already sound a lot like Put Easy's alter ego.
This is not a discussion about what we wish would happen, or even about what normally happens.  It's about what could happen.
It is rude, no RUDE, to invite divorced spouses to social events.  It makes them both uncomfortable.  To deny that is ridiculous.
Then add that there will be whispers among the others, and those whispers will be aimed at the host for being so out of touch with social graces as to invite the two.
Manners, it's about manners.  People who don't have them will never understand how those who do have them will react.
Again, it is rude, and being rude never ends well.
Well, again, I speak from experience and I can tell you that I had no problem whatsoever with the above situation.  I made both parties aware of the possibility that their ex would be at the event and let them choose whether or not to attend.  In this case, they both chose to attend and as far as I could tell, they all had a good time.  If anything, the couple in question appreciated me not making an issue of their recent marital difficulties.  I'm starting to wonder if you're even an advisor as you don't sound like you have much experience with client events.
Inviting both parties is far from rude.  What would be rude would be to not invite them, and to make a big issue of it by calling them and telling them that you weren't inviting them due to their recent marital difficulties.
Sorry...you and I will just have to disagree on this one.

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

Welcome back Put Trader/Rick/Big Easy!You didn't stay away long this time at all!!!

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

joedabrkr wrote:Welcome back Put Trader/Rick/Big Easy!You didn't stay away long this time at all!!!
Shhhhh! Joe!  You're gonna get him booted again!!!

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Indyone wrote:
joedabrkr wrote:Welcome back Put Trader/Rick/Big Easy!You didn't stay away long this time at all!!!
Shhhhh! Joe!  You're gonna get him booted again!!!

I've read about this Put Trader person.  In fact there is an entire thread devoted to him somewhere.
Surely somebody who generates such passion, on both sides, is a valuable asset to an internet discussion forum.
As I reviewed the postings it occurs to me that the monitor is the poster known as Starka.  I arrived at this conclusion based on the following logic:
On Tuesday the poster known as Big Easy Flood signed off with a promise to respond to a poster named Rugby.  Big Easy Flood then went to get his brother in law at the airport.
The next day Starka informs the group that Big Easy Flood's account had been closed.
Why would Starka know that?  Would it occur to you to check to see if any given poster's account had been closed because he or she had not responded overnight?  Especially after having signed off explaining that he would be out of pocket for the balance of that day and probably most of the next day.
Additionally, to the extent that there was a "food fight" as somebody referred to it, the instigator of the food fight was Starka.  Big Easy Flood was calmly responding to comments and questions left by others when Starka appeared and started sneering.
Why would RR Magazine "kill" Big Easy Flood but not kill Starka at the same time?  When there is a fight on the playground both kids have to stay after school.

no idea's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

Put/BEF, you're output is amazing! Here's an emoticon for old times sake!

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

NASD Newbie wrote:Indyone wrote:
joedabrkr wrote:Welcome back Put Trader/Rick/Big Easy!You didn't stay away long this time at all!!!
Shhhhh! Joe!  You're gonna get him booted again!!!

I've read about this Put Trader person.  In fact there is an entire thread devoted to him somewhere.
Surely somebody who generates such passion, on both sides, is a valuable asset to an internet discussion forum.
I agree, as long as the poster stays mostly on topic and refrains from excessivley derogatory and insulting posting.  Had "Put Easy"/NASD Newbie stayed on topic more and limited the insults, he wouldn't have to keep falling back on alter egos to satisfy his craving for posting on this forum.  I've pointed out examples of posts that I thought were very constructive and well worth reading.  The problem is, you have to wade through the 95% garbage to get to the 5% that is worthwhile reading, and frankly, it's obvious that the folks who run this forum have less patience than I do.
...and newsflash...it's not Starka that's running these boards...sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble... (emoticon in memory of Put Easy)

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Indyone wrote:
I agree, as long as the poster stays mostly on topic and refrains from excessivley derogatory and insulting posting.  Had "Put Easy"/NASD Newbie stayed on topic more and limited the insults, he wouldn't have to keep falling back on alter egos to satisfy his craving for posting on this forum.  I've pointed out examples of posts that I thought were very constructive and well worth reading.  The problem is, you have to wade through the 95% garbage to get to the 5% that is worthwhile reading, and frankly, it's obvious that the folks who run this forum have less patience than I do.
...and newsflash...it's not Starka that's running these boards...sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble... (emoticon in memory of Put Easy)

Let me see if I have this right.
There was a retired wirehouse upper middle manager sharing his points of view.
When his point of view differed from one of the kids with a few hours experience that kid would insult the experience, yet it is the retired manager who is to blame?
Is that it?
As for your Starka comment.  That would be because you're the monitor?

