Avoiding Snakes In Your Head
45 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Starka]
Mission-oriented people are very much can-do types, and allow nothing to stand in the way.
[/quote]
Ah I see. And "mission oriented" types have as a goal to accomplish just enough to get by.
Interesting excuse for failure--"My goal was to fail, I satisfied my mission!"
[/quote]
Isn't that the motto for those that flunk out of production, have to give up their dreams of the big check and the personal freedom and have to find a manager role somewhere so they can stay in the biz?
[quote=stanwbrown][quote=Put Trader] [quote=Starka]
Mission-oriented people are very much can-do types, and allow nothing to stand in the way.
[/quote]
Ah I see. And "mission oriented" types have as a goal to accomplish just enough to get by.
Interesting excuse for failure--"My goal was to fail, I satisfied my mission!"
[/quote]
Isn't that the motto for those that flunk out of production, have to give up their dreams of the big check and the personal freedom and have to find a manager role somewhere so they can stay in the biz?
[/quote]
Why, yes it is!
The Series 7 exam is a moment in time. A successful financial advisor builds client relationships over time. I think it is much more advantageous to take on going training classes on relevant subjects than to score high on a test one day in your life.
We have a great training program at RJ and I am confident that I will have all the resources I need to help my customers.
Have another drink out of that bottle Put.
Put - "Are your standards so low that you actually believe that the doctor who graduated last in their class is worthy of your confidence?"
So are you telling me that when you go to a doctor you ask to see their transcripts? There have been many brokers in and out of my office who have done very well on their 7, but weren't good advisors. And most of the ones still here scored less than 90% and are producing quite nicely.
I agree with maybeeeeeee, "A successful financial advisor builds client relationships over time. I think it is much more advantageous to take on going training classes on relevant subjects than to score high on a test one day in your life."
[quote=maybeeeeeeee]
The Series 7 exam is a moment in time. A
successful financial advisor builds client relationships over
time. I think it is much more advantageous to take on going
training classes on relevant subjects than to score high on a test one
day in your life.
We have a great training program at RJ and I am confident that I will have all the resources I need to help my customers.
Have another drink out of that bottle Put.
[/quote]I do not disagree that all the exam does is measure a point in time.
My point is that it is also a way to measure one's ability to set goals for themselves.
And as such I am declaring that only slacker losers think that "getting by" is all that matters.
If you were truly ambitious, if you truly have self esteem, you would not set your goal at "passing" and exam you would set your goal at "acing" it.
I am simply mocking all of you slackers who think that you're going to be able to build a lifetime career by setting your sights low.
You have never been challenged--you were schooled at a time when it was being suggested that testing is not fair because test results destroy self-esteem--you were taught that games that keep score are wrong becuase somebody loses--need I go on?
And now, lo and behold, you're finding yourself in the world of grownups. People like me who are not going to tell you that all you have to do is give it your best--what you are capable of giving is close to zero to begin with so your best is not going to be good enough.
Lucky for you all that is expected of you is to be able to tell somebody, "When you're young you should buy growth funds, then when you're about 45 or so you should switch to balanced funds, and when you approach retirment age you should switch to income funds."
Like Scorpio said last night, this business is no longer rocket science--which means that even you can do it.
But if you're smart enoug to grasp it so is every other slacker just like you--and they'll wake up one of these days and realize that they need you and your "knowledge" like a fish needs a bicycle.
[quote=Put Trader]
This is a profession, and it is inexcusable that somebody without an MBA can even sit for the Series 7.
[/quote]
Put, think of the delimma this would cause in our profession. We would have MBAs investing their clients money in Mortgaged Backed Securities invented by lowly college drop out Lewis Ranieri. Actually, the rumor is that Ranieri didn't get out of high school. And worse still, all of these same MBAs are only able to secure a mortgage on their own McPalace because of the market that Ranieri created. Way too much of a conundrum for the educationally over endowed to handle.
[quote=tjc45]
Put, think of the delimma this would cause in our profession. We would have MBAs investing their clients money in Mortgaged Backed Securities invented by lowly college drop out Lewis Ranieri. Actually, the rumor is that Ranieri didn't get out of high school. And worse still, all of these same MBAs are only able to secure a mortgage on their own McPalace because of the market that Ranieri created. Way too much of a conundrum for the educationally over endowed to handle.
