Deals as of October 2008

60 replies [Last post]
Jeroxide's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-04

I'm sure a lot of us have been talking to other firms in regards to moving our practices.  I started this thread to share the types of deals that other brokerage firms are offering as up front bonuses for us to move.  If you've been offered some upfront by a wirehouse lately, could you list the amount offered (80% cash upfront, etc.), your TTM and firm that offered it, that would be GREAT! 
 
Thanks.

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

My TTM is very, very large.  Recently, offered me elventy kabillion dollars to come over and supervise and give some credibility to their rapidly contracting brokerage operation in my town.  I very politely said, "No, thank you."  Hope that helps!

Gordon Gekko's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-08

Given the market, VIX, recession, etc. a firm would be really reaching to overpay in this market. TT doesn't mean a whole lot at this point. That being said, I'll post if and when I hear anything.

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

Put yourself at the desk of any manager in the country.  Somehow you've been made aware that Bob Broker is in play.
 
Why would you give him anything to bring his blow-up book of clients?  As I was trying to say last night to our resident brainiac, Morphius, things are different now.
 
Trailing twelve is meaningless and won't become a valid benchmark for several years.
 
Virtually everybody with a book of any size is going to be embroiled in arbitration actions for years to come.  In the immediate future will come the wave of actions being taken by those who feel that they were cheated by the market--that their advisor did not get them off the track before the bear train ran them down (ya gotta love that line).  A sin of ommission.
 
In the more distant future will come the demands for arbitration filed by those who were told to, "Hold on it will come back" but it hasn't shown any signs of doing so.  A sin of commission.
 
There will also be the thousands--perhaps tens of thousands--who never thought about using the legal system to get their money back but become persuaded to do it by children or friends or ads that they see on TV and in magazines.
 
What has happened is a full employment opportunity--a chance to get rich--for lawyers who are always looking for reasons to file suits.
 
If I were exposed--and anybody with clients is exposed--I'd be worried about my broker dealer standing behind me, paying for the attorney without asking me to chip in and the incredible loss of time to prepare for and give depositions and other formalities.
 
E&O insurance is a relatively new idea and the idea that it would be a shield against a melt down was not part of the equation.  If you're thinking that you don't have any exposure becasue you've got E&O I believe you should think again--and then wonder (read worry) that the E&O carrier simply bankrupts and voids their policies.
 
This is so huge that it's difficult for those of us who have spent our lives worrying about this day cannot wrap our brains around it.  Those of you who have never given a second thought to how all the pieces fit together are completely in the dark.

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

Yet as you admitted in another thread, you and your wife are still in equities.  So where was your crystal ball when you decided to stay long?

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

Reggin wrote:Yet as you admitted in another thread, you and your wife are still in equities.  So where was your crystal ball when you decided to stay long?
 
I also said yesterday that if I had a financial "advisor" I'd sue the shit out of him or her.  I can't do that because I don't, and I would hardly be a sympathetic plaintiff.
 
The reality is that my "Zany" options trading in our margin accounts has allowed us to limit our losses.  Of course we'll have a huge tax bill this year.  I could have been like my mother and not incur any capital gains this year.

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

Provocative Put wrote:Reggin wrote:Yet as you admitted in another thread, you and your wife are still in equities.  So where was your crystal ball when you decided to stay long?
 
I also said yesterday that if I had a financial "advisor" I'd sue the shit out of him or her.  I can't do that because I don't, and I would hardly be a sympathetic plaintiff.
 
The reality is that my "Zany" options trading in our margin accounts has allowed us to limit our losses.  Of course we'll have a huge tax bill this year.  I could have been like my mother and not incur any capital gains this year.
 
That's because your mother has an idiot for a son that would rather spend his time telling others how smart he is, rather than using his "magical crystal ball" to help her.  All that training and knowledge you have and she is still getting killed.
 
Fool.

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

Reggin wrote:Provocative Put wrote:Reggin wrote:Yet as you admitted in another thread, you and your wife are still in equities.  So where was your crystal ball when you decided to stay long?
 
I also said yesterday that if I had a financial "advisor" I'd sue the shit out of him or her.  I can't do that because I don't, and I would hardly be a sympathetic plaintiff.
 
The reality is that my "Zany" options trading in our margin accounts has allowed us to limit our losses.  Of course we'll have a huge tax bill this year.  I could have been like my mother and not incur any capital gains this year.
 
That's because your mother has an idiot for a son that would rather spend his time telling others how smart he is, rather than using his "magical crystal ball" to help her.  All that training and knowledge you have and she is still getting killed.
 
Fool.
 
One of her sons is a retired Senior Vice President from Wall Street.  The other was the President of a bank who took the millions he was paid when it sold and started another bank--after waiting the required non-compete time.
 
Neither of us are fools, not by a longshot.
 
What we are are sons. Sons who do not need her money and sons who hear her say that she is emotionally involved with holding investments that have been transferred from generation to generation.
 
That is not the case with most of your clients.  You do not have the mother-child relationship, and most of them don't feel emotional ties to their investments.
 
