Citi PWM Exodus

244 replies [Last post]
XCitiFA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-09

Whatever happened to Christo??

Vikram Pandit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-23

XCitiFA wrote: Whatever happened to Christo??

Salaried advisors don't have time to post.

shantom1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-28

Vikram Pandit wrote:What is Fifth Third offering in Chicago? S.H. (Loop) 1/8 M.S. (Loop) 1/8 D.O. (Schaumburg) 1/15 M.C. (Loop) 11/19 (I canned him) Their has to be more at Fifth Third then just the chance to work with Maria Holmes?

The opportunity to work with HH, one of the best people in the business......

MrBig's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-05

Vikram:

"their" ≠ "there" ≠ "they're"

They're three different words. Perhaps you'd win more clients if you learned them.

Vikram Pandit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-23

Does anyone think Sallie K. will take my calls to explain how these independent Madoff operations work?

P.L. (Bloomington) LPL 11/27
R.K. (Chicago) Mid Atlantic Capital 12/05
L.V. (Highland Park) LPL 12/11
G.F. (Chicago) LPL 12/11
C.H. (River Forest) Cambridge Investment Research 12/18

karateman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-26

CPWM is in a serious slide and by next week all the remaining brokers will have to sign a non compete agreement inorder to stay.  Watch to doors blow completely open...

MrBig's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-05

I've seen the agreement (it's the team agreement). It's not a non-compete, and that wouldn't fly with me. It simply says that if you leave, you can't solicit accounts that were not acquired by your own efforts (other accounts of the team).

NOVA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-01-11

Interesting.  Protocol trumps the stupid UBS "you can't call inherited accounts" form.  Protocol does NOT trump team agreements.  So if an account is assigned to you via attrition you can't call them....

SuperGal's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-15

After CPWM FAs get their retention bonus this Friday, a lot of them will quit!

LogansRun's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-25

This junk is sickening and I really empathize with anyone at firm like this. Here is my thought for the day that could apply to any of these idiot firms.

And it goes a little something like this...

'We made a conscious decision to withdraw from the Protocol. We felt it encourages advisors to unnecessarily jump firms and potentially risk client privacy and as a firm we believe that offering large sign on bonuses to advisors is not in the spirit of the current economic climate; our senior management, of course, would exclude themselves from this principle since they are key in developing our vision and strategy. As a firm we feel our interest would be better served by not facilatating such ease of movement among financial advisors serving our clients. Our studies indicate that many clients are more interested in stability and being with an institution they know and trust, even if during a transition advisor compensation may be impacted and clients may find more comeptitive offering elsewhere. While we realize this may upset some advisors who may be contemplating new opportunities elsewhere, we are most concerned with protecting our clients' best interests rather than encouraging movement amongst our advisory staff. We feel we know best for our clients and have also afforded our advisors the opportunity to form teams by simply signing team agreements whereas each financial advisor will now participate in a model designed to best serve the needs of Our clientele. By submitting to such agreements (to include necessary non complete clauses), we have offered competitive retention compensation to all of our qualified advisors (subject to lengthy contractual agreements). This is the appropriate business model of the future and we are proud to make this new model available to our clients.'

Right. Don't get caught sleeping in the corporate frying pan of the self righteous senior management clowns. Say Bye bye BIG firms! You guys blew it. Your only strategy now is lock 'em down. Hypocrisy and arrogance blended (clouded) with wonderful retention deals. Firm's hide behind this trash and arrogantly state they know hoe to best serve clients. What about what the client's want? Most of the time they want to work with their advisor they know and trust and not the firm who often can't be trusted. No different than Dr. / Patient relationship. The hospital definitely cares more about the bottom line than the patient and it's the same way in our business.

America was built on competition and let the best man win - and the best firm win who offers clients and advisors the best offerings. Never ignore - Smart money goes where it is treated best and it ain't treated best when you hold FAs hostage in your 2nd rate shops. Is this not obvious to anyone still at a firm like this???      