[/quote]I had the pleasure of meeting Ranieri--and also the definite pleasure of enjoying many meals in the hallowed Sollie private dining rooms.
Lewis Ranieri did not invent MBS's so much as he was very instrumental in selling them.
The world is filled with exceptions to various rules--and pointing at somebody like Mr. Ranieri as a form of justifying hiring people with little or no formal education.
One of the reasons this industry is going to ulimately be folded into the banks is because the industry has lowered the standards.
Again, it should be impossible to take the Series 7 exam unless you have an MBA. MBAs these days are little more than high school diplomas from the 1950s.
Wrong again Put butt head. And thank you Sienna. Why do you assume we have had no life experiences. I have had plenty of successes and failures. Paid for all my own college expenses and had another career before this one.
get over yourself Put. Hey Put pssssst. it is NOT about YOU.
[quote=maybeeeeeeee]
get over yourself Put. Hey Put pssssst. it is NOT about YOU.
[/quote]Of course it is--who else can it be about? Certainly not a girl whose only claim to fame is that onetime a guy gave her a $100 tip for a lap dance.
[quote=Put Trader] [quote=tjc45]
Put, think of the delimma this would cause in our profession. We would have MBAs investing their clients money in Mortgaged Backed Securities invented by lowly college drop out Lewis Ranieri. Actually, the rumor is that Ranieri didn't get out of high school. And worse still, all of these same MBAs are only able to secure a mortgage on their own McPalace because of the market that Ranieri created. Way too much of a conundrum for the educationally over endowed to handle.
[/quote]
I had the pleasure of meeting Ranieri--and also the definite pleasure of enjoying many meals in the hallowed Sollie private dining rooms.
Lewis Ranieri did not invent MBS's so much as he was very instrumental in selling them.
Wasn't it Raneiri who realized the need to cap the interest rate risk of GNMAs in order to get banks to bite, thus creating the CMO market?
The world is filled with exceptions to various rules--and pointing at somebody like Mr. Ranieri as a form of justifying hiring people with little or no formal education.
[/quote]
Is Ranieri an exception? I believe he's an exceptional individual, but lacking a degree is not all that uncommon in American business. Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs and Ted Turner all members of that club. Fast food moguls Ray Kroc and Dave Thomas died billionaires but degreeless. And Wayne Huizenga has taken more than his share of dollars from the boyz with big time sheep skins from big time schools while pawning off such winners as Blockbuster and Autonation.
You won't ever hear me demeaning the value of a good education. Nor will you hear me confuse education with intellect. A graduate degree won't help an advisor do a better job for clients. The newbie MBA still has to learn the ropes of this business and go through the same learning curve as the degreeless trainees. Both these individuals start in the same place. Their success in doing a good job for clients will be more a function of intellect and ethics. And as you have pointed out a sociopath is a sociopath. A degree does nothing to address that.
Then there's the whole debate about colleges being businesses with their own product to sell (success) and whether it is really necessary to have a degree to be successful? The names above combined with millions of like minded millionaire small business owners offer a powerful counterweight to the argument of the conventional wisdom. Combine that with the millions of college graduates who are folding shirts at the Gap or some similar $9 an hour job and we can start to wonder why as parents we are spending $80,000 just to send our kids to a state school?
Then there's the educational snobbery thing, you know, where you can't get the job at Hertz renting cars unless you have a four year degree. Or where people confuse educational level with intelligence.
I will agree that education for education's sake is a good thing, to better yourself through learning. It's a necessity in medicine and engineering. And doesn't hurt in science, even though the lights in my house work just fine dispite the fact that the guy who invented them didn't graduate from college. But for business is a degree really necessary? I guesss it couldn't hurt but this business isn't rocket science. Even if it were, John Glenn managed to ride into space without a degree, so go figure!
