BofA will cut Merrill Comp

82 replies [Last post]
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Putsy, I think that you are the king of projection.  You feel a certain way, so you think that everyone else feels the same way.   Your right that the banks will dominate the retail brokerage market.  The question is whether the retail brokerage market will dominate the financial advice industry. 

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

Holy crap Putsy!  I couldn't even read all your posts.
 
Here's one to try on for size....a few years down the road when valuations have re-energized, I think Merrill and AGE/WS/WF will take themselves independant again.  I think if BOA and WF can extract enough value out, they will sell them, especially if they find out that they are not good cultural fits.
 
One other thing to consider on the indy vs. wirehouse debate....msot indies don't need to have that many clients to make a good living.  Most only need a few hundred (or less) and they are set for life.  So it's hard to imagine that any indy broker could not find a few hundred people willing to do business with them over the course of time.
Then it's a whole different issue with larger "wealth management" firms.  I think these firms are becoming a better alternative to banks/wirehouses.  It's been my experience that most people are comfortable with their cash/checking/CD's at their bank, but are not as comfortable with them handling investments.  I pick up clients from banks quite often.  However, I don't think clients (in general) will view Merrill Lynch or Smith Barney as "banks", even thought they are owned by them.  I think AGE/WS/WF clients might be a different story, depending on how they finally decide to brand themselves.

Rugby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

Putsy-Are you the same guy who was singing the praises of working at premier firms like MER, C, WB...a while back?  Do $24 billion losses boost the prestige of a firm according to your B/D hierarchy?  As stated by others on the board your track record and views on the state of the industry are way out there and really laughable.   Your scenario of LPL being bought by a bank highlights this.  These banks, wirehouses, quasi government entities have their hands full right now without bailing out venture capitalists who invested in indy broker dealers.

Morphius's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-21

Putsy, With your zeal to try and predict the future you should consider becoming a meteorologist or maybe an economist.   Although they would actually expect you to base your predictions on something beyond your gut impression, so that probably wouldn't work either.  Fortune telling maybe? 

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

anonymous wrote:Putsy, I think that you are the king of
projection.  You feel a certain way, so you think that everyone
else feels the same way.   Your right that the banks will
dominate the retail brokerage market.  The question is whether the
retail brokerage market will dominate the financial advice
industry. 

Do you envision some sort of Mom and Pop franchises with store fronts
were people can stop in for some financial advice and a shoe shine?

Willie Sutton is said to have commented, "The reason I rob banks is because that's where the money is."

Glass Steagal established the wall between commercial banking and
investment banking.  That wall has been taken down.  The
citizens have had a flirtatious relationship with non bank custodians
for their money.  The ones that financial advisor types are
interested in have lost at least 25% of their money in the last ninety
days--many have lost much more.

Bond Guy used a great phrase...."getting them off the tracks before
they were run over by the bear train."  Briliiant imagry and damn
near everybody who is reading this failed at it.

It is not an excuse to suggest that you're not guilty of malpractice simply because everybody else is too.

The banks have been patient watching the brokerage firms offer checking accounts and other forms of competition.

Survey the landscape.  The players are gone--overnight they simply
disappeared.  In their place we find Bank of America, Wells Fargo,
Citigroup, Union Bank of Switzerland, Bank of NY/Mellon--there maybe
others that I have forgotten.

Those players will want to consolidate even more--and a classic way of
eliminating the competition is to buy them and shut them down.

What would be the downside to Bank of America if they bought Raymond
James, merged the accounts into their existing network of bank owned
broker/dealers and shuttered the offices?

Why would the shareholders of RJFS care as long as they were paid a fair price?

Why would the venture capitalists who own LPL care as long as they were paid a fair price?

Why would the shareholders of SCHW care as long as they were paid a fair price?

It's tough to hear somebody saying that what you've built your entire
dream on may be about to crumble--but screaming at the messenger
doesn't change the validity of the message.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

Provocative Put wrote: Are you really so cock sure of your relatiionship that you'd be willing to turn your records over to a seasoned broker at Merrill and challenge that broker to steal your accounts?
 
