[quote=ChrisB][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=vbrainy][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=ChrisB]

I worked at Amerprise for 2 years and was not at all impressed with anything about the company.  I worked for a 900K producer as an associate and ended up leaving due to differences of opinion.  She pushed VUL's and piss poor annuities so much it was sickening.  Three months after I left her practise was shut down and 100% of her licenses revoked.  I am so thankful I got out of there when I did.

[/quote]

Three months?  My but that is fast--usually it takes a lot longer than that.

Maybe it would have taken longer if it was a practice instead of a practise.

[/quote]

NASD shut up you idiot.  He had a good post.

What have you done lately?  Are you even a Financial Advisor?

I bet you got punched in the mouth alot as a child on the playground.  If you didn't get the message, it means you should keep your trap shut.

[/quote]

He was making it up--the NASD does not lift licenses within three months.  It takes a lot longer than that for the process to play out.

[/quote]

The hell I was, you no-life dickhead.  I got out just in time, but the planner, marketing director and intern, all who are good friends of mine, were suddenly unemployed.  The Advisor was shut down completely.  She sold financial plans without client consent using blank signed documents, among other things.  Her licenses were absolutely revoked.  Maybe it took more than 3 months for them to actually be taken from her, but it took 1 day for them to become inactive due to ongoing investigation.  The investigation is still going on.  She is now being investigated criminally. 

Chris

[/quote]

What's your point?

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=ChrisB][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=vbrainy][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=ChrisB]

I worked at Amerprise for 2 years and was not at all impressed with anything about the company.  I worked for a 900K producer as an associate and ended up leaving due to differences of opinion.  She pushed VUL's and piss poor annuities so much it was sickening.  Three months after I left her practise was shut down and 100% of her licenses revoked.  I am so thankful I got out of there when I did.

[/quote]

Three months?  My but that is fast--usually it takes a lot longer than that.

Maybe it would have taken longer if it was a practice instead of a practise.

[/quote]

NASD shut up you idiot.  He had a good post.

What have you done lately?  Are you even a Financial Advisor?

I bet you got punched in the mouth alot as a child on the playground.  If you didn't get the message, it means you should keep your trap shut.

[/quote]

He was making it up--the NASD does not lift licenses within three months.  It takes a lot longer than that for the process to play out.

[/quote]

The hell I was, you no-life dickhead.  I got out just in time, but the planner, marketing director and intern, all who are good friends of mine, were suddenly unemployed.  The Advisor was shut down completely.  She sold financial plans without client consent using blank signed documents, among other things.  Her licenses were absolutely revoked.  Maybe it took more than 3 months for them to actually be taken from her, but it took 1 day for them to become inactive due to ongoing investigation.  The investigation is still going on.  She is now being investigated criminally. 

Chris

[/quote]

What's your point?

[quote=joedabrkr]

I think his point was that you're acting like a horse's behind.

Then again, you've proven that better than any of us could describe it!
[/quote]

Why, because I said that I think he's inventing a story about Ameriprise?

Do you think that the NASD lifts your licenses without due process? 

Do you think the due process can be accomplished in three months or less?

Even if the woman he was talking about is going to be barred--in several  years--how does that affect Ameriprise?

Do you believe that a broker/dealer should be judged by the actions of a single representative?

newbie,

I think chris was saying that the investigation was underway already and that the hammer came down 3 months after he left. That's my interpretation.

[quote=hubbabubba]

newbie,

I think chris was saying that the investigation was underway already and that the hammer came down 3 months after he left. That's my interpretation.

[/quote]

I repeat, so what?

If you are asking "so what?" as it applies to Ameriprise, then you have a point.  No firm is immune from a rogue broker.  But you said that 3 months was too fast for this regulatory action to take place.  If he is, indeed, saying that the investigation began before he left and that the licenses happened to be revoked 3 months after he left, then it is not too quick.

You are asking the wrong question.

[quote=hubbabubba]

If you are asking "so what?" as it applies to Ameriprise, then you have a point.  No firm is immune from a rogue broker.  But you said that 3 months was too fast for this regulatory action to take place.  If he is, indeed, saying that the investigation began before he left and that the licenses happened to be revoked 3 months after he left, then it is not too quick.

You are asking the wrong question.