Okay. I am done.

TOP BROKER's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-18

Focus Report came out yesterday showing that there are only 387 FA left at the firm from a peak of 700.

burtonfinancial1's picture
Joined: 2008-09-30

TOP BROKER wrote:Focus Report came out yesterday showing that there are only 387 FA left at the firm from a peak of 700.Who was the guy who posted here few months back that there would be no 'so called' EXODUS from C and those of us who thought otherwise were fools? If this is not an exodus, what is it?

SuperGal's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-15

Actually 387 was as of end of Dec 2009.  There are even less FAs left now.
 
What's amazing is that when LPL and Schwab are starting to go hybrid, what was CPWM management thinking that pure RIA would actually be competitive?  Oh, wait, they weren't thinking! 

Vikram Pandit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-23

burtonfinancial1 wrote:
TOP BROKER wrote:Focus Report came out yesterday showing that there are only 387 FA left at the firm from a peak of 700.Who was the guy who posted here few months back that there would be no 'so called' EXODUS from C and those of us who thought otherwise were fools? If this is not an exodus, what is it?
I prefer the term structural reorganization

karateman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-26

Queens down another 3 big brokers, totalling about 700M in assets.

karateman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-26

Today...

burtonfinancial1's picture
Joined: 2008-09-30

BIG day at C, or shall I say, BAD day at C today.  Loosing on the both coasts. From what I hear, the movement that has happened in Dec. and Jan. thus far is prompting more FAs who have just dipped their toes in the water to get more serious. On another note. I've heard some feedback from a big C FA who went independent in Nov. Has NOT gone well thus far. This guy was $800+.  It's very questionalbe how much sense it makes for any bank based FA to make the move into an indy platform. That's open to debate for sure.

Longtimeplayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-05

I think the best solution for a bank based broker that wants to go independent is Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network (Finet).   It gives you the major bank "backdrop" which comforts many bank based clients.  That's where I went on January 29th, and I am having excellent success bringing over clients so far.  No disrespect intended to LPL, which is an excellent firm, but I was worried that my clients wouldn't come because of a complete lack of name recognition... which is why I decided upon Finet.  They also give you 15% of trailing 12 in a forgiveable note... not much, but it helps, and it a little easier to walk away from the 9 year retention note at Citi. 

burtonfinancial1's picture
Joined: 2008-09-30

How are offers from FiNet looking for bank brokers nowadays compared to a Wells Fargo Investments offers? Is the 15% you note the whole enchilada?

SoapySmith's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-13

15% T12 PLUS a 10% of T12 working line of credit PLUS 80 hours of on site support staff.

FINET is the best of the indy structures right now.

Vikram Pandit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-23

All this silly talk of Indy firms on this thread is pointless. The only advisors left at CPWM are the submissive bitches that won't leave. As dutiful employees they have taken their beat down and liked it, chanting "Thank You, May I Have Another"

TOP BROKER's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-18

As of January's focus report, 342 FA left!

excitr1011's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-10-19

my friend has exceeded the maximum number of incoming messages...i cant respond...

Vikram Pandit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-23

TOP BROKER wrote: As of January's focus report, 342 FA left!

Whipped Bitches

excitr1011's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-10-19

**burtonfinancial1 has exceeded the maximum number of Private Messages they are allowed to receive...

MrBig's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-05

Yeah, whipped bitches that have so much assets we don't know what to do with ourselves. This is f***ing horrible. You idiots that left and thought your clients would follow you when you never picked up the f***ing phone when you were here are clueless... Good f***ing luck!

You're too busy posting how smart you are instead of doing the business. When you do call your clients now, you lie to them to get them to move. Good luck in life losers! May the best man win.

Longtimeplayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-05

Hello Mr. Big ~
It sure is nice to know that the clients that still remain are being served by a classy individual, such as yourself, who communicates with such an eloquent vocabulary.  I went back and read some of your previous posts, and I see that one of your major themes is to bash variable annuities, as if they are miserable products.  Over the past 9 years or so, I have sold many variable annuiites, and I have also sold many managed accounts.  I know it is not an apples to apples comparison to compare a 70/30 or 60/40 stock/bond annuity portfolio to a managed account 100% invested in equities, but I have found that ALL my rebalancing annuity portfolios have beaten every single 100% equity managed account for just about any time period.  They have also beaten the Vanguard S&P 500 index fund for just about any multi year period as well -- net of fees.  And the annuities have death benefits, tax deferral, and living benefits.  Many managed account clients couldn't handle the stress of the steep decline in Q4 of 2008 and Q1 of 2009 and bailed and are STILL desperately seeking a re-entry point in a market which has rallied 60% since March 9th, 2009.  Contrast that to the v.a. client who, when reminded that he had an income for life benefit based on a far higher value than his current market value, and on the advice of his "annuity peddler" broker, decided to INCREASE his exposure to equities at the bottom rather than to bail -- that client is up 70% since the bottom rather than languishing in a 10 basis point money market fund.  How many managed account clients were you able to convince to add money to their portfolios at the bottom of the market?   Managed accounts are over-rated for the client and for the broker.  And they certainly shouldn't be the only thing you offer a client.  Before I left, my team of 7 went to a team training meeting where we sat around a round table brainstorming how we were going to sell advisory products to existing clients. What a miserable exercise... if a client of mine was suited for an advisory product, he or she was already in one.  The client deserves a full platform that his or her advisor can draw from to meet the needs of the client, not the other way around.  Pity the poor little old lady with a half million in a tax free bond fund who will be hammered by a struggling team member to put that in TRAK so an advisory sale can be made.  Believe it or not, many FAs left so they could continue to do right by their clients... any representation by you or Citi or anyone else that a 100% fee based platform is in the best interest of the whole bank based clientele is nonsense... The bank is desperate and had to allow a prized asset (Smith Barney) be sold into a joint venture in order to survive.  The bank is staggered by the amount of assets leaving... just ask Terry Dial, the brilliant banker that decided to go this route with CPWM... of course you may have difficulty finding her because she was canned in January.  The whole thing is very sad, really, and I'm sure that many, many advisors would have loved to stay had the circumstances been different.  It is hard to believe that well less than 3 years ago we were all so excited to be part of Smith Barney, only to see it sail off into the sunset just 2 years after the conversion.  For you to gloat and be vulgar toward the advisors that felt compelled to leave the unrecognizable remnants of a brokerage business at CPWM is a disgrace.  If you are still there and you end up with a windfall of assets because some clients just won't move, then just be grateful, and, with all due respect, pipe down.
 

LogansRun's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-25

MrBig wrote: Yeah, whipped bitches that have so much assets we don't know what to do with ourselves. This is f***ing horrible. You idiots that left and thought your clients would follow you when you never picked up the f***ing phone when you were here are clueless... Good f***ing luck!

You're too busy posting how smart you are instead of doing the business. When you do call your clients now, you lie to them to get them to move. Good luck in life losers! May the best man win.

Losers for leaving? Really? Such pride in yourself and your fine institution. I hate people who act like they are honest and wish failure on others. Only a few words can describe someone with comments like this...

Bitter, hostile, jealous, scared, acrimonious, alienated, antagonistic, begrudging, biting, caustic, crabby, embittered, estranged, fierce, freezing, hateful, intense, irreconcilable, morose, rancorous, resentful, sardonic, severe, sore, sour, stinging, sullen, virulent, vitriolic, with chip on shoulder, swinish...

See what these places do to people that stay and spew their toxic nastiness and wish for the demise of those who have departed for greener pastures. Why fault someone for seeking something they feel is better for them and their clients?

