500 or bust?
3938 RepliesJump to last post
I know what my production is to the penny I would prefer to ballpark it just in case people with access check in here…
Did anyone see the NY Times yesterday?
In a conference call on Dec. 19, Tim Sloan, a Wells Fargo executive who will head the global markets and investment banking unit, told a group of Wachovia bankers that they would not receive big bonuses. Instead, their allocated bonus money will be returned to shareholders.
He also said there would be no retention packages, according to a Wachovia employee who listened to the call. A Wells Fargo spokeswoman declined to comment
I hope he is talking about the investment bankers and not the brokers.Key quote...
In a conference call on Dec. 19, Tim Sloan, a Wells Fargo executive who will head the global markets and investment banking unit, told a group of Wachovia bankers that they would not receive big bonuses. Instead, their allocated bonus money will be returned to shareholders.
He also said there would be no retention packages, according to a Wachovia employee who listened to the call. A Wells Fargo spokeswoman declined to comment.
“I know that’s very painful to hear, but that’s the reality,” Mr. Sloan told the employees, as recounted by the participant. “It just would have been irresponsible to the company’s shareholders to do anything else.”Sloan would be talking "investment bank" here not brokerage right??
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=mnbondguy] [quote=skbroker]yes i am sure all of the million dollar producers place all their clients assets into cash before the crash and avoided the 40 percent downturn. Most million dollar producer have either inherited a book, have wealthy connections or has been in the business for 40 years. [/quote]
Many have inherited books, but so have a lot of 300k producers. No question, that being in the right place at the right time, can really be a career builder, but, you still have to do a good job with your clients. Inherited books and family connections can give you a head start, but it can not get you to and keep you at 1mm+ in production if you don't do a good job. Happy clients lead to referrals, that is how you get to those production levels. I don't think a lot of million dollar producers moved all their clients to cash, but I do think they had them properly diversified with a mix of equities/ bonds such that their conservative clients aren't getting killed in this mkt. Remember, bond funds, especially leveraged ones, are not the same as bonds.[/quote]
Head start??? What the guy said is true. 99% of the guys doing north of a million have a "story" Family connections with big money, been in the business 30+ years or they inherited a huge book. Nothing against guys who have family connections or are at the right place at the right time but, it truly galls me when I see/hear people who act they scratched and clawed there way to doing massive numbers when the reality is, they have a story. The most honest guys I know doing more than a million tell you it takes the bulk of a career to get to that level.
Proper diversification did not keep you from getting smoked in this market and if you are saying other wise you are a flat out liar. Even if you had 50/50 mix between fixed income and equities (all caps, all styles including intl) You STILL got your arse kicked. ALL of the indices are negative for 2008
spare me the horse dung about you did ok. If you had money in the market place you got hurt PERIOD.
Some of you are as bad as prospects that tell you that "they did ok" They cant tell you what the rate of return is in the entire asset base but they didn't get beat up like everyone else. CRB down, Real Estate down, Domestic equity indexes down, Intl indexes, down, Bonds down... yet YOU did ok because you had "proper diversification" Well pal unless your "proper diversification" was to be 100% in cash after early September you got beat up just like everyone else[/quote] so how much should a retired conservative investor with a 70/30 fixed income/equity portfolio be down this year? If you used individual bonds, instead of bond funds and had a 5-7yr duration, you didin't do too bad. If you bought a bunch of "smart notes" and other crap jammed into retail, you probably had some issues. I only use agency bonds and munis for my customers, and all the muni I have bought for several years have been go's or water/swr bonds. I especially like bonds backed by some sort of school program. I am a million+ producer, and I don't have a story. Nobody handed me anything. Have a happy new year...pal
[quote=Hank Moody] [quote=kowachovia]I produce between 1.5MM and 2MM, have 200 households and have never been given anything - I dont participate when other FAs leave …I worked my butt off from day one. I am always available to my clients. I know EVERYTHING about their lives.