[/quote]

That's as it should be, hubbabubba.  NASDy ALWAYS answers the wrong question as well.  He doesn't know what the right questions are.

[quote=hubbabubba]

If you are asking "so what?" as it applies to Ameriprise, then you have a point.  No firm is immune from a rogue broker.  But you said that 3 months was too fast for this regulatory action to take place.  If he is, indeed, saying that the investigation began before he left and that the licenses happened to be revoked 3 months after he left, then it is not too quick.

You are asking the wrong question.

[/quote]

Do you think that Ameriprise would have allowed her to continue to practice while there was an active NASD investigation?

I say the kid is just inventing a story, and that the clue to the fact that it was invented is his time line.

I'm going to try to take a different approach with Newbie.  I think he spends too much time slamming other forum members for silly issues, like misspelled words.  Its even more silly when I find a misspelling in his post (somebody's watching, Newbie!). 

I think he's just looking for some sort of challenge so I'll keep it above the mud. He likes to be technical/literal so I'll just address those points and ignore the name calling.  I do enjoy watching others get involved though! 

Gotta go work on triangular currency arbitrage now....that was so Newbie-esque.....

And just why would he want to make up a story like that, you sanctimonious little pissant?

Newbie, you are playing two sides now.  You FIRST stated that 3 months was too quick.  Then, you later added that you thought he lied.  You should keep your timeline straight.  However, you may be right or you may be wrong.  Personally, I don't see what he has to gain from lying nor do I really care.

[quote=hubbabubba]

Newbie, you are playing two sides now.  You FIRST stated that 3 months was too quick.  Then, you later added that you thought he lied.  You should keep your timeline straight.  However, you may be right or you may be wrong.  Personally, I don't see what he has to gain from lying nor do I really care.

[/quote]

He got fired by Ameriprise for being a slacker and now he's trying to convince himself that he was lucky that he quit before the hammer came down on somebody else.

I worked with a guy who was barred for life--it didn't affect me in the least.

Now you don't know that.  That's pure speculation.

I would hope you at least learned not to do what the guy who was barred did.  That would be a positive impact based on someone else's stupidity/greed/both.

[quote=hubbabubba]

Now you don't know that.  That's pure speculation.

I would hope you at least learned not to do what the guy who was barred did.  That would be a positive impact based on someone else's stupidity/greed/both.

[/quote]

You whining types are fond of the word "Greed."  What is greed?

As for "pure speculation"--are you not speculating that he was not fired?  Is your speculation acceptable, but mine is not?

The truth, NASDy, is that there is very little that is acceptable about you to polite society.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]

I think his point was that you’re acting like a horse’s behind.

Then again, you’ve proven that better than any of us could describe it!
[/quote]

Why, because I said that I think he's inventing a story about Ameriprise?

Do you think that the NASD lifts your licenses without due process? 

Do you think the due process can be accomplished in three months or less?

Even if the woman he was talking about is going to be barred--in several  years--how does that affect Ameriprise?

Do you believe that a broker/dealer should be judged by the actions of a single representative?

[quote=joedabrkr]

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]

I think his point was that you’re acting like a horse’s behind.

Then again, you’ve proven that better than any of us could describe it!
[/quote]

Why, because I said that I think he's inventing a story about Ameriprise?

Do you think that the NASD lifts your licenses without due process? 

Do you think the due process can be accomplished in three months or less?

Even if the woman he was talking about is going to be barred--in several  years--how does that affect Ameriprise?

Do you believe that a broker/dealer should be judged by the actions of a single representative?

Newbie, do you have proof he was fired by Ameriprise?  If not, then you are speculating. 

Don't drag this down again by name calling.  When did I ever 'whine' about greed?  Are you saying that greed is not a motivating factor for unethical or even illegal behavior?

[quote=hubbabubba]

Newbie, do you have proof he was fired by Ameriprise?  If not, then you are speculating. 

Don't drag this down again by name calling.  When did I ever 'whine' about greed?  Are you saying that greed is not a motivating factor for unethical or even illegal behavior?

[/quote]

I'm saying that you cannot define greed.  Give it a try.

[quote=hubbabubba]

Newbie, do you have proof he was fired by Ameriprise?  If not, then you are speculating. 

[/quote]

Do you have proof he wasn't?  If not then your point of view is also pure speculation--why is your speculation more credible than mine?