In a word...yes.  Over and over and over, I'm hearing, "We trust you.  That's why we're here."  While most folks are not happy with the direction the market has gone over the past year, they understand that these things can and do happen.  Most of my retirees, at least the ones who need to draw an income, had safeguards in place before this mess started and are thus not pushing the panic button.  The last thing they'd want to do right now is leave an advisor they've trusted for years to go to a complete unknown.  If LPL sold to a party that I didn't want to affiliate with, my contract says that my clients are mine and I'd simply move them to another B/D.  Without hesitation, at least 98% of my clients would move.  It's all about relationships in my practice and these clients value that relationship, even above better than average returns.
 
The scenario you painted is possible despite the ethical lapses and contractual violations, but I'm very confident that my relationships would almost all survive such an onslaught.  If you knew more about my actual situation, you might be inclined to agree.  If you're just slinging stocks, bonds and funds, sure, you are vulnerable.  My service goes well beyond the basics and that has made for a very loyal client base.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Provocative Put wrote:anonymous wrote:Putsy, I think that you are the king of projection.  You feel a certain way, so you think that everyone else feels the same way.   Your right that the banks will dominate the retail brokerage market.  The question is whether the retail brokerage market will dominate the financial advice industry.  Do you envision some sort of Mom and Pop franchises with store fronts were people can stop in for some financial advice and a shoe shine?Willie Sutton is said to have commented, "The reason I rob banks is because that's where the money is."Glass Steagal established the wall between commercial banking and investment banking.  That wall has been taken down.  The citizens have had a flirtatious relationship with non bank custodians for their money.  The ones that financial advisor types are interested in have lost at least 25% of their money in the last ninety days--many have lost much more.Bond Guy used a great phrase...."getting them off the tracks before they were run over by the bear train."  Briliiant imagry and damn near everybody who is reading this failed at it.It is not an excuse to suggest that you're not guilty of malpractice simply because everybody else is too.The banks have been patient watching the brokerage firms offer checking accounts and other forms of competition.Survey the landscape.  The players are gone--overnight they simply disappeared.  In their place we find Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Union Bank of Switzerland, Bank of NY/Mellon--there maybe others that I have forgotten.Those players will want to consolidate even more--and a classic way of eliminating the competition is to buy them and shut them down.What would be the downside to Bank of America if they bought Raymond James, merged the accounts into their existing network of bank owned broker/dealers and shuttered the offices?Why would the shareholders of RJFS care as long as they were paid a fair price?Why would the venture capitalists who own LPL care as long as they were paid a fair price?Why would the shareholders of SCHW care as long as they were paid a fair price?It's tough to hear somebody saying that what you've built your entire dream on may be about to crumble--but screaming at the messenger doesn't change the validity of the message.
 
I'm just asking a question.  I don't know what the future will bring.   There sure seems to be a lot of assets going the direction of RIAs.   This can be either teams leaving b/d's and taking hundreds of millions of assets with them or RIAs taking in lots of assets like Adam Bold's Mutual Fund Store with $1Billion plus of assets. 
 
Forgive me if I'm misstating your opinion on this, but I believe that you believe that advisors get much in the way of assets based upon their employer or B/D.   I don't buy this for one second.   Our clients work with us.  By and large they don't care about the B/D.  They aren't leaving us to go to a bank or anywhere else.  (This is doubly true in this environment when they aren't sure that they can trust the bank.)  The proof of this is that when a good advisor leaves his firm, he can usually succeed in taking most of the assets with him. 

Borker Boy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-09

Indyone wrote:Provocative Put wrote: Are you really so cock sure of your relatiionship that you'd be willing to turn your records over to a seasoned broker at Merrill and challenge that broker to steal your accounts?
 
In a word...yes.  Over and over and over, I'm hearing, "We trust you.  That's why we're here."  While most folks are not happy with the direction the market has gone over the past year, they understand that these things can and do happen.  Most of my retirees, at least the ones who need to draw an income, had safeguards in place before this mess started and are thus not pushing the panic button.  The last thing they'd want to do right now is leave an advisor they've trusted for years to go to a complete unknown.  If LPL sold to a party that I didn't want to affiliate with, my contract says that my clients are mine and I'd simply move them to another B/D.  Without hesitation, at least 98% of my clients would move.  It's all about relationships in my practice and these clients value that relationship, even above better than average returns.
 
