Commonwealth vs. LPL
121 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=indywanab]
I got access to RJFS RJNet site to play around prior to our visit to FL. Seems like the site is nowhere as intuitive and easy to use as LPL's and CW's and it seems like it's VERY slow!
[/quote]
I was also concerned about the technology "fit". They will customize your visit with deparment heads that will address your specific questions. During my visit, a geek from their technology division sat in with his laptop and gave a presentation on all the different software capabilities. You're right about it not being blazing fast but it's not exactly slow either....adequate I would say.
How do you consider Raymond James any more of an independent than
FiNet?
-------
If you’ll note the title of the thread, it wasn’t started to include RJ either…
Broker Fee,
Sounds like you're still w/ RJFS. I wonder if you could share what made you go w/ them vs. other indy BD's and also wonder if you would write what you like best about RJFS and what you hate the most! Thanks!
[quote=Broker Fee][quote=indywanab]
I got access to RJFS RJNet site to play around prior to our visit to FL. Seems like the site is nowhere as intuitive and easy to use as LPL's and CW's and it seems like it's VERY slow!
[/quote]
I was also concerned about the technology "fit". They will customize your visit with deparment heads that will address your specific questions. During my visit, a geek from their technology division sat in with his laptop and gave a presentation on all the different software capabilities. You're right about it not being blazing fast but it's not exactly slow either....adequate I would say.
[/quote]Had my home office visit w/ RJFS yesterday and WOW! Very impressive. I went down there thinking that LPL was in the lead by a long shot and of course after the meeting yesterday I am back to being 50/50. I'll summarize my points:
RJFS seems very professional & I really like the culture of the firm & the quality service mentality. Everyone we met w/ did a very nice job and was great. Their ratio of support employees to advisors is great 3,400 employees to 3,000 advisors. They certainly have more of the wirehouse look & feel to them so a transition to them would be a comfortable one for someone like me because of this. They have the full breadth (banking, investment banking, wealth management group, research, etc...) of products, services and home office experts like at my current firm. I have to believe that having the name RJFS behind you would help with prospects because although they may recognize the name right away if they go to their website & do a little research any concerns would quickly vanish. This is a tough one. I wonder if this is a true benefit or just my own perception. They have their own internal marketing firm and they are GOOD. Having a true marketing firm that understand the business & compliance is a great advantage. Their material is fantastic and their price is cheap compared to doing it on your own. Their technology is OK but not as good as LPL. Their financial planning software is Sunguard and although good they do not have an open architecture like LPL. They don't have any plans on rolling out anything like eMoney Advisors and for my wealth management practice I see having integration and access to this tool as a HUGE advantage. RJFS will be rolling out Microsoft CRM but it seems like it's not as flexible in the customization area and they don't allow advisors using Act w/ Act 4Advisors to link to their client databases so again not as open architecture as others. Their Wealth Solutions & Financial Planning group is AWESOME if you target HNW. I really think they are doing this right and this is important to me since I target clients w/ complex needs and having this firepower when needed would be great. Their Asset Management services are a bit limiting. They don't have a true UMA (although they said they will be rolling one out next year), they don't have a global rebalancing tool for those advisors who manage portfolios making this very innefficient, they don't allow access to FBAM programs like AssetMark & SEI. When I asked they said that they feel they can do as good a job as those programs. I really don't like this because I may want to use non-RJ managers/programs. They do have quite a few SMA managers but this is not the same as the full turkey solutions. Finally as far as I can see their payout is not as good as LPL and not by a small margin. Their point to this is that yes I would pay more at RJFS but that I would get more as well. True but I am paying for things that may not benefit me such as equity research department which I never use, branding campaings w/ local & national advertising except that I've never seen them in my neck of the woods & I would be operating under my own DBA anyway.I will be making the trip to LPL next week so I will have a better basis of comparison after that but RJFS really did impress me. I hope LPL's visit is as good and that I feel like they have the same level of resources that are important to me because that's where I'm leaning.
Good post. You have a similar take on RJ as I did. My guess is, you'll be similarly impressed with LPL and appreciate the freedom they will give you.
I expect similar detail after your trip to SD...
[/quote]
How are you travelling so much without it being obvious to the people in your branch that there is something going on?
[/quote]
People at my branch know what I'm doing but then again, everyone in our branch (and throughout AG Edwards) is looking and meeting w/ other firms so I'm not worried about it.
Had my Commonwealth visit today. Here's my impression:
Very, very nice people there. I honestly believe their competitive advantage is personalized service because of their size. If you are looking for a BD that will get to know you on a personal basis and don't need all the bells & whistles of the larger firms then they should be in your top list. Everyone I met with seemed pretty young and I'm talking about their investment research department for the most part. They just don't have seasoned analysts from looking at the bios I got and from asking questions. I believe they may only have 3 CFA's and again thin on experience. I also noticed that most people I met w/ had been w/ CW for a very short time. Not picking on young people (heck I am in my 30's myself) but I would like my BD's research department to have more experience and depth than that. Their alternative investments is weak. I believe this is due to their limited amount of assets that can be commited to the managers. If you work w/ HNW investors and like alternative investments this will be an issue. Their compliance officer seems very open to helping advisors accomplish what they want to accomplish and this is a huge plus. Being a smaller company you can actually develop a relationship w/ them and this would I'm sure be a huge plus! They have what seems to be a pretty solid practice management group of 9 people who basically act as coaches/consultants on everything from marketing strategy to HR related issues for advisors who want to use them. This resources is free to advisors. They have specific training for assistants which is great. Not only can they be trained in the system and operational aspects but they actually have "conferences" geared just for assistants/staff to help them learn from their peers and also to help them start thinking strategically about how to help advisors grow and improve the practice. This also serves as a peer group which I'm sure staff would really appreciate. I am not aware of any other firm I'm talking to (LPL & RJFS) that does this as well. Their technology is pretty good but not as easy and efficient as RJFS and I'm guessing LPL. I think some of this is due to them clearing through NFS and they just don't have the same amount of $$ to spend on tech as the other 2 BD's. What they do have is really good though. Lastly, their payout is not as good as LPL at my level. They do have programs that increase payout to 90% and decrease admin fees for advisory platforms but at the AUM & production level I would be getting higher payouts at LPL too.All in all very impressed w/ them but if I had to choose between RJFS & CW, I think I would forgo some of the high touch, high service, and personal attention from CW for the breadth and depth of products, services and resources of RJFS. I just think that's more important to me in the long run.
