Retention....please do not hijack
480 RepliesJump to last post
"I kept my end of the bargain, WB didn't keep theirs. Wells Fargo is buying my business fresh. Pay up" skillopie
That says it all. I could not agree more!
[quote=skillopie]With regard to the freaking topic…
I heard that everyone 250k and over will get retention. For people on a deal alraedy (like me, coming over here from another wirehouse in 2007) or AGE guys, they essentially get bumped back to their original deal. The amount on your deal that has been forgiven is the same amount you are credited again. Similar to what happened for legacy Pru guys on deals when Wachovia bought them. Why do we all deserve a package? For me, and AGE guys, we signed contracts with Wachovia. Our end of the contract (which I have upheld) is to run an advisory practice, bring my clients over, do the same or more T-12 as last year and keep a clean U5. If I fink out on these the firm has a right to come after me for the money it paid me. Wachovia's end of the contract is to provide a platform for me to do said business on, provide me with back office support, custody, recordkeeping, and oh yes, to FREAKING STAY IN BUSINESS!. Wachovia was 1 day away from folding if it wasn't for the Citigroup merger, which then fed into the WFC merger. I kept my end of the bargain, WB didn't keep theirs. Wells Fargo is buying my business fresh. Pay up.[/quote] For the millionth time.... WB had ZERO impact on WS. WS is and was a stand alone LLC between WB and PRU. If WB had gone in recievership, it would not have impacted the brokerage in terms of ability to continue to conduct business. WS passed through after tax profits to both WB and PRU... If you recall, the original deal was that Citi was buying the bank and WS was going to continue to be a stand alone operation. Its the 15th, still no word on retention and nothing on infomax to indicate that there is or will be any announcement today or anytime in the near future.[quote=skillopie]With regard to the freaking topic…
I heard that everyone 250k and over will get retention. For people on a deal alraedy (like me, coming over here from another wirehouse in 2007) or AGE guys, they essentially get bumped back to their original deal. The amount on your deal that has been forgiven is the same amount you are credited again. Similar to what happened for legacy Pru guys on deals when Wachovia bought them. Why do we all deserve a package? For me, and AGE guys, we signed contracts with Wachovia. Our end of the contract (which I have upheld) is to run an advisory practice, bring my clients over, do the same or more T-12 as last year and keep a clean U5. If I fink out on these the firm has a right to come after me for the money it paid me. Wachovia's end of the contract is to provide a platform for me to do said business on, provide me with back office support, custody, recordkeeping, and oh yes, to FREAKING STAY IN BUSINESS!. Wachovia was 1 day away from folding if it wasn't for the Citigroup merger, which then fed into the WFC merger. I kept my end of the bargain, WB didn't keep theirs. Wells Fargo is buying my business fresh. Pay up.[/quote]WB was one day from being seized. WacSec is a separate LLC owned by WB and PRU.
Check check check yourself…WB doesn’t have anything to do with WS?
They own 2/3 of the company. My insurance is through their group plan, they administer that crummy 401k with WB stock as an investment option, not WS/Pru LLC. I know it's Ken/Bob in Charlotte, and Danny in STL and that they are separate, but WB is involved because they are the mother ship. If there's ZERO impact, why was I getting e-mails from Bob Steel saying we are doing great, etc.[quote=skillopie]Check check check yourself…WB doesn’t have anything to do with WS?
They own 2/3 of the company. My insurance is through their group plan, they administer that crummy 401k with WB stock as an investment option, not WS/Pru LLC. I know it's Ken/Bob in Charlotte, and Danny in STL and that they are separate, but WB is involved because they are the mother ship. If there's ZERO impact, why was I getting e-mails from Bob Steel saying we are doing great, etc.[/quote] Are you really this obtuse? If WB had gone into recievership it would have effected WS in absolutely no fashion with regards to WS ability to function and operate. The bank "closing its doors" has no impact on your business FUNCTIONALLY. I really tire of people using the bank as an excuse as to why they have lost business ect.ummmmmm…errrr…Buki, before you continue your rants, keep in mind about 10% of the producing work force actually WORK in the branch, so having the doors shut might have a slight impact on our “FUNCIONALLITY”, so I do really see it as an excuse. That said, I have not lost any clients due to the entire debacle, but I am sure somewhere,somebody has.
Once again, you a@@ clowns have taken us wayyyyyy off topic. I will be so happy once this is all benhind us so that I can erase my password to this site from my memory.I haven’t lost clients because of the bank’s problems either.