Stay behind and be miserable, but shut up for god's sake. You are a tool of a broken machine. I did battle with your kind and celebrated victory when I won against bitter vultures who tried to spew negative spin about me. Your former colleagues will win too if they know what they're doing. You are low and judgemental. And yes, may the best man win! Bring it on all day long. Have fun with your hundreds of bank households. There's a reason clients invest with bank FAs - the bank! FAs who look at the departure of others as a way to grow their book are the real losers - especially when they get the 412 notice.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha   

MrBig's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-05

LTP: In some points you are right. I in fact sold some annuities as well, as they do make sense and are proper for some clients (but not all). On the note of convincing client to move money in and out, that is no problem for me and we have done extremely well in this past market and I've not lost very many clients. Any client who forced me to sell, is no longer a client. You certainly sound like you know what you're doing as well, and are likely in a different demographic than I am... regardless, my previous post was not directed towards you. It was directed to any jackass who wants to try to make himself feel better for leaving by calling the people still with Citi "submissive bitches". I don't usually let it get to me, and should not have this time either, but seriously... I've been to plenty of firms, and don't want to move anymore unless I have to, and I have it pretty well where I am, and I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I have no problem with anyone leaving and doing well as long as they are doing the right thing for the client first, and themselves second. Also, we're not forcing anyone into a managed account, and our transactional business is still paying more than many other places at 35%. Some advisors who've left are telling clients that they are going to be sent off to a phone center, be forced to pay managed account fees, and be forced into investments that aren't suitable for them. I expect advisors like me to be trustworthy and honest like I am. Win the client because you are a good advisor and you've earned your clients trust. Not using scare tactics that are complete bullsh*t.

Again, this is not directed towards you, if that's not you. I have complete respect for anyone who moves for the right reasons and does it with integrity.

Longtimeplayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-05

Hello again, Mr. Big
It appears that you are, as they say, "drinking the koolaid."  If you think that Citi is going to continue to pay anything on transactional business beyond 2010-- maybe 2011-- you are kidding yourself.  The illustrious Debby McWhinney intends to virtually clone the Schwabb model.  Any transactional payout is purely transitional.  There is no payout for "transactional business" at Schwabb.  There are no trails paid at Schwabb.  Without question, you will be on salary by 2012.  That is, of course, if the program survives.  The departure of Dial doesn't bode well for the future of McWhinney.  Of course, if you were honest with yourself and this forum, you would admit that your end game is to hope for the demise of the program with you ending up with hundreds of millions of dollars of new assets from departed reps placed on your rep number.  Stranger things have happened in this crazy business, so I can't completely discount that possibility.  Your representation that departed brokers are using scare tactics by saying that clients are going to be sent to a call center, etc, is perplexing to me.  That is exactly what management originally indicated would happen!  There is nothng whatsoever dishonest or untrustworthy about a departed FA pointing out the possibility.  Sure, maybe you will keep them on your number in case your end game (mentioned above) comes to pass, and to get the trails and the occasional transactional piece of business that happens by itself, but are you going to help them?  Are you going to meet with them and do portfolio reviews when they aren't your target advisory client?  Of course you aren't.  Talk about trustworthyness and honesty... these clients would be better off being sent to a call center than to languish, completely neglected, in your rep number.  The concerns that departed advisors are articulating to their clients-- the concerns that you bring up in your last post as being "bullsh*t," are absolutely valid concerns that each and every client not doing advisory business with CPWM should be made aware of.  Tell me you haven't thought about how to get a client to sell an annuity which is not an "advisory asset" to get the client into a new "advisory annuity" when it is added to the platform.  Tell me you haven't heard "sales ideas" of doing a 5 year period certain annuitization of an annuity to get to the assets so the team could get the money into advisory assets.  Tell me you haven't thought about how to transition "C" shares into TRAK so they would count as advisory assets.  You are being less than honest with yourself and this forum by indicating that your motives are nobler than anyone else's.  It is complete hogwash.