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

NASD Newbie wrote:Indyone wrote:I agree, as long as the poster stays mostly on topic and refrains from excessivley derogatory and insulting posting.  Had "Put Easy"/NASD Newbie stayed on topic more and limited the insults, he wouldn't have to keep falling back on alter egos to satisfy his craving for posting on this forum.  I've pointed out examples of posts that I thought were very constructive and well worth reading.  The problem is, you have to wade through the 95% garbage to get to the 5% that is worthwhile reading, and frankly, it's obvious that the folks who run this forum have less patience than I do.
...and newsflash...it's not Starka that's running these boards...sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble... (emoticon in memory of Put Easy)
Let me see if I have this right.
There was a retired wirehouse upper middle manager sharing his points of view.
When his point of view differed from one of the kids with a few hours experience that kid would insult the experience, yet it is the retired manager who is to blame?
Is that it?
As for your Starka comment.  That would be because you're the monitor?
hmmmm...I think the preponderance of evidence would show that Put Easy often was the instigator of unpleasantness.  I won't say I've never picked a fight on here, but Put Easy seemed almost to enjoy it, considering how often you did it.
On Starka, no...once again...sorry to burst your Bubble.  I know who Starka is, and he knows who I am.  When I was looking to make the jump, Starka was a wealth of information and graciously took some time to speak to me on the phone one night for well over an hour.  Both of us are independents.  We don't necessarily run our businesses the same, but I don't believe either of us cares to run an online forum.  If I DID run this forum, rather than giving you the boot, at teh risk of being labled a censor, I'd delete your more insulting posts and try and leave as much good information as I could...hoping that you would learn to not cross the line while continuing to make meaningful posts.  Your experience and knowledge is valuable, but many people probably don't even read it because they assume (and rightly so 90% of the time) that it will be filled with insults and angry diatribes.
If you do a better job of staying on topic (which we aren't here), perhaps "newbie" will survive this time...

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Indyone wrote:
On Starka, no...once again...sorry to burst your Bubble.  I know who Starka is, and he knows who I am.  When I was looking to make the jump, Starka was a wealth of information and graciously took some time to speak to me on the phone one night for well over an hour.  Both of us are independents.  We don't necessarily run our businesses the same, but I don't believe either of us cares to run an online forum.

Let me see if I have this right. You have no way of knowing if Starka could be a monitor or not, but you choose to believe not.
Is that right?
Indyone wrote:
If I DID run this forum, rather than giving you the boot, at teh risk of being labled a censor, I'd delete your more insulting posts and try and leave as much good information as I could...hoping that you would learn to not cross the line while continuing to make meaningful posts.  Your experience and knowledge is valuable, but many people probably don't even read it because they assume (and rightly so 90% of the time) that it will be filled with insults and angry diatribes.
If you do a better job of staying on topic (which we aren't here), perhaps "newbie" will survive this time...

What would be an example of an "insulting post?"  Would referring to a branch manager as a leech be insulting?
Would referring to a home office vice president as "Vice President of Paper Clips" be insulting?
Just what is insulting to your sensibilities?

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

NASD Newbie wrote:
Indyone wrote:
On Starka, no...once again...sorry to burst your Bubble.  I know who Starka is, and he knows who I am.  When I was looking to make the jump, Starka was a wealth of information and graciously took some time to speak to me on the phone one night for well over an hour.  Both of us are independents.  We don't necessarily run our businesses the same, but I don't believe either of us cares to run an online forum.

Let me see if I have this right. You have no way of knowing if Starka could be a monitor or not, but you choose to believe not.
Is that right?
You're right...I have no way of knowing for sure, but I've been on his website and have spoken to him and the evidence is fairly compelling that he is who he says he is.
Indyone wrote:
If I DID run this forum, rather than giving you the boot, at teh risk of being labled a censor, I'd delete your more insulting posts and try and leave as much good information as I could...hoping that you would learn to not cross the line while continuing to make meaningful posts.  Your experience and knowledge is valuable, but many people probably don't even read it because they assume (and rightly so 90% of the time) that it will be filled with insults and angry diatribes.
If you do a better job of staying on topic (which we aren't here), perhaps "newbie" will survive this time...