They are going to fault you because they are seeking to fault somebody and you are their "advisor."
 
As it turns out, "Hold on, it will come back" was  the worst advice you could have given--and when you're paid to offer advice and the advice you give is horribly wrong you're going to be sitting ducks for what amounts to malpractice complaints.
 
It will be a damn shame for guys like Indyone--but Karma for most of those who read what is being written on this forum.  The mere fact that you argue with me about reality proves how guilty you are of not knowing what you're doing.

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

Ferris Bueller wrote:So as a retired Senior Vice President from Wall
Street, that came here several months ago to warn us all about the
impending doom you...
 
... failed to move your own personal accounts out of stocks.
... failed to convince your elderly parent to move out of stocks.
 
No wonder you went into training!

80% of my "serious money" has been in cash equivalents because there was so much exposure to equities in my mother's account.

As explained yesterday my brother and I convinced her to sell a large
number of her GE shares, but most of her holdings have been in the
family for generations and she feels as though she is betraying her
ancestors by even thinking of selling them.

That you don't know anybody like that does not mean that their "goals" are wrong.

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

Also, I didn't go "into training."  I was "Branch Administration" -- training worked for me.

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

Provocative Put wrote:80% of my "serious money" has been in cash equivalents because there was so much exposure to equities in my mother's account.Your asset allocation decisions are based on what is in your Mother's account?!Nice.  Do you still live in her basement, too?

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

Morphius wrote: Provocative Put wrote:80% of my "serious money" has been in cash equivalents because there was so much exposure to equities in my mother's account.Your asset allocation decisions are based on what is in your Mother's account?!Nice.  Do you still live in her basement, too?
 
If one of your "advisory" clients tells you that they are the heir of several million dollars worth of equities that for emotional reasons must remain exactly as they are structured would you suggest that the client take that into consideration in their personal asset allocations?
 
I would.  That you would not paints you as a fool.

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

Ferris Bueller wrote:
 
The time you spent here warning us about the impending crash was time wasted.  You should have been spending it with her.  You should have tried harder.  You failed her.

How many millionaire women in their 80s do you have as clients?
 
Is "I want to hold the shares until I die because that's what my mother, her father, and his father all did before me" not an investment objective, not a goal?

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

Ferris Bueller wrote:An arbitration panel would not care. 
Emotion is not relevant to a properly allocated account.  Any
broker sitting in that arbitration chair using their client's emotion
as an excuse would lose.   You failed your mom and you know
it.

You're wrong, in spades if you think that an arbitration panel would
not consider an investor's emotions to be a relevant portion of their
investment strategy.

The mere fact that you say that portrays you as the epitome of what is wrong with your type--you're sociopathic liars.

Every day you confirm it more and more.  A penny stock whore.  Nothing more.

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

Provocative Put wrote:If one of your "advisory" clients tells you that they are the heir of several million dollars worth of equities that for emotional reasons must remain exactly as they are structured would you suggest that the client take that into consideration in their personal asset allocations?
 
I would.  That you would not paints you as a fool.You want to count your chickens before they're hatched, you go right ahead. Unlike you, I work with a number of clients who plan their retirement around anticipated inheritances.  Works fine if the inheritance comes through the way they expect.  When it doesn't it can be a disaster.Unlike you, I don't counsel my clients to base their plan on a hoped for inheritance, so I sure wouldn't suggest an AA based on a hope either.But then again, I was never in "branch administration" like you.

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

Ferris Bueller wrote:"Put trader, if you knew this was coming,
why didn't you warn me?  Didnt you used to do this for a
living?  Why did you warn complete strangers on an internet
forum?  Now I have huge losses and you could have helped."  -
Put's mom

Nope, in fact I just talked to her about it.  We talk every day, and the stock market is mentioned on most recent days.

What she says is, "My grandfather held the portfolio through the great
depression as was his father's wishes.  My mother held it through
the war, as was her father's wishes.  I am holding it through
this, as was my mother's wishes.  You and your brother can sell it
if you want to, I won't put my wishes into your brain."

She then adds, "But you know what my wishes are."

I'm not eager to sell, but I'd sure as hell like to be able to if I wanted to or flip short against the box, or write calls.

She won't write calls any more because she was displeased when we bought back calls at a loss back in the early '80s.

Since you're not a professional you don't know this.  But the role
of a financial advisor is not to force your idea on the client.

What are you doing with your mother's stocks?

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

Morphius wrote:
Provocative Put wrote:If one of your "advisory" clients tells you that
they are the heir of several million dollars worth of equities that for
emotional reasons must remain exactly as they are structured would you
suggest that the client take that into consideration in their personal
asset allocations?
 
I would.  That you would not paints you as a fool.You
want to count your chickens before they're hatched, you go right ahead.
Unlike you, I work with a number of clients who plan their retirement
around anticipated inheritances.  Works fine if the inheritance
comes through the way they expect.  When it doesn't it can be a
disaster.Unlike you, I don't counsel my clients to base their
plan on a hoped for inheritance, so I sure wouldn't suggest an AA based
on a hope either.But then again, I was never in "branch administration" like you.