MrBig's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-05

My recommendations have always been client first. If it's right for a client to be in an annuity, then I'll recommend the annuity. If it's right to be in anything else, then advisory is likely a better fit. I do truly believe that. Whether it's individual stocks or funds, there are huge benefits to being managed. Am I going to meet with a client to do reviews if they are not my ideal client? No, not the small ones. I have sent about 1700 HH to the call center because I know that they will be better served. I've seen $1M plus clients being told that they would be sent to a call center. And yes, even if they are not managed, I will still take the time to review them and do what I can. Funds to TRAK? Yes, unless it's some little old lady with tax frees for income that has no point in ever selling, then TRAK or Advisor will be a better fit, depending on the client's needs.

And FYI, I hate McWhinney, don't trust her whatsoever, am not drinking any Koolaid, but the benefits of staying far outweigh those of leaving. Got my retention. There is no possible way I won't get my Back-end (they did release the details of the revised back-end and they look fantastic). They aren't going salary. Why? Because even if they are dumb, they are not THAT dumb. If I'm wrong, well then, it really will be time to go. Clients will know that advisors who know what they are doing, will not work for Salary. Schwab refers business to RIAs. the RIAs are NOT paid salary, just the internal advisors and the people that refer to the RIAs (IC in our case). I'm not worried about that scenario.

Lastly, no, I have not heard that "sales idea" and nor would I pay any attention to it. If it's the right thing for a client to get out of an annuity, I'll recommend it, if it's wrong, I won't. And I'm not saying that my motives are nobler than everyone else. There are plenty of outstanding advisors in this business, but if you think there are not just as many that put their own interests first, you are lying to yourself.

Vikram Pandit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-23

MrBig wrote: LTP: In some points you are right. I in fact sold some annuities as well, as they do make sense and are proper for some clients (but not all). On the note of convincing client to move money in and out, that is no problem for me and we have done extremely well in this past market and I've not lost very many clients. Any client who forced me to sell, is no longer a client. You certainly sound like you know what you're doing as well, and are likely in a different demographic than I am... regardless, my previous post was not directed towards you. It was directed to any jackass who wants to try to make himself feel better for leaving by calling the people still with Citi "submissive bitches". I don't usually let it get to me, and should not have this time either, but seriously... I've been to plenty of firms, and don't want to move anymore unless I have to, and I have it pretty well where I am, and I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I have no problem with anyone leaving and doing well as long as they are doing the right thing for the client first, and themselves second. Also, we're not forcing anyone into a managed account, and our transactional business is still paying more than many other places at 35%. Some advisors who've left are telling clients that they are going to be sent off to a phone center, be forced to pay managed account fees, and be forced into investments that aren't suitable for them. I expect advisors like me to be trustworthy and honest like I am. Win the client because you are a good advisor and you've earned your clients trust. Not using scare tactics that are complete bullsh*t.

Again, this is not directed towards you, if that's not you. I have complete respect for anyone who moves for the right reasons and does it with integrity.

That's right you whipped bitch. You have bought everything we sold you hook, line and sinker. The next change to your compensation plan is that all deferred compensation will be paid in either CPWM New York Bridge Trust Shares or CPWM Arizona Ocean Front Property Trust Shares.

As for the call center, pipe down or you will be sent to the call center on a salary, which might be an improvement on your $150,000 in GDC.

Vikram Pandit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-23

MrBig wrote:

Why? Because even if they are dumb, they are not THAT dumb.