What would be an example of an "insulting post?"  Would referring to a branch manager as a leech be insulting?  Yes, I'd have to agree with that one.
Would referring to a home office vice president as "Vice President of Paper Clips" be insulting?  Ditto...that's also fairly insulting.
Just what is insulting to your sensibilities?  A lot of things are insulting...I just choose to let most of it roll off my back.  When I don't I usually end up in long time-wasting back and forth posts that I often end up regretting but seem almost powerless to stop...kind of like this one...
I really don't want to get into a "but he started it" or "he does it more than I do", but that is my sense of what's happened here in the past.  You might view it as favoritism, but you haven't exactly come off as Emily Post in the past, despite your apparent awareness of manners and what is considered rude, and I think that's what's caused problems.  The "Vice President of paperclips" and "leech" comments, while funny to some of us, are understandably insulting to you, but I believe that they were in response to similar posts that you'd initiated ealier and with greater frequency.  I could be wrong, but that's my perception, and I believe that it's the perception of the majority of participants here.  A little bit of this once in awhile is all in good fun...you just have to know when you're overdoing it...
...fair enough?

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Indy,
Do you realize how vapid it is to declare that you've been on Starka's website and having done that you know he is not the monitor of this forum. Somebody is, and why would that somebody not go ahead and participate in the discussions as well?
For that matter how do you know that Starka is the guy profiled on the LPL website.  For all you know Starka could be that guy's junior associate.
This is the Internet, ugly is pretty, short is tall, poor is rich, up is down.  You have to pay attention to what is said and how it is said in order to know if a comment has currency or not.

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

...you win...I quit!

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

Dobe...sorry for the hijack.  Let us know how your client event goes...

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Indyone wrote:Dobe...sorry for the hijack.  Let us know how your client event goes...
Let's turn it back to that discussion.
Indy, do you not have enough class to understand that people who went through an angry divorce within the last few months cannot help but be uncomfortable in each other's presence?
It's not a matter of if they should or not, it's the reality that they will.
The entire thesis is that a financial advisor paints himself/herself in a very unfavorable light for being so unaware of the emotions with which he or she is dealing.
The two people may do lip service to some form of, "Oh, that's alright.  I understand" but they don't and they will resent it.
Everybody who argued in favor of inviting them argued from the "If they're adults they can get over it......." point of view.
That is irrelevant.  This forum is to discuss the wisdom of the advisor inviting them at all.  Sure they can get over it, and sure they should be willing to be in the same room at the same time.
But the sin of intentionally exposing them to the emotional turmoil is what the advisor should be considered.
You have said that you had a divorced couple at such an event.  Two questions:
1.  Was the divorce particularly unpleasant and was it still so fresh that the final divorce decree may not have even been filed?
2.  Did it ever occur to you that you were being rude in inviting them, but that their class trumped your lack of it?

maybeeeeeeee's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-24

Indyone wrote:NASD Newbie wrote:Indyone wrote:I agree, as long as the poster stays mostly on topic and refrains from excessivley derogatory and insulting posting.  Had "Put Easy"/NASD Newbie stayed on topic more and limited the insults, he wouldn't have to keep falling back on alter egos to satisfy his craving for posting on this forum.  I've pointed out examples of posts that I thought were very constructive and well worth reading.  The problem is, you have to wade through the 95% garbage to get to the 5% that is worthwhile reading, and frankly, it's obvious that the folks who run this forum have less patience than I do.
...and newsflash...it's not Starka that's running these boards...sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble... (emoticon in memory of Put Easy)
Let me see if I have this right.
There was a retired wirehouse upper middle manager sharing his points of view.
When his point of view differed from one of the kids with a few hours experience that kid would insult the experience, yet it is the retired manager who is to blame?
Is that it?
As for your Starka comment.  That would be because you're the monitor?
hmmmm...I think the preponderance of evidence would show that Put Easy often was the instigator of unpleasantness.  I won't say I've never picked a fight on here, but Put Easy seemed almost to enjoy it, considering how often you did it.
On Starka, no...once again...sorry to burst your Bubble.  I know who Starka is, and he knows who I am.  When I was looking to make the jump, Starka was a wealth of information and graciously took some time to speak to me on the phone one night for well over an hour.  Both of us are independents.  We don't necessarily run our businesses the same, but I don't believe either of us cares to run an online forum.  If I DID run this forum, rather than giving you the boot, at teh risk of being labled a censor, I'd delete your more insulting posts and try and leave as much good information as I could...hoping that you would learn to not cross the line while continuing to make meaningful posts.  Your experience and knowledge is valuable, but many people probably don't even read it because they assume (and rightly so 90% of the time) that it will be filled with insults and angry diatribes.
If you do a better job of staying on topic (which we aren't here), perhaps "newbie" will survive this time...