I have never had to explain who I worked for until this year. Most clients are down between 20% and 40%. I am 80% fee based. My t-12 is off about 10% from last year. I believe if there is any recovery in 09 my business will be up 25-30% I am expecting a very nice retention package that I will use to market the hell out of my business and probably hire 1 - 2 more people to futher set myself from the competition. If there is no retention I will leave. 2.5+ times my trailing twelve to move to another firm is stupid money I cant turn down, but I can for 1x my trailing 12 to stay. The firm will spend triple to replace my gross, retention is a very good business decision by the firm - they know this.[/quote]You don't even know what your production is?
[/quote] Maybe he is being vague because he wants to remain anonymous. If you are too specific about your numbers once you get to be a multimillion dollar producer, management can use other clues to figure you out. Besides, many don't pull up and look at their trailing 12 that often. A 25% range is pretty fair in this mkt.
Hey Maynard and WSxAG, do you really not understand the difference between Investment Banking and brokerage side. No they arent getting retention as they shouldnt. WE are the profit center and yes we will be getting retention as Danny said. Sometimes some of the questions and statements made by the above make me wonder how they even have a clue in this business. To thise saying “No Retention”… Get a clue. I am assuming they arent even in this business or work for someone else.
There will be aq retention in January for BROKERS. Be patient. Be positive.[quote=mnbondguy][quote=Hank Moody] [quote=kowachovia]I produce between 1.5MM and 2MM, have 200 households and have never been given anything - I dont participate when other FAs leave …I worked my butt off from day one. I am always available to my clients. I know EVERYTHING about their lives.
I have never had to explain who I worked for until this year. Most clients are down between 20% and 40%. I am 80% fee based. My t-12 is off about 10% from last year. I believe if there is any recovery in 09 my business will be up 25-30% I am expecting a very nice retention package that I will use to market the hell out of my business and probably hire 1 - 2 more people to futher set myself from the competition. If there is no retention I will leave. 2.5+ times my trailing twelve to move to another firm is stupid money I cant turn down, but I can for 1x my trailing 12 to stay. The firm will spend triple to replace my gross, retention is a very good business decision by the firm - they know this.[/quote]You don't even know what your production is?
[/quote] Maybe he is being vague because he wants to remain anonymous. If you are too specific about your numbers once you get to be a multimillion dollar producer, management can use other clues to figure you out. Besides, many don't pull up and look at their trailing 12 that often. A 25% range is pretty fair in this mkt.[/quote] yup, but I do pull up my trailing twelve often and I look at the firm rankings closely when they come out. I want to be in the top 100 in the next 12 months. Top 50 in the next 24 months. I would really like to get in the Winners Circle rankings as well. I, by no means, am the smartest FA in the branch but I know how to market and read people - I always have. In my branch you will not find any fa's that work harder than I do, in my opinion. I see them waiting for the phone to ring. I had said a few weeks back we wouldnt hear til after the first of the year because one of my buddies was at the MBA meetings in December. I was taught many years ago to look at the underlying credit on munis vs the Moodys, MBIA, FGIC etc ratings - and it was always a selling point for me with my clients, thats worked well recently. The NYT article is a bit of a eye opener and I hope that whoever said it has it correct and there will be retention for the FA's.
[quote=Maynard] Did anyone see the NY Times yesterday?
In a conference call on Dec. 19, Tim Sloan, a Wells Fargo executive who will head the global markets and investment banking unit, told a group of Wachovia bankers that they would not receive big bonuses. Instead, their allocated bonus money will be returned to shareholders.
He also said there would be no retention packages, according to a Wachovia employee who listened to the call. A Wells Fargo spokeswoman declined to comment
I hope he is talking about the investment bankers and not the brokers. [/quote]
WFC is eliminating the investment banking division. That call had nothing to do with WS.
Again, WFC was under no compulsion what so ever to purchase the brokerage. The original deal made by Citi was just for the bank. If WFC didn’t want the brokerage they wouldn’t have included it into the deal. the fact that tendered the offer INCLUDING brokerage means they wanted brokerage. Furthermore, they paid Pru an additional 5 billion for the 1/3rd interest Pru had in WS. WFC had options they didn’t have to merely pay 5bln which makes it crystal clear that they WANTED the brokerage.