When a portfolio has never been liquidated for generations why should the next generation expect that they will not inherit it?

When the inheritance is measured in millions of equities and the next
generation has millions as well does it make sense for the next
generation to be in equities too?

I say no.  And I am right--your willingness to paint 
yourself as a fool in a childish effort to argue with common sense is
not shining a good light on yourself.

Gordon Gekko's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-08

Can I put a "Protective Put Blocker" on somehow? Maybe we should rename him "White Noise".

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

Provocative Put wrote:I was "Branch Administration"
Explains a lot.If you were any good at helping clients you would have been making far too much money to ever leave for the glorious world of "branch administration."   Way too big a pay cut, and way too much hassle.Or are you one of those geniuses who accepted the silly notion that being able to have something as commonplace and mundane as "senior vice president" on your business card made it all worthwhile?!  Bet it at least impressed Mom, if no one else! 

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

Provocative Put wrote:When a portfolio has never been liquidated for generations why should the next generation expect that they will not inherit it?

When the inheritance is measured in millions of equities and the next
generation has millions as well does it make sense for the next
generation to be in equities too?
You actually raise a good point, Puts.You mom should be using a Generation Skipping Trust.  Sounds like the perfect situation for that.  Obviously neither you or your brother need the money.What did she say when you suggested THAT to her?

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

Morphius wrote:
Provocative Put wrote:When a portfolio has never been liquidated for
generations why should the next generation expect that they will not
inherit it?

When the inheritance is measured in millions of equities and the next
generation has millions as well does it make sense for the next
generation to be in equities too?
You actually raise a good point, Puts.You
mom should be using a Generation Skipping Trust.  Sounds like the
perfect situation for that.  Obviously neither you or your brother
need the money.What did she say when you suggested THAT to her?

Of course I raise good points.

As for generation skipping trusts.

Why do you think there is a second generation to skip to?

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

Provocative Put wrote:
What she says is, "My grandfather held the portfolio through the great
depression as was his father's wishes.  My mother held it through
the war, as was her father's wishes.  I am holding it through
this, as was my mother's wishes.  You and your brother can sell it
if you want to, I won't put my wishes into your brain."

She then adds, "But you know what my wishes are."So now we get to the nub of it: your family's financial plan is to never sell, and to blindly follow whatever an ancestor did in the past?  Even when everything is different?  I guess that way you at least never have to worry about capital gains! 

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

Provocative Put wrote:
Of course I raise good points.

As for generation skipping trusts.

Why do you think there is a second generation to skip to?
I said good point.  Singular.  About why you shouldn't inherit from your mom.  And it took me to recognize it, since it obviously never occurred to you.  You were too busy talking about options strategies and the coming apocalypse and branch administration issues to worry about mundane things like potentially saving hundreds of thousands in taxes.  Neither you or your brother have children then? 

snaggletooth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-13

Provocative Put wrote:[Of course I raise good points.As for generation skipping trusts.Why do you think there is a second generation to skip to?
 
So you're saying the family tree ends with you and your brother?  The world does seem a bit brighter today!

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

Morphius wrote:

So now we get to the nub of it: your family's financial plan is to
never sell, and to blindly follow whatever an ancestor did in the
past?  Even when everything is different?  I guess that way you at least never have to worry about capital gains! 

I did not say that is my plan, what I said was that has been the wishes of my forefathers.

No doubt the same is true in your own family.  What do you plan to
do with your great great grandfather's holdings when they get passed
down to you?

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

Provocative Put wrote:
Morphius wrote:

So now we get to the nub of it: your family's financial plan is to
never sell, and to blindly follow whatever an ancestor did in the
past?  Even when everything is different?  I guess that way you at least never have to worry about capital gains! 

I did not say that is my plan, what I said was that has been the wishes of my forefathers.

No doubt the same is true in your own family.  What do you plan to
do with your great great grandfather's holdings when they get passed
down to you?
I get it, anyone who isn't a trust fund baby must be stupid, right?  Because it takes quite a bit of courage and brains and ambition and accomplishment to inherit - right?  I tell you what, you go ahead and derive your sense of self worth from your "forefathers," as you don't seem too concerned about anyone that follows you in your royal family tree.  Me, I'm more of the Abe Lincoln school of thought on that: "I don't know who my grandfather was; I'm much more concerned to know what his grandson will be."

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

Morphius wrote: I get it, anyone who isn't a trust fund baby must be stupid, right?  Because it takes quite a bit of courage and brains and ambition and accomplishment to inherit - right? 
 
Nope I have never said that those who are not trust fund babies are stupid.  What I do believe is that a very legitimate portion of financial planning is anticipated inheritances.
 
I also believe that unless your own parents have significant assets you cannot possibly grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship.
 
You simply confirmed what I already knew--you really cannot identify with those of us with money because you have never been exposed to it.
 