[quote=tjc45]
Is Ranieri an exception? I believe he’s an
exceptional individual, but lacking a degree is not all that uncommon
in American business. Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs and Ted
Turner all members of that club. Fast food moguls Ray Kroc and Dave
Thomas died billionaires but degreeless. And Wayne Huizenga has taken
more than his share of dollars from the boyz with big time sheep skins
from big time schools while pawning off such winners as Blockbuster and
Autonation.
What Gates, Dell, Jobs, Turner, Kroc, Thomas, etc. have in common is
that they made their own way–this forum is devoted to the concept of
being an employee, or at the very least asking a third party to stand
good for you, to sponsor you.
Additionally, none of the above presented themselves as a
professional–highly trained to assume responsibilities that the person
who will engage their service is (theoretically) unable to assume
themselves.
Financial consultants tend to present themselves as experts–if they’re
not they’re unnecessary–at financial planning, not unlike lawyers
present themselves as experts, as do accountants and doctors.
Do you think that a guy should be able to add the letters CPA behind
their name simply because they passed an exam–or do you think that
there should be some formal education required?
How about people with JD after their name–should some bozo who dropped
out of college be allowed to be a lawyer if they can pass the bar?
No doubt making a lot of money for yourself does not require that you
have a degree–but when you’re holding yourself out to be smarter than
your client about something the client is being misled if the broker
doesn’t tell him, "Mrs Johnson, I have to confess that I dropped out of
college but I really do want to help you and I hope that you will trust
me to do that."
If you don’t have enough motivation to obtain a Masters
Degree–especially in 2005 when it’s actually easier to get than a high
school diploma was fifty years ago–you have no right to present
yourself as an expert at anything.
[quote=Put Trader] [quote=tjc45]
Is Ranieri an exception? I believe he's an exceptional individual, but lacking a degree is not all that uncommon in American business. Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs and Ted Turner all members of that club. Fast food moguls Ray Kroc and Dave Thomas died billionaires but degreeless. And Wayne Huizenga has taken more than his share of dollars from the boyz with big time sheep skins from big time schools while pawning off such winners as Blockbuster and Autonation.
[/quote]
If you don't have enough motivation to obtain a Masters Degree--especially in 2005 when it's actually easier to get than a high school diploma was fifty years ago--you have no right to present yourself as an expert at anything.
[/quote]
I have no doubt yours was as easy as a high school diploma is to get today. I had to work for mine, but then I attended a real school.
There's something so very funny in hearing a diploma mill degree holder blathering on about the value of higher education
[quote=Put Trader] [quote=maybeeeeeeee]
The Series 7 exam is a moment in time. A successful financial advisor builds client relationships over time. I think it is much more advantageous to take on going training classes on relevant subjects than to score high on a test one day in your life.
We have a great training program at RJ and I am confident that I will have all the resources I need to help my customers.
Have another drink out of that bottle Put.
[/quote]
I do not disagree that all the exam does is measure a point in time.
My point is that it is also a way to measure one's ability to set goals for themselves.
And as such I am declaring that only slacker losers think that "getting by" is all that matters.
If you were truly ambitious, if you truly have self esteem, you would not set your goal at "passing" and exam you would set your goal at "acing" it.
I am simply mocking all of you slackers who think that you're going to be able to build a lifetime career by setting your sights low.
You have never been challenged--you were schooled at a time when it was being suggested that testing is not fair because test results destroy self-esteem--you were taught that games that keep score are wrong becuase somebody loses--need I go on?
And now, lo and behold, you're finding yourself in the world of grownups. People like me who are not going to tell you that all you have to do is give it your best--what you are capable of giving is close to zero to begin with so your best is not going to be good enough.
Once again, Put, when faced with the realities of the real world from those who face it every day, you resort to ad hominem attacks. Not really very becoming of someone with a superior intellect such as yourself......
Lucky for you all that is expected of you is to be able to tell somebody, "When you're young you should buy growth funds, then when you're about 45 or so you should switch to balanced funds, and when you approach retirment age you should switch to income funds."
Like Scorpio said last night, this business is no longer rocket science--which means that even you can do it.
But if you're smart enoug to grasp it so is every other slacker just like you--and they'll wake up one of these days and realize that they need you and your "knowledge" like a fish needs a bicycle.