If you do not pay producers when people are banging on their doors many will leave. It is really that simple. This isn’t ML and the F.A.'s are MUCH more entrepreneurial. WFC is going to have to pay to keep us. They got the bank for nothing, have massive tax credits as a part of the deal AND were forced to take TARP money. To not pay producers retention here would be a disastrous mistake. I simply can not see them being so short sighted.
I don’t think most are saying there will be no retention…it will just be much less than most are expecting, most likely back end deferred comp loaded…WS sure does love DC…and lower producers will get nothing or next to nothing…my thoughts
250-400 20% back end 400-750 20% Back end 20% upfront 750-1mm 30% and 30% and 1mm+ 50/50…I think that would be best case scenario
Could somebody answer this?
If they pay a retention, just when the heck can we expect check in hand??
Thanks.
Hear that WacSec deals are being cut BIG on 1/15/09. Brokers need to sign by then to get the current. Managers are out there trying to get recruits signed.
My guess is everyone will be cutting size of there deal too
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Maynard] Did anyone see the NY Times yesterday?
In a conference call on Dec. 19, Tim Sloan, a Wells Fargo executive who will head the global markets and investment banking unit, told a group of Wachovia bankers that they would not receive big bonuses. Instead, their allocated bonus money will be returned to shareholders.
He also said there would be no retention packages, according to a Wachovia employee who listened to the call. A Wells Fargo spokeswoman declined to comment
I hope he is talking about the investment bankers and not the brokers. [/quote]
WFC is eliminating the investment banking division. That call had nothing to do with WS.
Again, WFC was under no compulsion what so ever to purchase the brokerage. The original deal made by Citi was just for the bank. If WFC didn't want the brokerage they wouldn't have included it into the deal. the fact that tendered the offer INCLUDING brokerage means they wanted brokerage. Furthermore, they paid Pru an additional 5 billion for the 1/3rd interest Pru had in WS. WFC had options they didn't have to merely pay 5bln which makes it crystal clear that they WANTED the brokerage.
If you do not pay producers when people are banging on their doors many will leave. It is really that simple. This isn't ML and the F.A.'s are MUCH more entrepreneurial. WFC is going to have to pay to keep us. They got the bank for nothing, have massive tax credits as a part of the deal AND were forced to take TARP money. To not pay producers retention here would be a disastrous mistake. I simply can not see them being so short sighted.[/quote] 1. they bought all of WB to make it a cleaner deal then the citi deal for both the regulators and the shareholders. 2. Pru excercised their put option on the deal to sell their share to wfc. Pru needs the capital. 3. Good investment bankers are also money makers for a firm, the fact that they will not get retention speaks volumes as to the future of the investment bank, but that handwriting was already on the wall. I do beleive that wfc will pay you guys, because it is standard in this industry, and every employee at WB/WS has been through hell the last year. I cannot imagine how the moral in the st louis is going to be when retention for the brokers is announced, those guys just got their bonuses cut by 80% this year after being told earlier in the year that their compensation be the same as last year. Many of them moved their entire families from Richmond, and they just got hosed.
That goes with others, such as UBS and MS. Talk is that SF and RJ are hinting the same. Sign soon or the deals drop. If you have not "formally" talked with other B/D's in the past 12 mo's, your potential deal will be significantly less. Shouldn't really be a big surprise should it?Hear that WacSec deals are being cut BIG on 1/15/09. Brokers need to sign by then to get the current. Managers are out there trying to get recruits signed.
My guess is everyone will be cutting size of there deal too
[quote=AGE Forever]Hey Maynard and WSxAG, do you really not understand the difference between Investment Banking and brokerage side. No they arent getting retention as they shouldnt. WE are the profit center and yes we will be getting retention as Danny said. Sometimes some of the questions and statements made by the above make me wonder how they even have a clue in this business. To thise saying “No Retention”… Get a clue. I am assuming they arent even in this business or work for someone else.
There will be aq retention in January for BROKERS. Be patient. Be positive. [/quote]Can you read ? My previous post on New Year's Eve stated pretty clearly that I think there will be some form of retention. However as for being a "profit center" WS in the WFC financial scheme of things is virtually nothing more than a rounding error.
