Didn't we already go over all this ground with some popinjay called Put Trader? 

You remember him...his father was a general, and he rode his Daddy's coattails, yet he tried to convince all that he was "somebody".

[quote=bankrep1]

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

[quote=bankrep1]Why would you want help from someone that couldn't make it as an advisor?[/quote]

Moronic on the face.  You should be so lucky to be offered a chance to lead.

[/quote]

BEF, those that can't do teach.  Why would someone that could make 500K a year (as a top performing advisor) take a job, with stress, quotas, reports and meetings to make 100K a year?

I do not want the advice of a failure....  I wouldn't take a job leading if it were offered because they won't offer em what I am already getting, freedom & unlimited opportunity

[/quote]

The adage about can't doing and teaching is trite, but more importantly it has nothing to do with managing.

Secondly, producers earning half a million a year are rare and you're right most won't accept a chance to manage.

But only an idiot would opine that those who do manage are failures.

Most managers were stars prior to being asked to manage.  The business does not attempt to convince a million dollar producer to manage an office--but the ranks of managers are filled with men and women who were top 10% producers at the time they were selected.

I am also not saying that they stepped into management as a top 10% of the firm producer--they were top 10% of their peer group.  Similar time in the business stuff.

This is an unusual business in that managers hope to develop those they manage into people who earn more money than they do, but in so doing the manager will be rewarded too.

There are rewards far more gratifying than the size of the paycheck.  There is the satisfaction of doing a job well, there is the intangible of being introduced as the manager instead of the broker over at the brokerage firm.

Two guys belong to the country club.  One is a zillion dollar producer at the brokerage firm the other is his manager who makes less.  Around the country club the manager will have more "respect" for having made something of himself.

I am not going to bore myself by continuing.  Just remember that there is not an organization that does not have a manager, and very few people get to have those duties and responsibilities.

Joedabrkr refers to managers as leeches.  I am not sure, but I think that's the stupidest comment I've ever heard about the basic structure of an organization.

Wherever you work could not exist if it were not for managers.

More importantly, managers could not exist without the capable producers.  You're trying to stand the pyramid on it's point rather than it's base.

Most organizations, when things are going well, seem to have a constantly inflating inventory of middle managers such as yourself.  When they hit a wall, managers are usually the first to go, whether it be through attrition, golden handshakes or outright layoffs.  The producers, the ones who bring home the bacon, are ALWAYS in high demand.  Ergo, you can keep the respect at the country club, if that's what motivates you.  I'll take the job security and higher pay.

[quote=Starka]

More importantly, managers could not exist without the capable producers.  You're trying to stand the pyramid on it's point rather than it's base.

Most organizations, when things are going well, seem to have a constantly inflating inventory of middle managers such as yourself.  When they hit a wall, managers are usually the first to go, whether it be through attrition, golden handshakes or outright layoffs.  The producers, the ones who bring home the bacon, are ALWAYS in high demand.  Ergo, you can keep the respect at the country club, if that's what motivates you.  I'll take the job security and higher pay.

[/quote]

There are producers who earn more than their managers--but not that many.

The average is less than one per branch, and the chances that anybody on this forum is earning more than their manager is slim to none.

"Big hitters" have far too much to do to have time to waste doing this.

To address the pyramid.  I am not saying that the organization should be standing on its point--what I am saying is that it cannot exist without a leader.

Those who proclaim that they would  never been a manager are those who have come to the realization that they will never be asked.  It's easy to express disdain for a job you'll never have.

A wise man would never close a door, never.

And an intelligent man will grow weary of the relatively mundane day to day life of a finanical advisor.

People often talk about how boring it is to be retired--you can only play golf so much, etc.

Why in the world would you want to have a job that never changed?

Managers are generally far smarter than the people who work for them, which is why they, the managers, appreciate the ever changing environment of dealing with a variety of issues.

Those who know what I'm talking about appreciate it. Those who have an inner desire to accomplish things appreciate it.

On the other hand those who know they're actually not very bright and would be "eaten alive" by the issues a manager deals with will sneer, as will those who know that for whatever reason the chance has come and gone.

"I never wanted it anyway" is far easier to live with than "Damn I would have been a good branch manager.  I wonder why they skipped over me?"

Put, almost everything you've posted is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Managers were almost all star producers?  Poppycock.

The job (of financial adivsior) never changes?  Drivel.

Managers are smarter (presumably as opposed to political opportunists trying to a$$-crawl their way to respect at the country club) than those they "manage"?  Balderdash.

Those who know what you're talking about appreciate you?  YOU don't know what you're talking about.

You seem to have a twisted view of reality. 

Not really surprising.

BEF,

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Your obviously some type of middle manager that failed as a producer and need to justify your position.

[quote=bankrep1]

BEF,

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Your obviously some type of middle manager that failed as a producer and need to justify your position.

[/quote]

I have never found it necessary to justify my position.  It would be fun to hear how you think an organization can exist without somebody to watch out over it.

Do you think a brokerage office should not have a manager?  Is that your point of view?

Do you think that a region, or complex, or district, or whatever can exist without a manager?