Do you want to bet on that?

mr.Big.Ears's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-02-23

Wow- sounds like mr. big (who is this guy/girl?) has a little built up anger, but instead of venting it towards the employer you screwed him, who's stock is down almost 100%, ok 93%, he aims it towards FAs who have braved it on their own.  They say that only a master can screw you with a smile on your face and it's only after some time you realize you've been ripped off!  Citi is a master.  If he had any cojones (Spanish for juevos) he would take care of his clients outside of the Citi mayhem.  But he has none :(  Mommy (Debbie) and daddy (Vikram) will take care of me.  All this guy seems to know how to do is correct English.  Maybe he should be a teacher.  They say those who can, do.......and those who can't, teach.He's right, people have never moved easily, but if he thinks he and Citi can really take care of thousands of clients with dwindling 'team' membership, he is high... on Citi.  Maybe he's smoking their worthless stock.  What a horrible organization to work for and it keeps getting worse.  There is no leadership, no morality, what a feckless (look it up mr. big) and sinking organization to work for....Mr. big poo poos annuities because selling a 'managed account' is soooooo much easier.  What's right for the client; give me a break.Being out of Citi is the single best thing I've done for my clients and me.  We have more freedom, less stress from all the Citi fire drills, which are totally useless.  No more emails:  you need to update the profile on all these accounts...most of which have a -0- balance.  LOLWho would stay except a @@ssy , too scared of going it on their own.   There are more FAs leaving in the coming weeks.  Who can make money except the "Sr. Financial Advisors."  Yes, so senior...so big.  They will be the last women standing, but at what price....the future is bleak.  "I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today."Working for yourself and your clients is the only way to go! 

XCitiFA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-09

Are there no more FA's at Citi? What happened to this blog?I know a few reps  from Manhattan left last week.................Any News? 

BrokerVulture's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-12-18

Here's an update on movement for anyone who cares:  Citi will loose at least 3 more FAs in California by 3/26. Not saying who or where but I will report once they move. 2 FAs will be out by 4/1 in the NJ/NY market that I know of for sure.I hear from some other inside sources there are 4 more planning moving 4/16- post tax day. They are not all moving to the same firm. For those who argue FAs are dying and not moving their books?  One of the first Citi advisors I placed at a wire a few months back has just hit th 60% mark on aum moved.  That's in just over 90 days.  He was pretty large too. He had a full time transition team for the first 2 weeks working it hard which I'm sure made a big differenceCiti put a bullet in their own head months ago.  McWhinney has completely failed. It's amazing that it's taking so long for people to still figure that out.  

XCitiFA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-09

Lou Manheim,How sure are you about the accounts under $250,000 going to the National Call Center?? And is it all accounts (meaning clients of reps who left or stayed or just clients of reps who've left)? Congratulations on escaping the Kool-Aiders!!  I'm sure you know, even if it's only been a couple of weeks, that you've made the right decision. The reps that have stayed there in hopes of scavenging the few clients that are left will surely go down with the ship. If what you said is true, the rest of them will probably be let go in one fell swoop, like the bottom quintile a few months ago.If these accounts are moved......."CPWM doesen't see the New Year"!!!..............(Michael Corleone talking about Hyman Roth - Godfather II).Please write back and let us know anything else......and by the way..........THANKS FOR THE GREAT NEWS!!!

Roxie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-19

I have to say I am following this thread and these developments very closely. Funny that BOA moved all FCs out of the branches.  Huntington Bank has eliminated silos by having cross functional teams.  Is the bank model in trouble?  SEC/ FINRA may elminate 12b1 fees and move to a fee structure, more likely they will move to fiduciary standard with the hybrid approach.  I have talked to several Indys that will fold up shop if they eliminate 12b1s.  Goldmen and MER for example are big proponents of hybrids.  6 months ago I would have said that RIA is the future, but the winds have changed.Lou Manneheim- great comment about folks not in the business making decisions, this could be the biggest problem ever, we shall see...