[/quote]
[quote=Put Trader] [quote=tjc45]
Is Ranieri an exception? I believe he's an exceptional individual, but lacking a degree is not all that uncommon in American business. Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs and Ted Turner all members of that club. Fast food moguls Ray Kroc and Dave Thomas died billionaires but degreeless. And Wayne Huizenga has taken more than his share of dollars from the boyz with big time sheep skins from big time schools while pawning off such winners as Blockbuster and Autonation.
[/quote]
What Gates, Dell, Jobs, Turner, Kroc, Thomas, etc. have in common is that they made their own way--this forum is devoted to the concept of being an employee, or at the very least asking a third party to stand good for you, to sponsor you.
So you say, Put, and yet when given the opportunity, you take potshots at those of us who have chosen the indy channel as being 'small time', that we were obviously someone who couldn't hack it at a major firm...Once again you are contradicting yourself, sir!
Additionally, none of the above presented themselves as a professional--highly trained to assume responsibilities that the person who will engage their service is (theoretically) unable to assume themselves.
Financial consultants tend to present themselves as experts--if they're not they're unnecessary--at financial planning, not unlike lawyers present themselves as experts, as do accountants and doctors.
Do you think that a guy should be able to add the letters CPA behind their name simply because they passed an exam--or do you think that there should be some formal education required?
How about people with JD after their name--should some bozo who dropped out of college be allowed to be a lawyer if they can pass the bar?
No doubt making a lot of money for yourself does not require that you have a degree--but when you're holding yourself out to be smarter than your client about something the client is being misled if the broker doesn't tell him, "Mrs Johnson, I have to confess that I dropped out of college but I really do want to help you and I hope that you will trust me to do that."
If you don't have enough motivation to obtain a Masters Degree--especially in 2005 when it's actually easier to get than a high school diploma was fifty years ago--you have no right to present yourself as an expert at anything.
[/quote]
[quote=joedabrkr]
What Gates, Dell, Jobs, Turner, Kroc, Thomas, etc. have in common is
that they made their own way--this forum is devoted to the concept of
being an employee, or at the very least asking a third party to stand
good for you, to sponsor you.
So
you say, Put, and yet when given the opportunity, you take potshots at
those of us who have chosen the indy channel as being 'small time',
that we were obviously someone who couldn't hack it at a major
firm...Once again you are contradicting yourself, sir!
I find it curious that you believe that my comments about the world of the "Indy" broker are potshots at you. It reveals a tremendous amount of doubt on your part regarding your decision.
I have simply said that it is my experience that those who leave wirehouses to join B/Ds such as LPL are middle of the roaders.
The better independent firms will not enter into an agreement with small producers and the bigger hitters in the wirehouses are restrained by a combination of golden handcuffs and the comfort of their gilded cages.
That leaves the middle of the pack types--journeymen who actually epitomize the retail broker. There is nothing wrong with being a middle of the packer--but as the line from "Fiddler on the Roof" goes, there is no pride in it either.
Why do you think that I'm taking pot shots at the independent producer by simply stating my opinion?
Perhaps you can tell us a reason for a successful broker to leave a firm such as Merrill other than in order to retain a larger portion of his gross? Sneering that you don't have to pay for bloated management or lousy reasearch are forms of saying that you get to keep your gross.
Explain how it's better to sign your own lease--and all it involves--rather than have a corner office at the local Smith Barney facility?
Explain how it's better to use your own income to pay your assistant(s) rather than let the firm pay them for you?
I understand that there are no goals to be met. What I cannot grasp is why having a self-imposed goal is so much better than having your firm assign you a goal.
I understand the lack of pressure to sell proprietary products. What I don't understand is why selling a propretary product is necessarily bad--I know, I know, there are bad proprietary products but the idea that they are all bad, or that you have to sell all of them, is ridiculous.
If you're firing on all cylinders in an office in the Chagrin Falls branch of a wirehouse you're going to have more freedom to do your own deal than you would if you break away and open up your own shop using LPL, RJFS or any of the other dozens of B/Ds who will sponsor you.
[quote=Put Trader]
Explain how it's better to sign your own lease--and all it involves--rather than have a corner office at the local Smith Barney facility?