I can vouch for the fact that the fact that Starka and Indyone are gentlemen and scholars.  I have been considering them as my own financial advisor because of the idiot who runs mine now.  Oh that is me. . .darn. . .anywho it speaks volumes that you helped each other out.  May you land a HUGE account today.

exEJIR's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-12

Indyone wrote:...you win...I quit!
Indy,
He did it again.  We all know BEF/Put was on here just to get our underwear/panties in a bunch.  And it looks like he has sucked us in again.   

exEJIR's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-12

NASD Newbie/BEF/Put,
If either one of the parties is as worried (as you think they will be) that the event will be uncomfortable, human nature dictates that that person will bow out of the invitation.
 

exEJIR's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-12

Crap, now there I go getting sucked back in. 

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

exEJIR wrote:
NASD Newbie/BEF/Put,
If either one of the parties is as worried (as you think they will be) that the event will be uncomfortable, human nature dictates that that person will bow out of the invitation.

The story was originally presented as the two of them did not know the other was invited.
Does that seem like a good idea, sort of a mean spirited joke to play?
Again, this is not about the people--it's about the stupid advisor who would do something like that.
What is the upside of creating a situation where people may be uncomfortable?

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

Indyone wrote:NASD Newbie wrote:
Indyone wrote:
On Starka, no...once again...sorry to burst your Bubble.  I know who Starka is, and he knows who I am.  When I was looking to make the jump, Starka was a wealth of information and graciously took some time to speak to me on the phone one night for well over an hour.  Both of us are independents.  We don't necessarily run our businesses the same, but I don't believe either of us cares to run an online forum.

Let me see if I have this right. You have no way of knowing if Starka could be a monitor or not, but you choose to believe not.
Is that right?
You're right...I have no way of knowing for sure, but I've been on his website and have spoken to him and the evidence is fairly compelling that he is who he says he is.
Indyone wrote:
If I DID run this forum, rather than giving you the boot, at teh risk of being labled a censor, I'd delete your more insulting posts and try and leave as much good information as I could...hoping that you would learn to not cross the line while continuing to make meaningful posts.  Your experience and knowledge is valuable, but many people probably don't even read it because they assume (and rightly so 90% of the time) that it will be filled with insults and angry diatribes.
If you do a better job of staying on topic (which we aren't here), perhaps "newbie" will survive this time...

What would be an example of an "insulting post?"  Would referring to a branch manager as a leech be insulting?  Yes, I'd have to agree with that one.
Would referring to a home office vice president as "Vice President of Paper Clips" be insulting?  Ditto...that's also fairly insulting.
Just what is insulting to your sensibilities?  A lot of things are insulting...I just choose to let most of it roll off my back.  When I don't I usually end up in long time-wasting back and forth posts that I often end up regretting but seem almost powerless to stop...kind of like this one...
I really don't want to get into a "but he started it" or "he does it more than I do", but that is my sense of what's happened here in the past.  You might view it as favoritism, but you haven't exactly come off as Emily Post in the past, despite your apparent awareness of manners and what is considered rude, and I think that's what's caused problems.  The "Vice President of paperclips" and "leech" comments, while funny to some of us, are understandably insulting to you, but I believe that they were in response to similar posts that you'd initiated ealier and with greater frequency.  I could be wrong, but that's my perception, and I believe that it's the perception of the majority of participants here.  A little bit of this once in awhile is all in good fun...you just have to know when you're overdoing it...
...fair enough?lol @ Vice President of Paperclips.....geez I made it up and yet I'd forgotten it quite a while ago.Perhaps if Put/Easy was a little more secure in his own importance, rather than trying to prove it to all of us, he would not even be perturbed by such a silly joke....just chuckle and forget about it.However, I suspect perhaps the jab hit a little too close to reality, and that's why he's still clinging to the remark.

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

joedabrkr wrote: lol @ Vice President of Paperclips.....geez I made it up and yet I'd forgotten it quite a while ago.
Don't flatter yourself Joe, the Vice President of Paper Clips was funny.  I simply asked IndyOne if it was something he thought was respectful since he was accusing Put Trader of not being "respectful."
I have a feeling that Put Trader, or whatever his name is, is so confident in his own skin that he is impervious to anything a lightweight such as you could launch.
At least he lasted for 35 years, you'll be gone by spring--just like Frosty the Snowman.