As for the link - just providing the shortcut for others to read in context, so they can draw their own conclusions.
If you're referring to My Best Friend's Wedding soundtrack; "Wishin, and Hopin' and Thinkin' and Prayin' . . . " Seems to be the theme song for a great number of AGE/WS FCs on this forum.
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=mnbondguy] [quote=skbroker]yes i am sure all of the million dollar producers place all their clients assets into cash before the crash and avoided the 40 percent downturn. Most million dollar producer have either inherited a book, have wealthy connections or has been in the business for 40 years.
Many have inherited books, but so have a lot of 300k producers. No question, that being in the right place at the right time, can really be a career builder, but, you still have to do a good job with your clients. Inherited books and family connections can give you a head start, but it can not get you to and keep you at 1mm+ in production if you don’t do a good job. Happy clients lead to referrals, that is how you get to those production levels. I don’t think a lot of million dollar producers moved all their clients to cash, but I do think they had them properly diversified with a mix of equities/ bonds such that their conservative clients aren’t getting killed in this mkt. Remember, bond funds, especially leveraged ones, are not the same as bonds.[/quote] Head start??? What the guy said is true. 99% of the guys doing north of a million have a “story” Family connections with big money, been in the business 30+ years or they inherited a huge book. Nothing against guys who have family connections or are at the right place at the right time but, it truly galls me when I see/hear people who act they scratched and clawed there way to doing massive numbers when the reality is, they have a story. The most honest guys I know doing more than a million tell you it takes the bulk of a career to get to that level. Proper diversification did not keep you from getting smoked in this market and if you are saying other wise you are a flat out liar. Even if you had 50/50 mix between fixed income and equities (all caps, all styles including intl) You STILL got your arse kicked. ALL of the indices are negative for 2008 spare me the horse dung about you did ok. If you had money in the market place you got hurt PERIOD. Some of you are as bad as prospects that tell you that “they did ok” They cant tell you what the rate of return is in the entire asset base but they didn’t get beat up like everyone else. CRB down, Real Estate down, Domestic equity indexes down, Intl indexes, down, Bonds down… yet YOU did ok because you had “proper diversification” Well pal unless your “proper diversification” was to be 100% in cash after early September you got beat up just like everyone else[/quote]
so how much should a retired conservative investor with a 70/30 fixed income/equity portfolio be down this year? If you used individual bonds, instead of bond funds and had a 5-7yr duration, you didin’t do too bad. If you bought a bunch of “smart notes” and other crap jammed into retail, you probably had some issues. I only use agency bonds and munis for my customers, and all the muni I have bought for several years have been go’s or water/swr bonds. I especially like bonds backed by some sort of school program.
I am a million+ producer, and I don’t have a story. Nobody handed me anything. Have a happy new year…pal[/quote]
I dont care what your muni’s are backed by. They got completely re-priced or did you miss that entire fiasco? Are you completely unaware that spread widen to historic levels? If you have a 70/30 mix you weren’t down 40%, unless your an idiot, but by the same token that equity sleeve still got smoked.
Since you are so sensitive about the fact that “no body handed me anything” I suspect you DO have a story, otherwise why would you even care or comment?
[quote=mnbondguy] [quote=BukiRob2] [quote=Maynard] Did anyone see the NY Times yesterday?
In a conference call on Dec. 19, Tim Sloan, a Wells Fargo executive who will head the global markets and investment banking unit, told a group of Wachovia bankers that they would not receive big bonuses. Instead, their allocated bonus money will be returned to shareholders.