But it doesn't take away from the fact that as the bank $hit's the bed, I spend an awful lot of my time dealing with those issues and questions that clients have. I can't use the down market as an excuse not to produce what is expected of me. It's my job to produce and I do. WB has a job, to stay in business and at the very least maintain credibility. The bank folding would have an impact on what we do. I don't care if FCC is the custodian and not WB directly. They are the mother ship, it's their name, and they F'd up. Wells is getting the WHOLE company for a song.Buki,
Why are you so bitter about the possibility of your fellow colleague getting some extra money in this tough times. I mean does it matter to you if some piker in south dakota receive few hundred thousand for all the money that wells will be in the future? If you are not a big fan of retention will you give up yours and share it among the fa's on this forum?[quote=skbroker]Buki,
Why are you so bitter about the possibility of your fellow colleague getting some extra money in this tough times. I mean does it matter to you if some piker in south dakota receive few hundred thousand for all the money that wells will be in the future? If you are not a big fan of retention will you give up yours and share it among the fa's on this forum? [/quote] Wow you need to work on your reading comprehension skills there bud. There is a DISTINCT difference from being tired of hearing people using the "bank mess" as an excuse and being anti retention. I am in fact waiting on the announcement for retention to decide what I am going to do. In my mind if WFC low balls us on retention it paints a VERY clear picture of how little they value what we do. They got the bank and brokerage for less than 20B. Based on paying PRU 5B for its interest in WS they valued the brokerage at roughly 15B. Wells has huge tax write offs that will keep them from paying tax potentially for the next 5 years. If they low ball us, to me, it speaks volumes about what kind of organization they are and thus what they will be like to work under. I am anything but anti retention.I agree, BukackiRob. The bank has nothing to do with my business and you have not heard me crying about how bad business is. Business is great and clients have not left. I just happen to think that WFC is anti retention bonus and WS Management is not fighting hard enough for it. Because of that I am ready to hit the eject button and take every client with me. I have heard there are WS advisors are leaving left and right in California.
Danny Isadouche:
"Legacy AGE" or "legacy WS"?? I have heard on the AGE side that there is lots of movement, do not know a whole lot about the WS side. I can say the the WS brokers I know are fed-up!I agree, BukackiRob. The bank has nothing to do with my business and you have not heard me crying about how bad business is. Business is great and clients have not left. I just happen to think that WFC is anti retention bonus and WS Management is not fighting hard enough for it. Because of that I am ready to hit the eject button and take every client with me. I have heard there are WS advisors are leaving left and right in California.
Just our of curiosity, what, if any, effect would the sale of WB to WFC have on the AGE/WB retention package? Can the firm being sold create any opportunity for those “loans” to be forgiven at a more rapid rate, or even immediately?
[quote=BukiRob][quote=skillopie]With regard to the freaking topic…
I heard that everyone 250k and over will get retention. For people on a deal alraedy (like me, coming over here from another wirehouse in 2007) or AGE guys, they essentially get bumped back to their original deal. The amount on your deal that has been forgiven is the same amount you are credited again. Similar to what happened for legacy Pru guys on deals when Wachovia bought them. Why do we all deserve a package? For me, and AGE guys, we signed contracts with Wachovia. Our end of the contract (which I have upheld) is to run an advisory practice, bring my clients over, do the same or more T-12 as last year and keep a clean U5. If I fink out on these the firm has a right to come after me for the money it paid me. Wachovia's end of the contract is to provide a platform for me to do said business on, provide me with back office support, custody, recordkeeping, and oh yes, to FREAKING STAY IN BUSINESS!. Wachovia was 1 day away from folding if it wasn't for the Citigroup merger, which then fed into the WFC merger. I kept my end of the bargain, WB didn't keep theirs. Wells Fargo is buying my business fresh. Pay up.[/quote] For the millionth time.... WB had ZERO impact on WS. WS is and was a stand alone LLC between WB and PRU. If WB had gone in recievership, it would not have impacted the brokerage in terms of ability to continue to conduct business. WS passed through after tax profits to both WB and PRU... If you recall, the original deal was that Citi was buying the bank and WS was going to continue to be a stand alone operation. Its the 15th, still no word on retention and nothing on infomax to indicate that there is or will be any announcement today or anytime in the near future. [/quote] You're right Buki....in marketing there would be no real effect, right? I can just see it now: I can't understand why Dr. Joseph Mengola Jr., who is a really fine dentist by the way, isn't getting any business. I mean really, just b/c he is related to the famed Nazi, Dr Death, I can't see what the big deal is? In marketing, perception is reality and it CAN hurt, whether there is an implication or not. Correct me if I am wrong, are you saying you spent no time explaining the whole conveluted relationship to clients?? ooohhh and I call HIJACK on myself!I am on legacy WS side and there is, and is going to be an exodus like you have never seen if the idiots at the top do not give us retention. That hack under Danny is holding a call on Thursday about transitioning clients over to WFC. He forgot one thing! Transitioning the FAs! I hope there is a Q&A. That will be entertaining.
