[quote=Indyone]I think he's clean...just a little goofy and probably not the sharpest crayon in the box.  Although he certainly would have qualified revenue-wise, they took a pass.  I'd like to think that shows they have some standards, anyway...[/quote]

Crayons are supposed to be sort of dull so that the kids don't put their eyes out.

The phrase "a little goofy" says it all--but being proud that your B/D won't associate with a goofy guy is faint praise indeed.

What’s that say about his current employer?

[quote=Indyone]What's that say about his current employer? [/quote]

Everybody seems to think that EJ will hire anybody--even goofy guys who are not sharp crayons.

Well, except for that soul who showed up here a few weeks ago after being turned down.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=Indyone]What's that say about his current employer? [/quote]

Everybody seems to think that EJ will hire anybody--even goofy guys who are not sharp crayons.

Well, except for that soul who showed up here a few weeks ago after being turned down.

[/quote]

They hired you didn't they???

Prooof that they'll hire ANYBODY!

Newbie,

You are just flat wrong - read everything you can get your hands on - hah?  LPL makes a profit on any advisor that is doing north of $50k in GDC.  That's not a guess, an assumption nor based on some random comment like you have, it's simply the fact.  If you wish to base a firm's ability to perform based on avg production you simply don't get this industry or the indy model.  What makes LPL unique is not only does their scale allow advisors who have been cast aside by others due to the production game, they have a model in place that keeps them profitable on that and also gives all its advisors FREEDOM to build their business model as they determine.  Frankly, I think they are dead right and are about the only firm that has figured it out. 

You should go back to your wild E&O discussion to show your ignorance some more.

[quote=csmelnix]

Newbie,

You are just flat wrong - read everything you can get your hands on -

hah? LPL makes a profit on any advisor that is doing north of $50k in

GDC. That’s not a guess, an assumption nor based on some random

comment like you have, it’s simply the fact. If you wish to base a firm’s

ability to perform based on avg production you simply don’t get this

industry or the indy model. What makes LPL unique is not only does their

scale allow advisors who have been cast aside by others due to the

production game, they have a model in place that keeps them profitable

on that and also gives all its advisors FREEDOM to build their business

model as they determine. Frankly, I think they are dead right and are

about the only firm that has figured it out.

You should go back to your wild E&O discussion to show your

ignorance some more.

[/quote]

Boy your really are stupid - that was a generalization on indy firms; like I said, what makes LPL unique is its scale which is why we are not in the boat that other indy’s are - nice try but if that’s all the reading you can get your hands on you ought to look for more to read. 

If, industry wide, 20% of the producers are supporting the other 80%--and the industry executives say that they "lose real money" on anybody doing under $100,000 it is impossible that LPL could bet that much different.

There is siimply not enough wiggle room in the B/D's share of the gross for all firms except LPL to make it on small producers.

What LPL is doing is this.  They're accepting small producers because the small producer may become a big producer--not likely, but possible.

That small producer becomes a blip on the "We are everywhere" maps that these firms are proud of.  It also allows LPL to hold the number one ranking as measured by number of reps and total gross.

These are images worth developing, and the loss incurred on the little hitters is not significant enough to not absorb it for the sake of the image.

LPL has more than 1,000 non-producing employees--y'all act like all there is to pay for with their share of your gross is a couple of people.  That just ain't so.

Has anyone else noticed that Putsy’s spelling and grammar got to pot when he knows he’s wrong, yet still tries to save face?

TYPO: go to pot

Keep sipping your own bath water there newbie.  I love the lack of insight and undocumented generalities you spew; it truly underscores how ignorant of this industry you are, particularly how certain channels operate. 

I got it, LPL is just hoax, running on pure luck w/ time it'll all prove itself out to your description.  Is it really like you say simply because....you say it?

No, it is like I say because I am a student of the securities industry.   I spent thirty five years learning everything there is to know about it.

At a point the NASD and the SIA formed Independent Contractor Firm committees--and serving on those committees when they first got started were wirehouse people who were there to offer advice on things that their people should look for in their recruits, as well as things their people should tell the new Indy brokers about running an office.

Does it occur to you that a guy who spent his life in branch office supervision would be a member of those committees.  Ever read that I am on a first name basis with Todd Robinson and have chatted with Mark Cassady--how do you suppose things like that happen?

That you don't see things through my prisms is not because mine are out of whack--you don't know enough to know better.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

No, it is like I say because I am a student of the securities industry.   I spent thirty five years learning everything there is to know about it.

At a point the NASD and the SIA formed Independent Contractor Firm committees--and serving on those committees when they first got started were wirehouse people who were there to offer advice on things that their people should look for in their recruits, as well as things their people should tell the new Indy brokers about running an office.