The scenario you painted is possible despite the ethical lapses and contractual violations, but I'm very confident that my relationships would almost all survive such an onslaught.  If you knew more about my actual situation, you might be inclined to agree.  If you're just slinging stocks, bonds and funds, sure, you are vulnerable.  My service goes well beyond the basics and that has made for a very loyal client base.
 
You've earned the right to have CPA after your name, and that takes your credibility to a whole other level.

 
Those of us who have the 7 and 66 are a dime a dozen.
 
I'd do business with you, Indyone, but most independents wouldn't have a chance at my business. I could drop by one day to see my independent advisor and find a deserted office. At least with Merrill, Morgan and Smith Barney I can be farily certain that they'll be bought by someone else if they run into problems.
 

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

Indyone wrote:

My service goes well beyond the basics and that has made for a very loyal client base.

I've been making my presence known on this forum for a couple of years,
and during that time I've had exchanges with precious few guys and gals
who I conclude might actually be professional enough to deserve my
respect.

Indyone is one of them.

What I have not said very clearly is this.

As the industry consolidates there are going to be fewer and fewer
firms that provide executions, custodial, compliance, clearing and so
forth.

Y'all seem to think that if LPL disappears into a bank all you'll have
to do is switch to another firm that does what you need to be done.

What I am saying is that within a couple of years the pressure caused
by client arbitration demands could be so great that only bank owned
firms can fund them.

Clients have the right to bring a cause of action against you. 
Even if it's frivilous, even if you can't understand how it could
possibly be won---it can still be brought.  When it is the
individual rep will be named as a defendant but so will their broker
dealer be named and their clearing firm will also be named if the
clearing firm is separate.  Attorneys may experiment and name
third party research vendors as well.

Suppose half of a firm's clients bring an action--an extraordinarily
high ratio but there is no prescedence for a meltdown quite like we've
seen.  It could start as a trickle--some truly pathetic cases are
filed.  In so doing the attorneys will get a taste for how the
industry is going to defend itself and how the panels are reacting.

What I am suggesting is that the fee based on AUM model is so
outrageous that it could result, early on, in extraordinary
awards--which will have the effect of chumming the waters.

I don't mean to cite experiences from the 1970s but the saying, "Those
who do not learn the mistakes of history are going to repeat them" is
true--and the last time we had anything even remotely similar was the
malaise of the 1970s.

My firm had branches who were sued so often that it appeared that the
Marshall who served the papers simply waited in the hall for a courier
to bring another set.  All of those claims were filed for no other
reason than people were not making money and attorneys were accusing
our brokers of not upholding their fiduciary responsibility.

In other words cases were being filed, not because money was lost, but because money was not made.

People are funny about their money.

When you're whisting past the grave yard you convince yourself that you
cannot lose an action.  That's not really true--even if the panel
does not award damages to the plaintiff the defendants lose time and
time is money.

Consider how much time you would lose if only half of your clients
called one day and told you, "Indy, I like you a lot and I trust you to
be honest.  But I was at a cocktail party last week and met an
attorney who told me that he could get my money back, plus a 10% rate
of return retroactive to when I opened my account with you so I am
going to go that way.  I hope this won't ruin our friendship, and
I certainly do not blame you--but if I don't do this I won't be able to
retire."

The bright side is that these cases are rarely heard by juries any
longer.  Juries are morons, there was once a jury that found a guy
who cut his ex-wife's head off not guilty.  That jury would have
given a client who didn't make a profit in five years a sum equal to
what they invested just to teach you a lesson.

Theoretically arbitration panels will not be driven by emotion and will
use the full measure of their intellect to make a rational
decision.  But what will that mean?

Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Jones rolled, say, $2 million from a pension plan
into a self directed IRA and engaged a financial advisor to "manage"
the money for them.

Further suppose that it is now worth $1.2 million--down $800,000 so they contact and attorney and it's the day of the hearing.

You're a panelist--sworn to be as impartial as you can be.  You've
been trained by FINRA or some other arbitration organization so you,
sort of, know the law and (intellectually) you accept that the
registered rep who oversaw the loss of the $800,000 is not a bad person.

Then the procedings begin--remember you're a panelist.

The plaintiff is first.  Mr and Mrs Jones are led by their
attorney and they discuss how they worked for their entire life and
that when they became millionaires on paper they were very proud. 
It was quite an accomplishment for a school teacher and an engineer at
Lockheed.

