I'm outa here

21 replies [Last post]
Indy@last's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-23

After reading the forums for quite some time, I feel that it is appropriate to post and thank everyone here for their respective insight. As a former AGE guy, I can really appreciate the comes from those legacy advisers.Tomorrow, I am leaving my office and opening my own through LPL.My AGE office was absolutely decimated (went from 15 to 5) when the Wachovia merger happened and now with the last debacle, the few of us who are left won't last very long. Clients have been begging me to leave, and with the coming changes to the grid system, it is time.Tomorrow is independence and a lot of paperwork,goodnight all

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

Why would your customers be "begging" you to leave?  I thought all
you Indy guys keep telling us that the clients don't care where you
are, that they are your clients and will follow you anywhere.

Now I'm hearing that they're begging a broker to leave what may prove to be the premier brokerage operation on earth?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Provocative Put wrote:Why would your customers be "begging" you to leave?  I thought all you Indy guys keep telling us that the clients don't care where you are, that they are your clients and will follow you anywhere.
 
Clients are usually pretty smart to realize that there's trouble when the name on the door changes 3 times in 2 years.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Indy@last wrote:After reading the forums for quite some time, I feel that it is appropriate to post and thank everyone here for their respective insight. As a former AGE guy, I can really appreciate the comes from those legacy advisers.Tomorrow, I am leaving my office and opening my own through LPL.My AGE office was absolutely decimated (went from 15 to 5) when the Wachovia merger happened and now with the last debacle, the few of us who are left won't last very long. Clients have been begging me to leave, and with the coming changes to the grid system, it is time.Tomorrow is independence and a lot of paperwork,goodnight all
 
Good luck to you.  You won't be the last one out the door that's for sure.   Make sure you come back some time and let us know how it goes.

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

Ominous wrote:Provocative Put wrote:Why would your customers be
"begging" you to leave?  I thought all you Indy guys keep telling
us that the clients don't care where you are, that they are your
clients and will follow you anywhere.  
Clients are usually pretty smart to realize that there's trouble when the name on the door changes 3 times in 2 years.

Nonsense.

The AG Edwards name was more than 100 years old.  The shares were
tightly held and those who held them decided to sell to Wachovia
Securities, which was one of the shrewdest moves they could have made.

Any thinking person would understand the desire for the Edwards family and others to make the sale.

Wachovia Securities did not implode, the bank holding company got
caught up in the credit crisis because they had purchased Golden West
Mortgage and found themselves hip deep in the sub prime mortgage mess.

If anything the fact that the $1 forced marriage with Citi was rejected adds stature to Wachovia and their management team.

In any case, any thinking person would understand that what happened to
Wachovia is actually not Wachvoia's fault.  There are victims of
the crimes committed in the subprime meltdown, and Wachovia Corporation
is high on that list.

In any case, clients are not sitting around whining that their broker
should leave wherever the broker is.  They do not feel qualified
to make a suggestion, much less "beg" the broker to move.

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

Provocative Put wrote:Nonsense.Here we go again.  Is it a full moon or something Putsy?

Provocative Put wrote: The AG Edwards name was more than 100 years old.  The shares were
tightly held and those who held them decided to sell to Wachovia
Securities, which was one of the shrewdest moves they could have made.What exactly are "tightly held" shares?  Are those anything like "closely held" shares?  

Provocative Put wrote:In any case, any thinking person would understand that what happened to
Wachovia is actually not Wachvoia's fault.  There are victims of
the crimes committed in the subprime meltdown, and Wachovia Corporation
is high on that list.Ah yes, more victims.  Poor ignorant, unsophisticated bankers.  What can they be expected to know about this investment stuff? 

Provocative Put wrote:In any case, clients are not sitting around whining that their broker
should leave wherever the broker is.  They do not feel qualified
to make a suggestion, much less "beg" the broker to move.What would you know about what clients are thinking or doing now?  After all, everything is different now, so your old experiences are "moldy" and "meaningless."

fritz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-01-11

If anything the fact that the $1 forced marriage with Citi was rejected adds stature to Wachovia and their management team.

Disagree strongly from feedback myself and others have gotten.  Going on Cramer and giving what was proven to be a  questionable picture of a house that was on fire and renegging on the Citi deal was a blackeye...  Do not think any "stature was added." 

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

Provocative Put wrote:

Any thinking person would understand the desire for the Edwards family and others to make the sale.

Obviously you have no familiarity with Ben Edwards' very public position regarding the Wachovia purchase of A.G. Edwards.

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

The last thing that Wachovia has right now is stature. That is really laughable.I dont think there is a broker at the firm that wants to be there for long.That firm f*cked up big time. Yes they bought Golden West. That doesnt mean the didnt screw up. The screwed up by buying that Titanic of a firm.

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

Sportsfreakbob wrote:The last thing that Wachovia has right now is stature. That is really laughable.I dont think there is a broker at the firm that wants to be there for long.That firm f*cked up big time. Yes they bought Golden West. That doesnt mean the didnt screw up. The screwed up by buying that Titanic of a firm.
No joke...they pretty much top-ticked the subprime finance market with that deal...

rocky's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-09-17

THe entire family that was in the business was not in favor of selling.