The idiocy being spewed about my mother being failed because my brother and I did not force her to sell her holdings reveals the shallowness of your experience and qualifications.

liquid's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-09

Provocative Put wrote:Morphius wrote: I get it, anyone who isn't a trust fund baby must be stupid, right?  Because it takes quite a bit of courage and brains and ambition and accomplishment to inherit - right? 
 
Nope I have never said that those who are not trust fund babies are stupid.  What I do believe is that a very legitimate portion of financial planning is anticipated inheritances.
 
I also believe that unless your own parents have significant assets you cannot possibly grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship.
 
You simply confirmed what I already knew--you really cannot identify with those of us with money because you have never been exposed to it.
 
The idiocy being spewed about my mother being failed because my brother and I did not force her to sell her holdings reveals the shallowness of your experience and qualifications.
 
 
....PLEASE tell me you've had a vasectomy!

SuperRecruiter's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-22

Provocative Put wrote: 
Why would you give him anything to bring his blow-up book of clients?  As I was trying to say last night to our resident brainiac, Morphius, things are different now.
 
Trailing twelve is meaningless and won't become a valid benchmark for several years.
 
Virtually everybody with a book of any size is going to be embroiled in arbitration actions for years to come.  In the immediate future will come the wave of actions being taken by those who feel that they were cheated by the market--that their advisor did not get them off the track before the bear train ran them down (ya gotta love that line).  A sin of ommission.This is a bunch of horseshit. T12 and AUM is and will remain the benchmark of performance for FA's. The amount of business we have received over the past couple of months directly contradicts your statements. I can only speak for our clients, but they have seen overwhelming success in moving their clients and books. (Average of 85-95% percent retention) Like I have said before and I'll say again... clients are much more loyal to their brokers than the firms.

apex01's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-27

Provocative Put wrote:Morphius wrote: I get it, anyone who isn't a trust fund baby must be stupid, right?  Because it takes quite a bit of courage and brains and ambition and accomplishment to inherit - right? 
 
Nope I have never said that those who are not trust fund babies are stupid.  What I do believe is that a very legitimate portion of financial planning is anticipated inheritances.
 
I also believe that unless your own parents have significant assets you cannot possibly grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship.
 
You simply confirmed what I already knew--you really cannot identify with those of us with money because you have never been exposed to it.
 
The idiocy being spewed about my mother being failed because my brother and I did not force her to sell her holdings reveals the shallowness of your experience and qualifications.
 
Pro Put,
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Are you saying that since I didn't come from a high net worth background I'm limited in my ability to work with those people that did? or Understand the parent/child relationship?

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

SuperRecruiter wrote: This is a bunch of horseshit. T12 and
AUM is and will remain the benchmark of performance for FA's. The
amount of business we have received over the past couple of months
directly contradicts your statements. I can only speak for our clients,
but they have seen overwhelming success in moving their clients and
books. (Average of 85-95% percent retention) Like I have said before
and I'll say again... clients are much more loyal to their brokers than
the firms.

I didn't say that T-12 and AUM are not measures of performance.

What I said was that paying upfront bonuses based on those numbers will
be meaningless until it can be established that the investors have not
fled the markets, and especially the AUM model.

If you owned a football team would you pay a huge bonus to get a star
running back if he had a badly broken ankle that had yet to heal?

As a recruiter I can understand your wanting to scream, "I don't want
to believe what you're saying..........." but that does not mean that I
am wrong.

I invite you to make a case for why a hiriing manager would want to pay
upfront to get a guy whose book may have disappeared overnight?

"I know you've been hitting .365 Joe, but I"m worried about the fact
that you've had shoulder surgery so I'm going to wait awhile to see how
it all works out."

Why can't you kids grasp that the entire playing field has been turned
upside down and it probably won't come back for years and years and
years.

SuperRecruiter's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-22

Provocative Put wrote:

I didn't say that T-12 and AUM are not measures of performance.

What I said was that paying upfront bonuses based on those numbers will
be meaningless until it can be established that the investors have not
fled the markets, and especially the AUM model.

If you owned a football team would you pay a huge bonus to get a star
running back if he had a badly broken ankle that had yet to heal?

As a recruiter I can understand your wanting to scream, "I don't want
to believe what you're saying..........." but that does not mean that I
am wrong.

It has nothing to with "I don't want to believe what you're saying...." because we are moving more producers now than in previous months. Your point may have some validity but it's simply not true.

SuperRecruiter's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-22

Provocative Put wrote:

I invite you to make a case for why a hiriing manager would want to pay
upfront to get a guy whose book may have disappeared overnight?

What? Logic must fail you. No one can make a case for that because there is no firm that would hire on an FA, give a big upfront check, if they had no assets.However, and I can only speak from the experience I have had with OUR clients, we don't see a single person who has had all their assets drained. That's just a silly and absurd notion.

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

apex01 wrote:Pro Put,
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Are you saying that since I didn't come from a high net worth
background I'm limited in my ability to work with those people that
did? or Understand the parent/child relationship?

To a degree yes, especially in understanding the parent/child relationship when it comes to talking about money matters.