They talk about what they had planned to do before the money was
lost--the condo in Florida and the vacations and trips to see their
grandchildren.

They also talk about their relationship with their
"advisor."   They recall the day they met him at his
office.  They saw the University of Iowa memorabelia on the
walls--but didn't notice that there was no diploma being
displayed.  They assumed that the advisor was a graduate of Iowa,
which spoke volumes in their part of the country.

They talk about how the rep would stop by the house once a year with a
computer print out that had a lot of numbers.   The rep
explained that the result was a gain of 12% for the year, which was
good since the averages were only up 10%.  Anyway, they mention
the fact that the rep stopped by once a year with a report.  It
was in a nice binder that made it seem very professional.

They also mention that they both got a birthday card and a "Happy
Holidays" card in December.  Finally they talk about meeting other
clients at a pot luck supper that the rep and his wife held on a spring
night at a pavillion in the park.

The defense attorney will then ask a few questons--designed to show
that the client was kept aware of what was happening, and to solicit an
admission that the client never indicated that the client was not
pleased.

Perhaps the defense attorney will attempt to suggest that the client was intellectually very capable of understanding the risks.

Next comes the Rep.

His attorney will lead him through a series of statements designed to
show that he had frequent contact with the client.  You notice out
of the corner of your eye that the plaintiff wife shakes her head in a
negative fashion but she doesn't say anything.

There's not a lot the defense attorney can do with his client so very quickly the rep will encounter the plaintiff's attorney.

This guy is not going to be pleasant.  He is going to ask very
difficult questions to answer--things like "How much training did you
receive for your position as a registered rep?"  We all know that
training is somewhere between none and not really very much. 
Regardless of what he rep says the attorney will be able to minimize it.

The attorney will ask about formal education.  This is where those
without degrees are on ice so thin it is virtually impossible not to
end up tongue tied and looking like a fool.

Then the conversation will turn to compensation.  The rep may
explain that he is paid 125 basis points per year.  The attorney
will ask what that means and get the rep to admit that it means $25,000
on the Jone's account.  The attorney will express amazement and
ask, "Are you saying that you earn a fee like that every year,
regardless of the quality of your advice?"

I challenge you to put a happy face on that question.

Anyway, within a remarkably short period of time the die will be cast.  Remember, you're an arbitrator.

Are you so cold blooded that you tell Mr. and Mrs. Jones to take a
hike--to suck it up and forget about the $800,000 that simply
evaporated from their account?

Or do you decide to split the sheets and award the client $400,000?

Perhaps you recall the testimony that the rep has his office decorated
with University of Iowa stuff, but didn't graduate from there. 
You conclude that he was trying to con the clients so you award the
Jones the full $800,000 they lost plus $200,000 for their attorney.

This scene could play out with EVERY client on your books.  Nobody
knows for sure, but only an idiot thinks it won't happen a lot.

Back to Bond Guy's line, why did you not get your clients off the
tracks before the bear train ran them down?  Isn't that precisely
what an advisor should have done?

Reggin's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-03

Quote:The attorney will express amazement and ask, "Are you saying that you earn a fee like that every year, regardless of the quality of your advice?"
 
Actually we only earn about 35% of that fee.  The rest goes to the investment team managing the portfolio, the ones WITH the education, the ones WITH the fiduciary duty.  What part of this arrangement did the client not understand?  We explained it ad nauseum and they read and signed the papers.
 
Give it up Putzy.
 

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

Reggin wrote:Quote:The attorney will express amazement and ask, "Are
you saying that you earn a fee like that every year, regardless of the
quality of your advice?"
 
Actually we only earn about 35% of that fee.  The rest goes
to the investment team managing the portfolio, the ones WITH the
education, the ones WITH the fiduciary duty.  What part of this
arrangement did the client not understand?  We explained it ad
nauseum and they read and signed the papers.
 
Give it up Putzy.
 

It doesn't matter if the client understood the relationship and signed
papers--when they're sitting there they'll say, "Yes that's my
signature but he was rushing me and never really did explain it to me."

Then their attorney will choose a particularly wordy portion of the agreement, ask the rep to read it aloud and then explain it.

Does the fact that you only earn a portion of the fee mean the fee was fair to the client?