He also said there would be no retention packages, according to a Wachovia employee who listened to the call. A Wells Fargo spokeswoman declined to comment
I hope he is talking about the investment bankers and not the brokers. [/quote] WFC is eliminating the investment banking division. That call had nothing to do with WS. Again, WFC was under no compulsion what so ever to purchase the brokerage. The original deal made by Citi was just for the bank. If WFC didn’t want the brokerage they wouldn’t have included it into the deal. the fact that tendered the offer INCLUDING brokerage means they wanted brokerage. Furthermore, they paid Pru an additional 5 billion for the 1/3rd interest Pru had in WS. WFC had options they didn’t have to merely pay 5bln which makes it crystal clear that they WANTED the brokerage. If you do not pay producers when people are banging on their doors many will leave. It is really that simple. This isn’t ML and the F.A.'s are MUCH more entrepreneurial. WFC is going to have to pay to keep us. They got the bank for nothing, have massive tax credits as a part of the deal AND were forced to take TARP money. To not pay producers retention here would be a disastrous mistake. I simply can not see them being so short sighted.[/quote]
1. they bought all of WB to make it a cleaner deal then the citi deal for both the regulators and the shareholders.
2. Pru excercised their put option on the deal to sell their share to wfc. Pru needs the capital.
3. Good investment bankers are also money makers for a firm, the fact that they will not get retention speaks volumes as to the future of the investment bank, but that handwriting was already on the wall.
I do beleive that wfc will pay you guys, because it is standard in this industry, and every employee at WB/WS has been through hell the last year. I cannot imagine how the moral in the st louis is going to be when retention for the brokers is announced, those guys just got their bonuses cut by 80% this year after being told earlier in the year that their compensation be the same as last year. Many of them moved their entire families from Richmond, and they just got hosed.[/quote]
1. Absolutely wrong. The regulators had absolutely no problem with the Citi deal. The WFC deal was a better offer
2. Since you are clearly not a WS broker you couldn’t possibly know this, but, the PruSec/WB merger was initiated by Pru. Management would have to have been dumb as a box of rocks to not know that Pru was almost surely going to exercise its option regardless of capital needs.
3. Again not knowing the firm I’ll cut you some slack. Key word is GOOD. WS did not have a good investment bank or investment banking capabilities. WB isn’t/wasn’t capable of competing in a meaningful fashion in investment banking. The cost of building those capabilities doesn’t make sense in this environment particularly when there are other area’s of the bank that are far more profitable right now.
4. While I do appreciate the “feelings” of people in St. Louis the cold hard truth is that those people exist for one reason and one reason only. Because of the production created by the F.A. Your line of though really exemplifies the difference in mindset between your firm and WS (as well as the regionals) With out the client/FA relationship St Louis doesn’t exist. That is why were I to leave WS it would be to go independent. I could never go back to that wire-house, NY city mentality. It may be cheesy to you but what DL preaches really is how the firm views what we do and that is unlike ANYTHING that UBS, SB, ML or MS can say. DL SPECIFICALLY addressed that issue about no bonus/retention for St Louis and he SPECIFICALLY pointed out the fact that those jobs exist for one reason and one reason only… to serve the F.A.'s ability to bring the best product solution and service possible to solve clients needs and problems.
[quote=WSxAG]
[quote=AGE Forever]Hey Maynard and WSxAG, do you really not understand the difference between Investment Banking and brokerage side. No they arent getting retention as they shouldnt. WE are the profit center and yes we will be getting retention as Danny said. Sometimes some of the questions and statements made by the above make me wonder how they even have a clue in this business. To thise saying “No Retention”… Get a clue. I am assuming they arent even in this business or work for someone else.
There will be aq retention in January for BROKERS. Be patient. Be positive. [/quote]Can you read ? My previous post on New Year’s Eve stated pretty clearly that I think there will be some form of retention. However as for being a “profit center” WS in the WFC financial scheme of things is virtually nothing more than a rounding error.As for the link - just providing the shortcut for others to read in context, so they can draw their own conclusions.If you’re referring to My Best Friend’s Wedding soundtrack; "Wishin, and Hopin’ and Thinkin’ and Prayin’ . . . " Seems to be the theme song for a great number of AGE/WS FCs on this forum.[/quote]
??? Boy is that off base. WB had apx 2.2 bln shares outstanding WS accounted for nearly 30% of all of WB earnings and that percentage was growing BEFORE the meltdown occurred. WFC has 3.3 bln shares outstanding. In a normalized market, the brokerage will account for a lot more than rounding error to bottom line earnings.