We saw it in play today when Ferris Bueller--of all people--was
sneering that my brother and I had failed our mother because we did not
force her to sell her holdings AFTER having heard for our entire lives
that she did not want to sell her holdings.

As far as working with high net worth types.  I am in a school of
thought that believes that monied people tend to trust other monied
people when it comes to matters such as this.

There are obviously exceptions--a rich college guy who invests with his
fraternity brother without considering that the frat brother is not of
the same caste.

But generally I believe that money follows money.  It's just my
opinion and what will  happen is I will be flamed by the same
flamers who cannot stand to hear anything that they fiind uncomfortable
to deal with.

If you are not from the monied class in your town, if you don't have
the rich friends, you can still make a damn attractive living because
there are a lot more people who are not the monied class.

But if your business plan is to somehow end up being the broker for the
folks who live over there in the rich folks houses, and have their
small business pension plans and all that--you should never give up,
but you should work towards that by opening lots and lots of accounts
that you wouldn't want to  have if you were the advisor to the
rich and famous.

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

Provocative Put wrote:Nope I have never said that those who are not trust fund babies are stupid.  What I do believe is that a very legitimate portion of financial planning is anticipated inheritances.So what difference does it make, then, if I personally inherited or will inherit?  Does that change in any way your situation?  Or is it yet another of your pointless points?And what about your kids - isn't THEIR anticpated inheritance a legitimate enough portion of your financial plan to include consideration of a GST?  You really just prefer to ignore that uncomfortable issue, don't you?  Less money for you, and all.  I wonder if your Mom would share your apathy if she was made aware of the potential long-term family legacy benefits of a GST? 
 
Provocative Put wrote:I also believe that unless your own parents have significant assets you cannot possibly grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship.Wow.  And I thought we had reached bottom with your bizarre statements.  Obviously not.  This one is so bizarre, I think it deserves to be repeated and highlighted:Provocative Put wrote:I also believe that unless your own parents have
significant assets you cannot possibly grasp the dynamics of the parent
child relationship.Nope.  It doesn't get any better the second time around.  Still absurdly bizarre.Tell us all, Putsy, precisely how "significant" do mommy's assets need to be before one begin to "grasp the dynamics of a parent child relationship?"  $1 million?  $2.3 million?  $17.8 million?  $146.8 million?  And if the value of mommy's assets drop below this threshhold due to, say, a bear market where "everything is different" - do you then re-lose your ability to "grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship?"  Or are you grandfathered in forever once you are admitted to the parent child dynamics club?  Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Provocative Put wrote:You simply confirmed what I already knew--you really cannot identify with those of us with money because you have never been exposed to it.You don't read very well, do you?  If you did, you would have noticed I never said I didn't have money.  I merely implied I didn't inherit wealth.  It's your warped perspective that simply measures wealth according to what one is given via inheritance.  Pathetic.  Your poor great grandfather (or whoever was the one responsible for actually creating that wealth that you are itching to inherit) must be turning in his grave at your distorted attitude of entitlement and arrogance.  I bet HE didn't need his daddy to have money in order to "grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship."  And as for your twisted logic that someone can't "identify" with those with money if they have never been "exposed" to it ... do you even believe half the crap you write or are you just stupid?  Oh, and if your mom gets ill and needs a doctor make sure you find one who inherited a lot of money so he can "identify" with her, or he won't be able to help her.
 
Provocative Put wrote:The idiocy being spewed about my mother being failed because my brother and I did not force her to sell her holdings reveals the shallowness of your experience and qualifications.Really?  There's your reading comprehension problem coming into play yet again.  Cite one instance in which I said anything of the sort.  Just one example will do.

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

SuperRecruiter wrote:However, and I can only speak from the
experience I have had with OUR clients, we don't see a single person
who has had all their assets drained. That's just a silly and absurd
notion.

I suggest that the phone call that says, "Mr. Johnson, I have decided
to switch from Acme to Ajax....." is the perfect opportunity for a
client to say, "Well, Mike I've been so worried about what has been
happening that I think I will just stay put for the time being."

The bond that ties the advisor to the client is only strong when the market is strong.

This is a perfect time to try to pick off other people's clients. 
For the first time in about thirty years there is not a single investor
who would not be open to listening to a new voice.

We're not talking about decisons that result in action taken withini
seconds.  There is a gnawing doubt in the minds of investors
regarding the quality of the advice they've been getting.

Please tell me why any client should pay for, "Hold on, it will come back?"

Bernard Baruch is said to have commented, "I'll give up the last 20% of
a tired bull market and miss the first 20% of a new one in order to get
the 60% in between."

The "Hold on it will come back" model failed, and it failed huge at the
wrong time with the wrong people--the boomers who are approaching
retirement and are also well educated enough to know about how to go
about contacting an attorney.

Years ago I heard somebody ask, "Do you know the difference between an American and a Japanese?"

"In the US if a fan at a baseball game got hit by a foul ball he'll
sue.  In Japan the guy who was hit by the ball will bow and thank
the batter for the honor of being hit."