We're off to SD to visit LPL next week so I'll have more to report. I've heard that I will be very impressed w/ the LPL visit and I'm really hoping that's the case.
Indywanab good stuff...keep those updates coming.
fyi Ray Jay does sponser an annual conference for your Financial Assistants & staff along the very same themes that you outlined at CW. They are on taught advanced software issues, proactive compliance procedures, office operational procedures, how to position themselves to help grow your practice...etc...
I'll be looking for your spin on LPL to compare it with my visit.
[quote=Indyone]
Good post. You have a similar take on RJ as I did. My guess is, you'll be similarly impressed with LPL and appreciate the freedom they will give you.
I expect similar detail after your trip to SD...
[/quote]
Yes, I read your posts when you were comparing RJFS & LPL and I'm hoping I end up with the same conclusion you did but I really was impressed w/ some of the things I saw at RJFS and hope to be equally or more impressed w/ LPL because I would rather have what I saw at RJFS along w/ the extra freedom LPL seems to provide when compared to RJFS.
How happy have you been w/ your move and what if anything would you change at this point?
[quote=Broker Fee]
Indywanab good stuff...keep those updates coming.
fyi Ray Jay does sponser an annual conference for your Financial Assistants & staff along the very same themes that you outlined at CW. They are on taught advanced software issues, proactive compliance procedures, office operational procedures, how to position themselves to help grow your practice...etc...
I'll be looking for your spin on LPL to compare it with my visit.
[/quote]
Sounds like you're w/ RJFS and that you are an ex-AGE guy. If you are in fact w/ RJFS, how have you liked it and why did you choose them vs. LPL after your visits?
[quote=indywanab][quote=Broker Fee]
Indywanab good stuff...keep those updates coming.
fyi Ray Jay does sponser an annual conference for your Financial Assistants & staff along the very same themes that you outlined at CW. They are on taught advanced software issues, proactive compliance procedures, office operational procedures, how to position themselves to help grow your practice...etc...
I'll be looking for your spin on LPL to compare it with my visit.
[/quote]
Sounds like you're w/ RJFS and that you are an ex-AGE guy. If you are in fact w/ RJFS, how have you liked it and why did you choose them vs. LPL after your visits?
[/quote]
When all said & done you will choose the org that fits your business model most comfortably. Like yourself I did careful due diligence & only recently made the decision to shift my practice to RJFS. I will be making that shift over the coming weeks. When I look back on my experience the similarities between LPL & Ray Jay were incredible. Even their top people provide only praise to the other, which is quite remarkable. Again, do your homework but once you remove the emotion & weigh out the pro's & cons between the two, you will find they are both worthy but one will stand out as being the better fit for your clients and for your career.
[quote=indywanab][quote=Indyone]
Good post. You have a similar take on RJ as I did. My guess is, you'll be similarly impressed with LPL and appreciate the freedom they will give you.
I expect similar detail after your trip to SD...
[/quote]
Yes, I read your posts when you were comparing RJFS & LPL and I'm hoping I end up with the same conclusion you did but I really was impressed w/ some of the things I saw at RJFS and hope to be equally or more impressed w/ LPL because I would rather have what I saw at RJFS along w/ the extra freedom LPL seems to provide when compared to RJFS.
How happy have you been w/ your move and what if anything would you change at this point?[/quote]
I've been very happy as an LPL indy. In 2006, I netted about 10% more than my best year at the bank on about 70% of the production. This year, I'm looking at about a 50% raise over last year, so my trajectory is keeping me happy and busy. I didn't produce quite enough to go to the national in Boston, but I'm ahead of the pace needed to go back to SD next year pretty much on LPL's dime.
What would I change? Not much. I would have gone direct on a lot more accounts. LPL doesn't look at the whole relationship and tends to nickel and dime smaller accounts, even if the overall relationship is relatively large. I've also been busy converting client mmkt funds to direct mmkts. The insured cash account is great for large clients, but medium and small client accounts get screwed with the tiered rate structure and potential dormant fees (plus I make nothing on it). I've made myself some extra work by not being fully aware of all the minutae (sp?) of various accounts/products. Other than SAM accounts, an account has to be fairly large and/or active before I'll use LPL vs. a direct account. To their credit, LPL offers sufficient flexibility to beat the system, but you need to do your homework before you have to go and change a bunch of accounts.
Joe makes a good point about the assistant...I had a part-time assistant from day one and I don't think you can afford to be without one unless your book is very small.
Overall, there's very little not to like...life is pretty doggoned good.
Indyone,
You mentioned small accounts get nickel and dimed at LPL. Çan you be
more specific on the size of account where direct accounts make sense?
And did I understand you that they do not look at the household for the
purposes of the account fees? I am interested in the experiences of others
who have moved to the indy channel. Is there anything else that you wish
you would have done different going in?
I still plan to give Wachovia a chance to prove themselves, but LPL is on the
short list of alternatives if they do not work out. Thank you for the insights.