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

exEJIR wrote:Crap, now there I go getting sucked back in. 
...exactly...

doberman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-22

I appreciate the constructive comments from the few of you. After reading those comments and thinking about this situation, I've decided to let things stand as they are.
If either of the divorced parties wants to embarrass themselves at a public function, so be it. We're supposed to be grown-ups here; therefore, I'll expect nothing less from the parties, behavior-wise.
Besides, we all live in a relatively small city. So, not counting my client event, the chances of these parties seeing each other in a restaurant, theater, store, etc. are very high. Therefore, they should get used to the idea that they're going to bump into each other, from time to time, and move on.
I'll let you know how it goes.

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

NASD Newbie wrote:joedabrkr wrote: lol @ Vice President of Paperclips.....geez I made it up and yet I'd forgotten it quite a while ago.
Don't flatter yourself Joe, the Vice President of Paper Clips was funny.  I simply asked IndyOne if it was something he thought was respectful since he was accusing Put Trader of not being "respectful."
I have a feeling that Put Trader, or whatever his name is, is so confident in his own skin that he is impervious to anything a lightweight such as you could launch.
At least he lasted for 35 years, you'll be gone by spring--just like Frosty the Snowman.Put Easy it wasn't just funny it was hilarious!!  You're the one who has to bring it up. Nursing some hurt feelings are we?35 years huh...ok so what.  Do you fart dust or what?

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

doberman wrote:
I appreciate the constructive comments from the few of you. After reading those comments and thinking about this situation, I've decided to let things stand as they are.
If either of the divorced parties wants to embarrass themselves at a public function, so be it. We're supposed to be grown-ups here; therefore, I'll expect nothing less from the parties, behavior-wise.
Besides, we all live in a relatively small city. So, not counting my client event, the chances of these parties seeing each other in a restaurant, theater, store, etc. are very high. Therefore, they should get used to the idea that they're going to bump into each other, from time to time, and move on.
I'll let you know how it goes.

This is such a stupid idea that it would amaze anybody who ever thought about the "right thing to do."  Actually not being raised by wolves should be enough.
Set the business nature aside for a moment.  Change the scenario to a Super Bowl party.
Anybody with an iota of class would not invite a fraternity brother and his former girlfriend to the same party.  It's just not done.
This business is particularly sensitive because you're dealing with people's money.
A lot of those who are reading this are kids. You are simply not old enough to have experienced things like losing friends because they got divorced--or the emotions that run through a divorced couple's world.
But most of you have probably broken up with somebody--a college romance that did not work out.  Think about that person.
Would you think the host was playing a mean game if you were invited to a Kentucky Derby party and walked in to see that ex standing there with his or her current significant other?
I am not saying you'd throw a temper tantrum or break down in tears--but you know as well as I do that when you left you'd be royally pissed off that you were put in that situation.
Even if you're not one of the two main players in the drama you will still form opinions.  "Geezus Bob, look who he invited to the same party?  He must have been raised by wolves."
If you are completely out of touch with what are commonly called "social graces" you will be one of those who adopts the "What's the big deal?" point of view.
But there will be others--especially women--who will actually be angry that the host put those two people into such an uncomfortable position.  When I last checked women were very important to a financial advisor--more important than men when you're in this for a lifetime.
Nobody is going to walk up and tell the host that they are so incensed by what is happening that they are going to transfer their assets elsewhere in the morning.  It's far more subtle.
Referrals don't come, negative things are said around town, they become far more receptive to listening to somebody else, the list is long.
Can you imagine the town doctor or lawyer--or even the car dealer--intentionally making some people uncomfortable, while inviting others to gossip?
Other than the bravado of "I'm going to do it anyway!  It could be real interesting, I wonder if I'll need the police?" what is the upside of creating a situation where several clients--or even one--leaves thinking you're a jackass?

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

NASD NewbieNewbieJoined: Aug. 01 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 33

Posted: June 24 2006 at 5:21am!!!

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Indyone wrote:

NASD NewbieNewbieJoined: Aug. 01 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 33

Posted: June 24 2006 at 5:21am!!!

Yep, I was up early.  Had to be at a 7:00 AM breakfast for GOP party activists.
Early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.

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

NASD Newbie wrote:Indyone wrote:

NASD NewbieNewbieJoined: Aug. 01 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 33

Posted: June 24 2006 at 5:21am!!!

Yep, I was up early.  Had to be at a 7:00 AM breakfast for GOP party activists.
Early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.
Well, Ben, at least we share politics...

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×