My point is that Americans are the most litigious society in the world, and the plaintiff's bar is licking their chops.

Against that backdrop it's insane--as in INSANE--for the firms to be
handing out money to hire people who may bring their own legal problems
along with a book that may not transfer.

EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT NOW.

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

It is said that the biggest cause for marriages breaking up is money.

There is not an "advisor" around whose relationship with a client is as strong as the one between a husband and wife.

If a huge number of husbands and wives divorce over money why is it not
logical to believe that a huge number of clients will "divorce" their
advisor?

apex01's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-27

Provocative Put wrote: apex01 wrote:
Pro Put,
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Are you saying that since I didn't come from a high net worth background I'm limited in my ability to work with those people that did? or Understand the parent/child relationship?To a degree yes, especially in understanding the parent/child relationship when it comes to talking about money matters.We saw it in play today when Ferris Bueller--of all people--was sneering that my brother and I had failed our mother because we did not force her to sell her holdings AFTER having heard for our entire lives that she did not want to sell her holdings.As far as working with high net worth types.  I am in a school of thought that believes that monied people tend to trust other monied people when it comes to matters such as this.There are obviously exceptions--a rich college guy who invests with his fraternity brother without considering that the frat brother is not of the same caste.But generally I believe that money follows money.  It's just my opinion and what will  happen is I will be flamed by the same flamers who cannot stand to hear anything that they fiind uncomfortable to deal with.If you are not from the monied class in your town, if you don't have the rich friends, you can still make a damn attractive living because there are a lot more people who are not the monied class.But if your business plan is to somehow end up being the broker for the folks who live over there in the rich folks houses, and have their small business pension plans and all that--you should never give up, but you should work towards that by opening lots and lots of accounts that you wouldn't want to  have if you were the advisor to the rich and famous.
 
Thanks for expanding. I didn't read all the history of the post so I didn't know what got you to your statements.
 
I will agree with you on the parent/child relationship in regards to money. I struggled with that early on as an advisor. Specifically when dealing with the widow and her sons who were often times twice my age.
 
Money does follow money for the most part. Although I will say having attended a top 15 business school and having many "trust fund" friends I wouldn't hold them in any higher esteem than anyone else-they just hit the DNA jackpot in certain cases.
 
I think for the intelligent and ambitious (not necessarity in that order, unfortunately) there is the ability to work your way into that upper sect.   If you believe that "money follows money". Than you would believe that if an advisor can establish a professional and ethical practice coupled with HNW advocates then it is possible to service that group. 
 
I would add that while it is possible to join their group in a business sense you will never join them in a social sense. I'm talking about the "old money" circles. I dated a girl in college who was part of that group. I grew up middle-class and felt like Leonardo Dicaprio in "Titanic"-Remember the scene where is sitting with John Astor and all the well-to-do's?-major difference being they didn't even acknowledge me.

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

SuperRecruiter wrote:

Provocative Put wrote: 
Why would you give him anything to bring his blow-up book of clients?  As I was trying to say last night to our resident brainiac, Morphius, things are different now.
 
Trailing twelve is meaningless and won't become a valid benchmark for several years.
 
Virtually everybody with a book of any size is going to be embroiled in arbitration actions for years to come.  In the immediate future will come the wave of actions being taken by those who feel that they were cheated by the market--that their advisor did not get them off the track before the bear train ran them down (ya gotta love that line).  A sin of ommission.This is a bunch of horseshit. T12 and AUM is and will remain the benchmark of performance for FA's. The amount of business we have received over the past couple of months directly contradicts your statements. I can only speak for our clients, but they have seen overwhelming success in moving their clients and books. (Average of 85-95% percent retention) Like I have said before and I'll say again... clients are much more loyal to their brokers than the firms. Superrecruiter,I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if Putsy says that black is white and that the sun will no longer rise in the morning, that's pretty much the end of the conversation, since "everything is different" this time.  You'll also note that he will make no attempt to support his guesses because that would really interfere with his posting output and, besides - that part about using facts and logic and rationale and such - well, that's way too much work. After all, he is retired.  But once upon a time he was a real live, honest-to-goodness senior vice president.  On Wall Street.  Honest.  He said so himself.  I bet you've never actually met, much less talked to, a real live senior vice president on Wall Street, have you?  I mean, excluding the 67 bazillion other senior VPs on Wall Street.  Disincluding them.So if Putsy says T12 is meaningless, and no one follows their advisor to a new firm, and everyone other than him is stupid ... well, ipso facto, if he says it, it must be so.Otherwise, why would he keep saying it?P.S.  EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT.  Really.  Just ask Putsy.

SuperRecruiter's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-22

Morphius wrote:
I bet you've never actually met, much less talked to, a real live senior vice president on Wall Street, have you?  I mean, excluding the 67 bazillion other senior VPs on Wall Street.  Disincluding them.Everyone and their dog, on wallstreet, is a god damn VP.