Your childlike belief in things like signed documents is charming---in
a six year old discussing their views with their Daddy at the dinner
table.

Reggin's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-03

Your childlike belief that signed legal documents have no bearing on arbitration is foolish.  Please keep up the fearmongering, it is humorous.

Broker Fee's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

I really missed your doom & gloom babblings around here Putsy....
 
But you're only partially right on this one. Yes the industry is consolidating in order to drive out inefficiencies. No it will not squeeze out the independents. 
 
In every major city the landscape is dominated by large banking power houses such as BofA,C,JPM or WF but you will always find the presence of the "community bank".  Ya'll know those little nicely tree lined brick banks with neatly manicured lawns.  They have carved out a place for themselves among the power house banks in every major metropolis & they are not going anyway...the reason comes down to the same concept that we all have been echoing here & that concept is...."personal relationship". 
 
That's how many independents run their book & that's why I have lost 0 (zero) accounts ytd. Not saying its not possible in the future but when you build longterm relationships that are based on the right principles you can get through almost any kind of market with your clients even a crappy one like we're having now.  No doubt that clients are not "happy" with their performance but I can also rest assured that after years of service they aren't going to turn around and sue me either. One can only gain that level of confidence if you've built a service model within your practice Put.

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

Broker Fee wrote:I really missed your doom & gloom babblings around here Putsy....
 
But you're only partially right on this one. Yes the industry is
consolidating in order to drive out inefficiencies. No it will not
squeeze out the independents. 
 
In every major city the landscape is dominated by large
banking power houses such as BofA,C,JPM or WF but you will always find
the presence of the "community bank".  Ya'll know those little
nicely tree lined brick banks with neatly manicured lawns. 
They have carved out a place for themselves among the power house
banks in every major metropolis & they are not going
anyway...the reason comes down to the same concept that we all have
been echoing here & that concept is...."personal
relationship". 
 
That's how many independents run their book & that's why I
have lost 0 (zero) accounts ytd. Not saying its not possible in the
future but when you build longterm relationships that are based on the
right principles you can get through almost any kind of market with
your clients even a crappy one like we're having now.  No doubt
that clients are not "happy" with their performance but I can also rest
assured that after years of service they aren't going to turn around
and sue me either. One can only gain that level of confidence if you've
built a service model within your practice Put.

The community bank anaolgy is not a valid one.  First the
community bank is not dependent on a second party clearing and
execution vendor who will be under incredible financial stress just to
defend itself against a never ending series of actions--demands for
arbitration hearings.

For the umpteenth time, Wall Street has NEVER experienced a loss of
trillions of dollars in market value--mostly lost by people who are
currently or about to retire.  They do not have time for it to
come back--regardless of how much their heart tells them to.

You have to be intentionally obtuse to not recognize that there are
plaintiff's attorneys out there who advertise on TV, radio and in
magazines such as AARP who will be more than glad to take anybody's
case for no fee--none, zilch, nada--unless they win.

If you were the Smith family and your account is down a quarter of a
million, and all you have to do is is dial 1-800 and talk to a guy who
tells you not to worry because he will help you.

I tell you what.  If I was not who I am I'd do the same
thing.  The odds of $500,000 returning to $1,000,000 through the
arbitration process are far greater than by market action during he
coming decade.

"Mike, I know you did the best job you could, and I know that the
markets are dangerous--but you really should have been paying more
attention to my situation and I met a lawyer who tells
me......................."

Just because it hasn't happened since 1982 doesn't mean it can't happen.

Do you think that there was no documentation in the 1970's blizzard of law suits?

When they come, and they will come, the small firms--and basically all
firms that are not divisions of banks are small firms--are going to
need every spare penny to defend themselves.  There will be no
money for anything else.

I didn't just get off the boat.  No matter how much experience you have, I have more.