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

Sportsfreakbob wrote:

Yes they bought Golden West. That doesnt mean the didnt screw up. The screwed up by buying that Titanic of a firm.

Wachovia did not screw up by buying Golden West any more than White Star Lines screwed up by building the Titanic.

Using hindsight is a less than intellectually honest approach to doing a business post mortum.

At the time Golden West was purchased there was virtuallly no concern
about their assets because those assets were underwritten by Fannie or
Freddie.

If you're bright enough to understand the sub prime issues you know
that Wachovia was a victim of mark to the market accounting demand and
fraud on the part of Fannie and Freddie.

If you don't understand that you're too dumb for me to waste my time with.

Fortune1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-22

Have to excuse me as i am new to this forum but Putsy - you can not be as dumb as you sound.  The Edwards family owned 3% of the stock and did not want the company sold.  In fact they are in the process of starting a new Edwards brokerage right now.  As for clients not wanting to stay at Wachovia, why should they trust anything we say regarding the firm especially since it is still being led by Ludeman and hayes.

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

rocky wrote:THe entire family that was in the business was not in favor of selling.

That's only partially true.  The Edwards family wanted to sell,
they just didn't favor selling to Wachovia.  It was Ben's desire
to sell in order to get the family's finances more diversified and some
stable values put on their assets.

The board told Bagby to find a suitable marriage--he came up with
Wachovia.  Much of, as in all of the relevant, talks were
conducted by the current management staff and then Ben and the ohters
were told what had been arranged.

That pissed Ben off and he shot his mouth off.  He was never a
really good judge of what was happening--he fought T+3 tooth and nail
claiming it would kill the firm.  Probably too much inbreeding in
the various generations of Edwards that came before him.

Fortune1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-22

Ohh, and the Golden West assets were not underwritten to FNMA or Freddie standards.  It was the old World Savings and they had there own programs.

2wheeledbeemer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-10

PP, you may want to read Ben Edwards' comments from the last AGE shareholders meeting in order to provide you with some context for how fired up with glee the Family was about Rapmaster Bobby B's kiss and 30 pieces of silver.

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

Fortune1 wrote:As for clients not wanting to stay at Wachovia,
why should they trust anything we say regarding the firm especially
since it is still being led by Ludeman and hayes.

Clients have no idea who Ludeman and Hayes are, nor do they care.

GoingIndy????'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-01

After spending over a decade at AGE and still being in regular contact, I can tell you the morale at WS is rock bottom and WFC helps them a bit, but won't keep the ship from hitting the iceburg.  
The traditional brokerage firm is dead.  Look at BAC, who's already dropping hints that the ML guys are overpaid along with the rest of wall street.
 
Congrats on the move to independent.  It was the right decision. 

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

I think Putsy is just playing devil's advocate. He posts absurd comments and then giggles at the venom he generates from all of us. Good luck moving, bud! Hopefully with futures limit down you are leaving at or near the bottom of the market.

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

Provocative Put wrote:  The Edwards family wanted to sell,
they just didn't favor selling to Wachovia.  It was Ben's desire
to sell in order to get the family's finances more diversified and some
stable values put on their assets.Now you turn from making predictions about the future to making up stuff about the past.  If you didn't just pull this out of thin air, cite your source.

Provocative Put wrote: The board told Bagby to find a suitable marriage--he came up with
Wachovia.  Much of, as in all of the relevant, talks were
conducted by the current management staff and then Ben and the ohters
were told what had been arranged.More silly fantasies fabricated from thin air by Putsy.  Management staff alone - especially excluding the CEO - does not have the authority to conduct "all of the relevant talks," and certainly would never be able to simply "tell" Ben and the other board members "what had been arranged."  That is one of the more patently absurd statements I've seen, even for Putsy. 

Provocative Put wrote: That pissed Ben off and he shot his mouth off.  He was never a
really good judge of what was happening.More irony - Putsy passing judgment on Ben Edwards.  Classic. Ben Edwards grew one of the most respected brokerage firms during his roughly 3 decades of leadership by over twenty fold, from 300 brokers to almost 7,000 brokers, and he did it with his integrity intact.  But in Putsy's mind old Ben "was never a really good judge of what was happening."  But all of this is probably irrelevant, because as we have now all heard Putsy repeat countless times, "everything is different." Especially you, Putsy.  Especially you. 

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

Provocative Put wrote:
Sportsfreakbob wrote:

Yes they bought Golden West. That doesnt mean the didnt screw up. The screwed up by buying that Titanic of a firm.

Wachovia did not screw up by buying Golden West any more than White Star Lines screwed up by building the Titanic.

Using hindsight is a less than intellectually honest approach to doing a business post mortum.

At the time Golden West was purchased there was virtuallly no concern
about their assets because those assets were underwritten by Fannie or
Freddie.

If you're bright enough to understand the sub prime issues you know
that Wachovia was a victim of mark to the market accounting demand and
fraud on the part of Fannie and Freddie.

If you don't understand that you're too dumb for me to waste my time with.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain to you how much or little i know about sub prime, i'll leave that to Morphius, he does a great job, especially on the thread where you talk incessantly about your family.Wachovia screwed up because they bought Golden West, which screwed up under Wachovias watch.I'm done, not taking your bait beyond this response.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×