Explain how it's better to use your own income to pay your assistant(s) rather than let the firm pay them for you?
I understand that there are no goals to be met. What I cannot grasp is why having a self-imposed goal is so much better than having your firm assign you a goal.
[/quote]
Some people have the desire to be their own boss and some people are happier working for corporate and work better when told what they have to do. There is something really gratifying about being independent, and some will never get that...Put is one of those people who doesn't have the business owner mentality. As far as why you would pay your own expenses when you could let a firm pay them...well, there's a huge difference between a 40% payout and a 95% payout that allows you to accomplish that.
And by the way, when you sign your own lease, you can still have a corner office...if that's what is important to you.
[quote=sienna]
Some people have the desire to be their own boss and some people are happier working for corporate and work better when told what they have to do. There is something really gratifying about being independent, and some will never get that...Put is one of those people who doesn't have the business owner mentality. As far as why you would pay your own expenses when you could let a firm pay them...well, there's a huge difference between a 40% payout and a 95% payout that allows you to accomplish that.
[/quote]Anybody who was ever in production has the entrepreneurial spirit that allows us to accept a commission only job--so you can get off your high horse about not having the business owner mentality. That is not something that is unique to those of you who are "indy."
As for the extra percentages in payout--how much of that "benefit" is eaten up by the fact that you have to pay your own expenses? Don't forget matching FICA, misssing 401(k) matches and all the other things that the typical employee is unaware of?
How many clients do you think you DON'T win over because they see you as a bit of a loner, a rebel, whatever? There are thousands, hundreds of thousands, of potential clients who do business with "their firm" such as Merrill and (essentially) do not buy into the argument that it's the same stock market, the same funds, whatever. To them it is not the same.
It's like try to prove a negative--you'll never know who you didn't land because of your independent streak but you're a fool if you don't acknowledge that there are those who you cannot win over.
So, the question becomes--and it's another one that is impossible to gauge--what is the dollar value of business not obtained.
There are virtually no prospects who will declare, "I'm sorry I won't do business with you because you are a Vice President of a major brokerage house"--but there are those who will decline to do business with you because you are not.
It's nonsensical to declare that the most independent producers in our business are the big hitters at the wirehouses. Managers treat them like prima donnas, they have more assistants than they need, they often have exceptionally luxurious surroundings, their business cards speak of success, they win trips, they are respected in their communities, they can be the pitcher on their branch softball team in the city's B/D league, I grow weary counting the benefits.
As much as I despise 92% of the comments that flow from this guy, I would have to agree in that there are people out there who- all things being equal- would rather place their accounts with a major… There is a certain snob appeal that is inherent in many people ( especially the HNW who everyone is attempting to ACAT) to be associated with " the finest". Whether it is the Jaguar over the Dodge, the Starbucks over the Dunkin Donuts, or whether its ML or UBS or SB over “lesser prestige” firms, some people wish to be associated with those names… When I contacted a former client to announce my switch to a major, the first comment was “Oh, you decided to bring us along on your move to the bigs.” Having been at AXA, the 13th largest company in the world, I experienced firsthand the difficulty in not having the public see it as a household name… I am sure that I lost potential accounts simply because people did not know who they were… In SOME CASES, I did feel as if I started out with a disadvange going in…
Put wrote: "Anybody who was ever in production has the entrepreneurial spirit that allows us to accept a commission only job--so you can get off your high horse about not having the business owner mentality. That is not something that is unique to those of you who are "indy.""
Put, I agree that everyone in our business is entrepreneurial to some degree because of the nature of the job. But, to become independent you DO have to be more entrepreneurial than the usual rep. There are many, many reps who simply aren't comfortable in taking on the entrepreneurial risk of paying your own rent, hiring, paying & supervising your own staff, establishing your own retirement plans, etc., and those reps would not be suitable for independence. There's no right or wrong to either side. But, there IS a difference in terms of which avenue is suitable and comfortable for whom!
Put wrote: "There are virtually no prospects who will declare, "I'm sorry I won't do business with you because you are a Vice President of a major brokerage house"--but there are those who will decline to do business with you because you are not."