Morphius's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-21

Provocative Put wrote:Do you envision some sort of Mom and Pop franchises with store fronts were people can stop in for some financial advice and a shoe shine?Now that I single handedly pushed the market up for a change today, time for a quick Putsy break.  That's a great question you raise, Putsy, as it helps focus in on a key misconception underlying your points.  Here's a link from today's Investment News of the type of "mom and pop" "muffler and financial planning" franchises you seem to imagine are the norm for independents:http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081022/REG/810229987/-1/rss02&rssfeed=rss02An here's the executive summary for those not inclined to read the whole thing:  (1) a $900 MM Merrill team just left ML to create their own RIA; (2) a UBS team with $750 MM recently opened an RIA firm, despite multi-million dollar offers from ML and other wires; and (3) a third million dollar ML broker is quoted as saying, "The competitive advantage of a wirehouse platform has become a
disadvantage. The paradigm has changed."I may have missed it but I'm pretty sure neither of these mom and pop shops will use the words "muffler" or "brakes" in their company name, nor are they likely to offer many shoe shines.  Of course, I'm just guessing there, kind of like you are doing with your prognositations about the coming dominance of megabanks.  But I digress.If you think these are anomalies, you obviously haven't been paying attention.  The trend is very clearly the exact opposite of what you imagine.  Here's an excerpt from an article in January's Registered Rep magazine: "From September 2006 through September 2007, Schwab Institutional netted
$129 billion in net new client assets, just short of Merrill Lynch,
Smith Barney, Morgan Stanley and UBS combined during the same time period."You might need to re-read that to make sure you didn't miss that part about all wirehouses combined.Want more evidence of this trend?As reported in the 4/28/08 issue of Investment News, Schwab Institutional took in MORE new assets in the first quarter of 2008 than ML, SB and MS combined - $19.9 B for Schwab vs. $14.4 B for all the others combined.  Fidelity, the #2 institutional custodian, also took in more new assets than all these wires combined - $14.6 B.More recent numbers?  Same story through last available data, Q2 2008:"Schwab Institutional,
the firm's RIA custodian, reported $34 billion in net new client assets
for the first two quarters of 2008, $9.4billion of which came from
wirehouse advisors. (In all of 2007, only $9.2 billion in net new client
assets came from wirehouse FAs.) Fidelity's Institutional Wealth
Services division, Fidelity's RIA custodian business, brought in $31.3
billion in net new client assets through the first two quarters of 2008.
Of that, $7 billion came from wirehouse FAs.""With the
exception of Morgan Stanley, which brought in $24.7billion in net new
client assets in the first six months of 2008, the other wirehouse firms
have had a markedly different experience this year: Merrill Lynch lost a
net $1 billion in client assets in the first half of 2008; Citigroup's
Smith Barney lost a $12 net billion in client assets during that period;
and UBS' U.S. Wealth Management unit lost a net CHF 3.9 billion in
the period."I could go on, Putsy, but I think it's clear that the megabank trend you predict is not only not supported by the facts, it is demonstrably contradicted.   But other than that your prognostications makes for entertaining reading. 

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

Morphius, what part of "EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT NOW" can you not grasp?

Pulling up obscure websites with moldy statistics is meaningless.

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

Holy crap.  This has to be the most dedicated thread I have seen.  We're talking Pulitzer here...
Put, do you actually work??

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

B24 wrote:Holy crap.  This has to be the most dedicated thread I have seen.  We're talking Pulitzer here...
Put, do you actually work??

As little as possible.  Isn't that great so I can spend so much
time discussing the industry with the boys--there seems to be no girls
here any more.

Babbling is probably at a car show--she was the only girl worth my
time.  Wait--that's not really true--there was a gadfly gal who
was in touch with reality and a zealot of sorts who may, or may not,
have been a girl.

Can't think of any other girl worthy of my attention.

Morphius's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-21

Provocative Put wrote:Morphius, what part of "EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT NOW" can you not grasp?

Pulling up obscure websites with moldy statistics is meaningless.

Ah.  Silly me ... wasting time by citing current facts from prominent industry magazines when they contradict your personal crystal ball.  What was I thinking?!  Sheesh!  Of course they are meaningless!!  Of course they are moldy!!  Of course they are from obscure websites, like the one from the sponsor of this obsure forum!!     D'oh!Mea culpa for not realizing how meaningless mere facts are when confronted with the sheer power of your guesses!    Perhaps if you had simply explained to me earlier that all facts get thrown out the window because it's DIFFERENT this time.  Again.  Because I've never heard anyone else make that claim before.   Except THIS time it's REALLY different, not different like all those other times different, but, like totally different different.  

Mucho de Tejas's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-08

Hey Putz,
 
Be sure to wear your Depends tonight when you walk the beast because you are full of shiit.