TickTock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-16

I would sure like a confirmation on the $250K and under going to the call center with no if and or buts. In December 09, the Chicago area was told that all NEW households had to be managed $100K plus and to ignore that NY's limit was going to be $250K for new accounts. They were also told that ALL 2009 and prior accounts would be grandfathered regardless of account size and if managed or not. ie. trails from A/B/C funds and annuities would continue to count toward revenue for the team indefinately.One of the many (many) reasons I bolted was that Tim W. would not say how long the grandfathered accounts trails would continue and the AIM started making up outright bullsh_t (a real shame as he must have felt compelled to). Thus, it became crystal clear - I would be told out right BS, anything to get me to stay (I had 50% of revenue from managed and trails).Its been 9 weeks, about 50% of my over $100K accounts have moved...   Old clients keep calling me... Oh, March revenue will top $50K, not bad for 2nd month gone. Its been a serious challenge, but results are good.Strangest thing, a Citi-team leader called me today to check in on how things were going....? First contact from the firm in 9 weeks, I suspect he was not calling me to check my temperature. Any guesses?

TickTock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-16

A large producer who started 2010 with 30%+ in managed is not hitting his goal for new managed money, so he rolled a large variable annuity with a much higher death benefit into a managed account. If the senior client buys the farm then the Mrs. looses out on a $100K death benefit in excess of the cash value. But hey! That is what the RIA CFP "Fidicuary" does to keep his job. Move that variable annuity straight from the insurance firm into the checking account then onto the "managed account", no one in compliance will ever know (or want to know).

Roxie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-19

TickTock wrote:A large producer who started 2010 with 30%+ in managed is not hitting his goal for new managed money, so he rolled a large variable annuity with a much higher death benefit into a managed account. If the senior client buys the farm then the Mrs. looses out on a $100K death benefit in excess of the cash value. But hey! That is what the RIA CFP "Fidicuary" does to keep his job. Move that variable annuity straight from the insurance firm into the checking account, no one in compliance will ever know (or want to know).Ugh.  It's like one of those party game questions, would you steal to feed your family?  I would like to be high and mighty and say shame on the advisor, but I do not know the whole story.  Maybe, shame on Citi PWM for putting an employee in that situation. 

excitr1011's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-10-19

great article..

XCitiFA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-09

Tick Tock,You're right, it is disgusting that management puts people in that position but it's also the responsibility of the advisor to work within good conscience. What more needs to happen to these advisors for them to realize that what was, isn't anymore and it's not gonna be. Most of my friends and former colleagues have left already, but there are still many left who are so afraid to make a move they keep bending over and accepting more and more crap from this company. I can't imagine what's going through their heads ....being on a "team", getting a "salary", everyone leaving around them. Don't they see that CPWM's future is bleak?? It's failing in every aspect, and when enough reps leave and they hire an outside RIA they will treat all reps like the 5th quintile reps....no severance ...nothing, they were treated like dogs.By the way, that article hit it on the head!! So true in every way. Reps being bullshitted by management and yet , they stay.....I don't get it.Come on people, write back and lets get some comments on that amazing top story on reg rep.com, "Citi's Covert Makeover". Great reading!!!!! 

Paperboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-31

Nailed it?  What is covert about what is going on?  Where are the interviews of FA's who stayed?  Citi wants to shut down its brokerage?  If so, they sure picked an expensive way to do it.  The article is a pure hatchet job and cannot be referred to as journalism.

excitr1011's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-10-19

They did interview brokers who are still there...

XCitiFA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-09

Paperboy,They interviewed them , but they were forbidden from speaking to the press. Big brother doesen't want their dirty laundry being aired outside of the combine.It's covert because publicly and to their brainwashed employees, they're talking about a future, not being truthful like the article saysthat they'll be "farming out wealth management entirely". And as far as doing it expensively, if you've been there for awhile, i'm sure you've noticed lots of dumb and EXPENSIVE management decisions (ie Citipro...LOLOLOL!!!). You have to realize that managements job these days isn't to manage the business, it's to keep their jobs!! Nobody in management cares, especially upper management; they all have contracts so they will tinker with the business until their contracts expire. Then you and all the (fill in the blank)'s will be let go and your trailing 12 will be a joke and finding a new home will be much more difficult then it would be currently.As far as the article being a hatchet job, i'm sure the truth hurts from the inside, but from the outside looking in, it's one of the finest pieces of journalism i've read in a long time. Trust me, when you do leave (hopefully by your own accord), you will agree with all that has been written and have your own opinions to add to the carnage.All I can say is if you haven't started looking for a new home , you should be!!Trust me and you can ask everyone else who has already left.....The Grass IS Greener!!!Good Luck!!!  