SuperRecruiter's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-22

Ferris Bueller wrote:SuperRecruiter wrote: Morphius wrote: I bet you've never actually met, much less talked to, a real live senior vice president on Wall Street, have you?  I mean, excluding the 67 bazillion other senior VPs on Wall Street.  Disincluding them.Everyone and their dog, on wallstreet, is a god damn VP.
 
My dog is a first vice president, so there!And I bet s/he is more than qualified.

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

Provocative Put wrote:  I am in a school of
thought that believes that monied people tend to trust other monied
people when it comes to matters such as this.

There are obviously exceptions--a rich college guy who invests with his
fraternity brother without considering that the frat brother is not of
the same caste.Caste?!  Not of the same caste?!?  What country are you from?  India?!  Provocative Put wrote: If you are not from the monied class in your town, if you don't have
the rich friends, you can still make a damn attractive living because
there are a lot more people who are not the monied class."Monied class?"  Which caste is THAT class part of?  Putsy, you can produce more bulls**t in a few hours than most people take a year or more to churn out, if that.  Have you ever considered going into the fertilizer business? 

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

Ferris Bueller wrote:My dog is a first vice president, so there!Yeah, but what caste is your first VP dog from?  And does he understand the dynamics of the parent child relations?  And does his sh*t still smell?  

HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

Provocative Put wrote: 
I also believe that unless your own parents have significant assets you cannot possibly grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship.
 
You simply confirmed what I already knew--you really cannot identify with those of us with money because you have never been exposed to it.
 
The idiocy being spewed about my mother being failed because my brother and I did not force her to sell her holdings reveals the shallowness of your experience and qualifications.Perhaps your mother knew you two well enough that it caused her to seek financial wisdom elsewhere.  Maybe she felt that it was better to hang on to a portfolio of profitable dividend-paying, low basis stocks compared to engaging in exotic options strategies that look good on paper but don't work so well in the real wordl.Hmmm....perhaps.Oh, and my parents have assets of some consequence, and are clients, and we get along just fine.  It happened when my Dad came to me...I made it a point never to ask.  He started small and over the years I ended up with the whole enchilada.So...let's dispense with that and move on to your next ridiculuous blanket statement.

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

HymanRoth wrote: Perhaps your mother knew you two well
enough that it caused her to seek financial wisdom elsewhere. 
Maybe she felt that it was better to hang on to a portfolio of
profitable dividend-paying, low basis stocks compared to engaging in
exotic options strategies that look good on paper but don't work so
well in the real wordl.Hmmm....perhaps.Oh, and my
parents have assets of some consequence, and are clients, and we get
along just fine.  It happened when my Dad came to me...I made it a
point never to ask.  He started small and over the years I ended
up with the whole enchilada.So...let's dispense with that and move on to your next ridiculuous blanket statement.

The whole enchilada?  What's that about 1.99 at Taco Bell?

From where I sit it is not possible for some punk's father to open an
account with him and "start small" and end up with very much.

Whole enchiladas are built over generations, years and years of dividend reinvesting and just leaving it alone.

By the way, what about you and your little life and career entitles you
to talk about my brother like youj did at your lead in?  What part
of he rose to the presidency of a bank, collected millions when it was
sold, waited out the non-compete, and then started a new bank that he
and his buddies will grow and sell?

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

Too many funny posts in this thread to even comment on...but I did want to comment from a post waaaaay back at the beginning.  Put opined on the coming arbitration wasteland and was kind enough to feel bad that I might be a part of it.  While I appreciate the sentiment, I feel fairly secure that I'll avoid at least most of that mess, despite the fact that it may not have yet begun to hit the fan.
 
First of all, I went through the last bear, which dropped by about the same amount (at least thus far) that this one has and received not the first threat of arbitration from any client.  Most of those folks are with me today and yes, we've certainly changed the way we invest for some of them, based on their distaste from the last bear.  Most of my big clients have at least a significant part of their portfolios in fixed income, which for the most part, has fared considerably better than the stock market.  For those with significant equity stakes that haven't been held for a long time, we are taking losses and re-deploying the proceeds...for the most part, right back into the stock market.
 
It's times like this that I appreciate living here in Bumphuck, as most Bumphuckians have never considered suing their advisor when the market runs against them.  None of our local attorneys have shown any interest in such actions and I'm hopeful that Mr. Mass Tort Lawyer from the Big City keeps busy working over the Merrill, Morgan and Smith Barney brokers in the Big City that present a far larger target than little ol' Indyone.  For certain, LPL makes sure that I keep my E&O policy current and I'm hopeful it's never needed.  We could get a rash of such suits, but personally, I'm more inclined to believe that if such suits come, they will probably be first directed at the considerably larger Edward Jones contingent here in Bumphuck, who have seen fit to sell a ton of Lehman Bros. and long-term GM, Ford Motor Credit and GMAC bonds to 80-year-old ladies over the past decade.  Many of those dogs I see today are STILL 10-20 years from maturity...and the price?  Yikes.  For the record, my last automaker bond (Ford) matured 10/20/2008 and that money is safely tucked in the client's account.  The worst bonds on my books right now are some leveraged closed-end muni funds.  The rest of my bond portfolio is almost exclusively Munis and CDs of no more than 10 years from maturity.  I didn't escape whole, but I'm at least sleeping at night.
 