Does it occur to you that a guy who spent his life in branch office supervision would be a member of those committees.  Ever read that I am on a first name basis with Todd Robinson and have chatted with Mark Cassady--how do you suppose things like that happen?

That you don't see things through my prisms is not because mine are out of whack--you don't know enough to know better.

[quote=joedabrkr]
I am sure the wirehouse people were oh so happy to share their greatest wisdom with their competition.  Even more, I bet the management from indy firms were thrilled to hear how their high-overhead counterparts were going to tell them to run a completely different business model.  ::rolls eyes::

Why do I have a feeling that if Todd Robinson saw you across the room at a cocktail party that he would suddenly remember an important phone call he needed to make?
[/quote]

Joeboy, if you would set your prejudices aside, and if you had ever been anywhere except in a bull pen at UBS, you'd know that the industry actually cooperates with each other all the time.

For example, the SIA has dozens of roundtable groups where peers meet to discuss common problems, techniques that work, things that don't work and on and on.

There is no reason for Todd Robinson to not be interested in what men and women from wirehouses have to say about how they would do it if they were him--and in so doing everybody can learn.

Additionally sitting at the tables are leadership from other indy firms.  These meetings are among the most powerful tools in the world of networking.

There is no reason to think that the leadership at a place like FSC cannot suggest something to the leadership of Financial Network, and vice versa.

Nobody sits around and talks about truly sensitive material, but they get very close.

Wouldn't you benefit from spending time across the table from some guys who are affiliated with RJFS or an ING star?  Don't you suppose you could add something that they would apprciate?

You insight from being a student of industry -

And all you had to back up your claim about LPL was the link that generalized the indy channel.  You made claims v LPL and couldn't back it up; you went on to splain that your knowledge is due to reading everything you can get your hands on; and now this answer.  Wow, did you run out of Prozac yesterday?  Well then again, since you once talked with Todd (btw - Todd has spent the better part of the last 2.5 years out of this country - it must have been a great conversation you had) and Mark, I must yield to you. 

When did I indicate that I spent time with Todd in the last two or three years?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]
I am sure the wirehouse people were oh so happy to share their greatest wisdom with their competition.  Even more, I bet the management from indy firms were thrilled to hear how their high-overhead counterparts were going to tell them to run a completely different business model.  ::rolls eyes::

Why do I have a feeling that if Todd Robinson saw you across the room at a cocktail party that he would suddenly remember an important phone call he needed to make?
[/quote]

Joeboy, if you would set your prejudices aside, and if you had ever been anywhere except in a bull pen at UBS, you'd know that the industry actually cooperates with each other all the time.

For example, the SIA has dozens of roundtable groups where peers meet to discuss common problems, techniques that work, things that don't work and on and on.

There is no reason for Todd Robinson to not be interested in what men and women from wirehouses have to say about how they would do it if they were him--and in so doing everybody can learn.

Additionally sitting at the tables are leadership from other indy firms.  These meetings are among the most powerful tools in the world of networking.

There is no reason to think that the leadership at a place like FSC cannot suggest something to the leadership of Financial Network, and vice versa.

Nobody sits around and talks about truly sensitive material, but they get very close.

Wouldn't you benefit from spending time across the table from some guys who are affiliated with RJFS or an ING star?  Don't you suppose you could add something that they would apprciate?

[quote=joedabrkr]

I did not spend ANY time in the bullpen at UBS, except perhaps when I dropped by a friend's desk to say hello on the way to my office.

Occasionally, yes, I like to pick the brains of extremely successful producers.  "Networking", however, is frequently a HUGE waste of time.  In my experience, those in this business who "network" with peers have too much time on their hands.
[/quote]

Whch is why you didn't go to San Diego a couple of weeks ago--or on any of the awards trips you won at UBS?

As for never in the bull pen--you are such a stud that they gave you an office on your first day just because you're so incredibly good looking?

maybe from this quote:

Does it occur to you that a guy who spent his life in branch office supervision would be a member of those committees.  Ever read that I am on a first name basis with Todd Robinson and have chatted with Mark Cassady--how do you suppose things like that happen?

Sounds like reality to this conversation is starting to sink in with you. 

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]

I did not spend ANY time in the bullpen at UBS, except perhaps when I dropped by a friend’s desk to say hello on the way to my office.

Occasionally, yes, I like to pick the brains of extremely successful producers.  “Networking”, however, is frequently a HUGE waste of time.  In my experience, those in this business who “network” with peers have too much time on their hands.
[/quote]

Whch is why you didn't go to San Diego a couple of weeks ago--or on any of the awards trips you won at UBS?

As for never in the bull pen--you are such a stud that they gave you an office on your first day just because you're so incredibly good looking?