[quote=BukiRob][quote=skillopie]With regard to the freaking topic…
I heard that everyone 250k and over will get retention. For people on a deal alraedy (like me, coming over here from another wirehouse in 2007) or AGE guys, they essentially get bumped back to their original deal. The amount on your deal that has been forgiven is the same amount you are credited again. Similar to what happened for legacy Pru guys on deals when Wachovia bought them. Why do we all deserve a package? For me, and AGE guys, we signed contracts with Wachovia. Our end of the contract (which I have upheld) is to run an advisory practice, bring my clients over, do the same or more T-12 as last year and keep a clean U5. If I fink out on these the firm has a right to come after me for the money it paid me. Wachovia's end of the contract is to provide a platform for me to do said business on, provide me with back office support, custody, recordkeeping, and oh yes, to FREAKING STAY IN BUSINESS!. Wachovia was 1 day away from folding if it wasn't for the Citigroup merger, which then fed into the WFC merger. I kept my end of the bargain, WB didn't keep theirs. Wells Fargo is buying my business fresh. Pay up.[/quote] For the millionth time.... WB had ZERO impact on WS. WS is and was a stand alone LLC between WB and PRU. If WB had gone in recievership, it would not have impacted the brokerage in terms of ability to continue to conduct business. WS passed through after tax profits to both WB and PRU... If you recall, the original deal was that Citi was buying the bank and WS was going to continue to be a stand alone operation. Its the 15th, still no word on retention and nothing on infomax to indicate that there is or will be any announcement today or anytime in the near future. [/quote] What??? Under the Citi deal, what was left of the parent co of WSllc would have been stuck with 10billion in preferred stock to pay dividends on, you don't think that would have had an impact on the brokerage firms ability to stay viable?? If WB would have been siezed, it would have impacted WSllc. WSllc is an asset of WB, at bankruptcy, the assets of WB would have been liquidated, including their share of WSllc.ezmoney:
look at Stifels stock performance...how do they do it without retail bank deposits funding them?? The universal bank model is a failure, just as the investment bank proprietary trading model is a failure. The investment banks are converting to commercial banks so they can fund their proprietary trading with cheap stable retail deposits. Neither model provides any value to retail brokers or their customers.not obsessed, just needing the money to finance their survival in the biz.
For the millionth time.... WB had ZERO impact on WS. WS is and was a stand alone LLC between WB and PRU. If WB had gone in recievership, it would not have impacted the brokerage in terms of ability to continue to conduct business. WS passed through after tax profits to both WB and PRU...
Let's approach this from a different angle. You are saying that problems at the bank has nothing to do with clients being nervous at the brokerage WITH THE SAME NAME??!! How many calls did you receive about Wachovia in the news? I am in a part of the country where Wachovia has little exposure, so I rec'd this calls constantly. This took away from my time to produce.
In addition, my clients cash was now with Wachovia Bank. Even though covered by FDIC, I still had to take my time away from production to hand hold and explain.
Also, do you know what happens to a margin account at a firm that fails? How about a futures account? Not covered by SIPC. So even though they were seperate business entities, it is hard to blame a client for being nervous especially after Bear, Lehman, AIG and all the rest talked about how well capitalized they were right before they went under.
Point is, I never had to deal with this crap at AGE. Never. Now I do. Who should I blame besides Wachovia?
buki
obvious you are not age legacy and looking in from the outside. My advice is to let the guys vent a little without being criticized espcially in this environment.WS as a stand alone was a scary thought. Did not know what the balance sheet looked like exactly but knew the pfds would eat up most of the potential profit. Then the market gets worse. Maybe they eat up all of the profit... and more. Then Prudential exercises their put. Did anyone notice that they did that? Wonder how that works if WS was a stand alone.
I have explained the joint venture thing to clients until I am blue in the face. We are not the bank. But when it comes to conference calls, My Time , Money market alternatives that are a ripoff, Client fees, no research department, call centers for margin, iras etc, complexing, productivity managers, Oscar procurment center, Silly 401K options, etc. We sure weren't AG Edwards any more. How about accounts full of research department recommendations and then we let all the analysts go. That was kind of tough to deal with and not very client centered.