You may not agree with Put (I often don't), but the threads are a hell of a lot more interesting these days...
 
Have a good evening all...the daughter is at a sleepover and I've got dinner and a movie with the Mrs.

HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

Provocative Put wrote:
HymanRoth wrote: Perhaps your mother knew you two well
enough that it caused her to seek financial wisdom elsewhere. 
Maybe she felt that it was better to hang on to a portfolio of
profitable dividend-paying, low basis stocks compared to engaging in
exotic options strategies that look good on paper but don't work so
well in the real wordl.Hmmm....perhaps.Oh, and my
parents have assets of some consequence, and are clients, and we get
along just fine.  It happened when my Dad came to me...I made it a
point never to ask.  He started small and over the years I ended
up with the whole enchilada.So...let's dispense with that and move on to your next ridiculuous blanket statement.

The whole enchilada?  What's that about 1.99 at Taco Bell?

From where I sit it is not possible for some punk's father to open an
account with him and "start small" and end up with very much.It is when you continue transferring in more assets over the years and get some good investment advice.

Whole enchiladas are built over generations, years and years of dividend reinvesting and just leaving it alone.

By the way, what about you and your little life and career entitles you
to talk about my brother like youj did at your lead in?  What part
of he rose to the presidency of a bank, collected millions when it was
sold, waited out the non-compete, and then started a new bank that he
and his buddies will grow and sell?There you go with more blanket statements.  Becoming President of a bank and collecting millions of dollars shows that you know how to run a bank(and play politics well enough to rise up through the ranks).  It doesn't mean you know anything when it comes to providing sage investment advice.  There is plenty of evidence of that lately.  I suggest you use google to search for "Kerry Killinger" or "Ken Thompson" for enlightenment.Oh, and I am entitled because I have a username on this board.  Just like you are.

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

Provocative Put wrote: From where I sit it is not possible for some punk's father to open an
account with him and "start small" and end up with very much.The guy who is so enamored of family wealth, suddenly finds it "not possible" for someone else's Dad to have assets worth "very much?" Or to invest well over time?  I guess only you and your Mommy can do that.

Provocative Put wrote:Whole enchiladas are built over generations, years and years of dividend reinvesting and just leaving it alone.Yeah.  Just look at Bill Gates.  And Warren Buffet.  Larry Ellison.  Etc.  Billionaires all, well known for inheriting their wealth or growing it slowly through many, many years of  dividend reinvesting.   Not a self-made man among them.  
And if you really believe that money is built wealth over time through dividend reinvestment, why is it "impossible" that Hyman Roth did that with his Dad's money?  Hard to have it both ways, isn't it?  Putsy, do you get motion sickness just trying to keep straight your constantly changing and contradictory pronouncements?We await with baited breath your next round of wisdom on building wealth that has no basis in reality.

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

Morphius wrote:
And if you really believe that money is built wealth over time
through dividend reinvestment, why is it "impossible" that Hyman Roth
did that with his Dad's money?  Hard to have it both ways, isn't
it?  Putsy, do you get motion sickness just trying to keep straight your constantly changing and contradictory pronouncements?We await with baited breath your next round of wisdom on building wealth that has no basis in reality.

Baited breath is difficult to deal with, you could start with something like Tic Tacs, but you'll probably need more.

Tell me, do you really believe that a father with a punk son who
becomes a broker can "start small" and grow it to a "Big Enchilada"
while his punk son is still a punk?  Or would it take more than
three or four years?

HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

Provocative Put wrote:
Morphius wrote:
And if you really believe that money is built wealth over time
through dividend reinvestment, why is it "impossible" that Hyman Roth
did that with his Dad's money?  Hard to have it both ways, isn't
it?  Putsy, do you get motion sickness just trying to keep straight your constantly changing and contradictory pronouncements?We await with baited breath your next round of wisdom on building wealth that has no basis in reality.

Baited breath is difficult to deal with, you could start with something like Tic Tacs, but you'll probably need more.

Tell me, do you really believe that a father with a punk son who
becomes a broker can "start small" and grow it to a "Big Enchilada"
while his punk son is still a punk?  Or would it take more than
three or four years?
What entitles you to talk about me that way?For all you know, in real life I could be a bank president collecting millions of dollars.

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

Provocative Put wrote:Tell me, do you really believe that a father with a punk son who
becomes a broker can "start small" and grow it to a "Big Enchilada"
while his punk son is still a punk?  Or would it take more than
three or four years?
Your reading comprehension is failing you again.  Go back and you will see Hyman clearly said (1) that what grew was how much his father chose to move to him, and (2) that this took place "over the years."  You are the one who simply made up out of thin air the idea of a "punk son" growing a static portfolio dramatically over "three or four years."Why stop there with your fictionizing? All the absurd and contradictory statements you have made and been called out on you don't even attempt to answer.  Instead you make up stupid stuff like this.Why is that, Putsy?

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×