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

Morphius wrote:
Provocative Put wrote:Morphius, what part of "EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT NOW" can you not grasp?

Pulling up obscure websites with moldy statistics is meaningless.

Ah.  Silly me ... wasting time by citing current facts
from prominent industry magazines when they contradict your personal
crystal ball.  What was I thinking?!  Sheesh!  Of course
they are meaningless!!  Of course they are moldy!!  Of course
they are from obscure websites, like the one from the sponsor of this
obsure forum!!     D'oh!Mea culpa for not realizing how meaningless mere facts are when confronted with the sheer power of your guesses!    Perhaps if you had simply explained to me earlier that all facts get thrown out the window because it's DIFFERENT this time.  Again.  Because I've never heard anyone else make that
claim before.   Except THIS time it's REALLY different, not
different like all those other times different, but, like totally different different.  

Virtually all stats that are more than thirty days old are worthless.

Investor sentiment is now such that if there is any rebounding at all it will be used to sell so that losses are reduced.

That's why it will take YEARS to return to where it was sixty days ago.

Stats that were gathered as recently as July or August are as
meaningless as the September 11, 2001 menu at Windows on the World.

Everything is different.

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

Mucho de Tejas wrote:Hey Putz,
 
Be sure to wear your Depends tonight when you walk the beast because you are full of shiit.

Hey that's really clever, I'll have to remember that in the
future.  What makes you much of Texas--I happen to know more than
a little bit about Texas myself.

Morphius's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-21

Provocative Put wrote:
Everything is different.If everything really is different, isn't all your years of experience and insight that you are relying on to make your guesses now, by definition, worthless?  I mean, EVERYTHING is different, right?Or are you the exception, so everything is different except your omnipotence?It's gotta be one or t'other.  Just wondering which it is.

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

Morphius wrote:
Provocative Put wrote:
Everything is different.If everything really is
different, isn't all your years of experience and insight that you are
relying on to make your guesses now, by definition, worthless?  I
mean, EVERYTHING is different, right?Or are you the exception, so everything is different except your omnipotence?It's gotta be one or t'other.  Just wondering which it is.

It is different than it has been since 1982, and more like it was from 1968 to 1982.

You have no memory of the market from 1968 to 1982 but for those of us who do this smells just like those years.

Up to and including a probable president who will make Jimmy Carter's
administration appear to have resulted in positive economic results.

It got pretty cold tonight--that's different than it was yesterday, but not different than it was eight or nine months ago.

Morphius's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-21

Provocative Put wrote:It is different than it has been since 1982, and more like it was from 1968 to 1982.Got it.  Thanks for clarifying.  So everything is different, except that it's like it was a while ago.  Gotcha.  Now I understand why facts aren't of any value in this situation. 

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

This thread has become verbose and boring as all sh*t . You guys should give it a rest. JMHO

Morphius's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-21

Sportsfreakbob wrote:This thread has become verbose and boring as all sh*t . You guys should give it a rest. JMHO
Is someone forcing you to read every post in threads you find verbose and boring?

daytradah's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-05

Branding is the biggest farce. Bank of America gets their lunch eaten everyday, by good advisors. Indy is far superior. People want local personal advice they trust. . . period. You can gather $100 MM in client assets get paid 85% and have a great life without Banc of Amigo.  You also have a valuable business that is worth approx 2 to three times gross.  When you are ready to retire you have another $2 million to cash out.
With Bank of Amigo you own nothing and need to gather 4 times the assets to equal the comp. No freedom, big corporate non sense. Re-earning your trails every year. Its all crap.
 
Those clowns want you to think their brand means something. Merrills brand is kaput and tainted. The bulls balls have been clipped.
 
Bank of America will implode on itself eventually. Too big to be managed efficiently, like our beheomuth US govt buracracy
 

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

daytradah wrote: 
Bank of America will implode on itself eventually. Too big to be managed efficiently, like our beheomuth US govt buracracy
 or like Citi

daytradah's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-05

Provactive Putz:
The idea that the Bank of Amigo brand will trump local relationships is non sense. Clients trust their advisor before brand if you are half way average. You are your brand.
You are in fact REPLACEABLE as a big brand bank broker.  You are diluted and can be replaced when they decide to get rid of you.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×