TickTock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-16

The article does a poor job on many fronts, but most importantly - regarding clients. The clients have never been told that: 1.) Choose quarterly fee or call center. Clients who don't say "yes" to managed accounts are just asked again a month later. Move your individual bonds into a 1% managed account? Dump that annuity...2.) This summer, comes a new platform "Pershing", new account numbers, new web site, new links... Last time June 2001, Citi lost all of the cost basis information and still refuses to help clients retreive it.3.) Trak Select - goes away - nothing like it on Pershing. SB Advisor with the individual stocks component - goes away. Yes, Citi compliance can't stand that stocks can be solicitated in a fidicuary account by reps in the field. They will loose the Smth Barney stock research and have no way to back up individual stock selection. They will try to move all clients to fidicuary discretionary accounts - no more custom allocations for clients. Its too probihibitive from a compliance point of view and with so many reps leaving. Oh yes, PM - its gone.4.) Mutli-G hedge fund and others go away.5.) Under $250K? say hi to Raj and 1800 wes-rewup6.) By the time the transition is done, IRA clients will be begging for RPS to be the custodian again.Oh and the quota for adding more $ into managed will go so far up, to ensure that they can guarantee 50% of last years pay or just can your butt.Hey, compared to Citi's mortgage or credit card business - no one in upper management will notice the disaster. In fact, they will applaud that Debi "cleaned house of all those slacker/hacker FAs.").I for one, am so darn happy to not have to deal with it anymore. No more "5 insurance leads a week", reports on referrels back to the bank, weenie support people who couldn't give a hoot, firedrills, oh statements with the team leaders name on them, not being able to use the Fax machine!, not being able to email clients a seminar invitation, havng an OSJ tell me that I shouldn't recommend covered call options to a client due to the "extreme risk". Waiting 2 to 3 days for the OSJ to give me an account number for a new account.Citi could have kept 49% of the revene/profit if they had just let FAs choose to move to Morgan Stanley Smith Barney - I bet over 1/2 of those that departed would have stayed for MSSB.Is Citi legal fighting any departing FAs with court "cease and desist" injunction orders? I mean more than the two threatening letters. If so, how are they cases being decided?

XCitiFA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-09

Tick Tock,I hope you're right about everything..........I have a few questions.......You said TRAK Select is going away, is that TRAK CGCM or TRAK NAV ?How sure are you about your entire 3rd point?And do you know when the accounts under $250K are going to the call center??This place really did an injustice to their clients and their reps!!!

XCitiFA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-09

Tick Tock,I hope you're right about everything..........I have a few questions.......You said TRAK Select is going away, is that TRAK CGCM or TRAK NAV ?How sure are you about your entire 3rd point?And do you know when the accounts under $250K are going to the call center??This place really did an injustice to their clients and their reps!!!

TickTock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-01-16

The TRAK NAV Stays - this was announced in Nov 09. The Track CGCM requires a research staff to pick the mutual funds and do the special timing allocations - all of this went with Smith Barney. SB Advisor with stocks, its very shaky if it will stay, to compliance it looks risky without having a research group and lots of the clients were using it as a wrap program for buying stocks only - not advisory. Exactly what the SEC/FINRA ruled was unacceptable 2 years ago.Most of the country is running that new clients need to be $250K and managed to get paid. The rumor is that existing clients will no longer be grandfathered. But I can't confirm the when? Anyone?

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×