You've not been on both the indy and the wirehouse side, so you don't have the experience to know your opinion is not universally true. Certainly when I was on the wirehouse & regional firm side, I had the same bias you have. But, two major things happened after I went indy. One, many of my existing clients ended up bringing me all their assets (as you know, many affluent clients spread their money around), and two, I received more and higher quality referrals than I ever did as an employee rep. When I asked my clients about this the common response was that they knew that as a wirehouse rep I was not in a position to be entirely objective. They were savvy enough to know about the proprietary product pressures, sales pressures, etc. placed on reps. As an independent they rightly viewed me as being able to be much more objective than before. They knew I could do what was right for them at all times, and didn't have brokerage firm management pressuring me (directly or indirectly) to do things that where more in the interest of the firm than the client.
Also, the majority of my larger clients are independent business people. They related more closely to my independent situation, than just being some employed rep in big corporate America. As such, they have overwhelmed me with the degree of support they've given me. They also held me in much higher professional regard than when I was just one of the mass of reps sitting in a wirehouse office.
I have found that operating as an indy rep is little different from other professionals who have chosen to break away to start their own businesses. The same clients that seek me out to do business are similarly using CPAs who left the "Big 5 (or 4 or whatever)" accounting firms, and are using lawyers who broke away from the biggest law firms in town. Indies offer a similar boutique environment for clients, and that is a huge appeal to many clients.
Will there be some prospects who have the bias that they only want to do business with the Mother Merrills of the world -- sure. But, there's so large of a universe out there, that I don't need those types of clients.
[/quote]
Anybody who was ever in production has the entrepreneurial spirit that allows us to accept a commission only job--so you can get off your high horse about not having the business owner mentality. That is not something that is unique to those of you who are "indy."
As for the extra percentages in payout--how much of that "benefit" is eaten up by the fact that you have to pay your own expenses? Don't forget matching FICA, misssing 401(k) matches and all the other things that the typical employee is unaware of?
How many clients do you think you DON'T win over because they see you as a bit of a loner, a rebel, whatever? There are thousands, hundreds of thousands, of potential clients who do business with "their firm" such as Merrill and (essentially) do not buy into the argument that it's the same stock market, the same funds, whatever. To them it is not the same.
It's like try to prove a negative--you'll never know who you didn't land because of your independent streak but you're a fool if you don't acknowledge that there are those who you cannot win over.
So, the question becomes--and it's another one that is impossible to gauge--what is the dollar value of business not obtained.
There are virtually no prospects who will declare, "I'm sorry I won't do business with you because you are a Vice President of a major brokerage house"--but there are those who will decline to do business with you because you are not.
It's nonsensical to declare that the most independent producers in our business are the big hitters at the wirehouses. Managers treat them like prima donnas, they have more assistants than they need, they often have exceptionally luxurious surroundings, their business cards speak of success, they win trips, they are respected in their communities, they can be the pitcher on their branch softball team in the city's B/D league, I grow weary counting the benefits.
[/quote]
Put, isn't one of your big issues with the current state of our business the dumbing down of the new recruits? Yet, it's the wirehouses that are resposible for this. The younger broker/advisors are being brainwashed to offer only fee product. The new broker, regardless of educational level is clueless as to how to construct a stock or bond portfolio. They are also clueless about the factors that drive the markets. This renders them incapable of truely helping their clients. Unless you consider offering clients off the rack cookie cutter plans help. Of course all new brokers, through the ages, were clueless right out of training but they had to learn and did. How does the current fee driven business model of turning advisors into asset gathering drones to feed the hive square with your opinion that the big houses are the best place to be?
On another note, at almost every meeting with my branch manager he pitches me on putting one of the younger brokers in the office on my team. When I ask how adding a body that knows nothing about stocks, bonds, or how the markets work, and doesn't care about my clients will add value to what my team is doing, it draws a blank. Of course, my manager is thinking succession and doesn't want to lose my clients if and when I retire. I imagine that the same scenerio is being played out across the country with successful 50 something producers. Managers trying to find a way to grab an established broker's book. Want a good reason to leave, there's one.