How about at the home office.  Should entire departments just exist, or should they have managers?

Now, I am as big a fan of the adage that no company can exist until somebody sells something.

What you kids need to understand is that your firm would probably get along even better if it were not for you in your branches.

You have nothing to do with investment banking.  You have nothing to do with institutional brokerage.  You have nothing to do with wealth management.

Get your hands on an annual report of a full service brokerage firm.  How far down the income statement do you find entries relating to retail brokerage?

Just like banks would just as soon do away with the individual customer, brokerage firms would like to do away with the retail customer.

If you think that your firm's management lies awake worrying if Schwab and Ameritrade are stealing the retail clients you'd be wrong.

So, don't sneer at those who are out there representing you.  Your branch manager, your regional manager, the national sales manager and a host of others are fighting for you and your career every day of the week.

If, some day, you are asked if you'd like to join that team you'd be a fool not to.  There is a hell of a lot more to this business than holding hands with people who are second guessing you about what mutual fund is best for them.

[quote=Starka]

Managers were almost all star producers?  Poppycock.

Managers are lifted from the ranks of producers at a time when the guy or gal would be willing to accept the position.

It is understood that the million dollar producers do not want to step into a manager's role--at least most don't--so the invitation is extended at a point where somebody is noticed, but before they're become a million dollar producer.

Does it make sense that a firm is going to look for their managers among the lowest level produers?  Does that really make sense?

Of course not. They're going to find a guy or gal who is about ten years into their career and is a star among the ten year group--their peers.  They may even be leading the pack of ten year veterans.

They will be invited to dinner with a decision maker.  Perhaps at a national meeting of some sort, perhaps just a "Hey, as long as I'm here inspecting the branch how'd you like to have lunch?"  If that lunch meeting leads to a "Maybe, let me think about it" it will be suggeted that there be a dinner with the guy or gal's spouse to talk about the pros and cons.

This doesn't happen because you're in the lower portion of your peer group.  If you accept it that's great, if you turn it down that's great too--but you probably won't get another chance.

The job (of financial adivsior) never changes?  Drivel.

The goal is to get an "annuitized" book and do almost nothing except collect trails and hold hands.  Everybody talks about getting their practice to the point that they can show up when they want to.....that is not a job involving a lot of things happening.

Managers are smarter (presumably as opposed to political opportunists trying to a$$-crawl their way to respect at the country club) than those they "manage"?  Balderdash.

It doesn't take a lot of "smarts" to explain mutual funds.  Remember you're not talking to a guy who doesn't know what the business is all about.  Your day to day is spent trying to find somebody who will listen to you about a portfolio of mutual funds.

You live in fear that somebody else will find them and give them a different spin on whatever mutual funds they are currently in.

Hell, there's an entire thread going (again) about how unimportant a formal education is to do the job.  As the saying goes, "We're not talking rocket science."

Who really gives sh!t BEF? I can think  of many managers I’ve had
as a banker and broker that absolutely  sucked. They got their
jobs because they kissed up and would do  whatever their boss told
them too. Not because of smarts, capablities, etc.  These guys
(and girls) were routinely despised because of their lack of talent,
character and original thoughts. The good managers I’ve had have been
the exception not the norm. Overall I would say it was 40% bad, 20%
good and the rest a non factor.

 <!–
var SymRealOnLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//–>

BEF,

Of course you need managers.  You just don't need managers that train people how to fail.  Having a menotring program would be much more effective.  Have someone that is actually successful teach newbies how to be successful.  What an idea, instead you have the blind leading the blind. 

If you think retail brokerage is not profitable your a moron.  It might not be the only profit center, but they don't do it for fun.

[quote=no idea]Who really gives sh!t BEF? I can think  of many managers I've had as a banker and broker that absolutely  sucked. They got their jobs because they kissed up and would do  whatever their boss told them too. Not because of smarts, capablities, etc.  These guys (and girls) were routinely despised because of their lack of talent, character and original thoughts. The good managers I've had have been the exception not the norm. Overall I would say it was 40% bad, 20% good and the rest a non factor.
 <!-- var SymRealOnLoad; var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//–> [/quote]

Ran out of anger management pills on the weekend.  What a bummer.

How many managers have you had if you can break them down to 20% good, 40% bad and 40% irrrelevant.  It needs to be a multiple of five in order to hit those numbers--so was it five, ten, fifteen?

Sounds to me like yoy're a job hopper if you've worked for that many people--probably you're the problem, not them.

BEF, you seem like an angry little man who simply can't emotionally deal with your fall from mediocrity.

[quote=bankrep1]

BEF,

Of course you need managers.  You just don't need managers that train people how to fail.  Having a menotring program would be much more effective.  Have someone that is actually successful teach newbies how to be successful.  What an idea, instead you have the blind leading the blind. 

If you think retail brokerage is not profitable your a moron.  It might not be the only profit center, but they don't do it for fun.

[/quote]

I did not say it was not profitable, many branches are, but there are a lot of branches htat are marginal at best and others are loss leaders, maintained for a variety of reasons--not the least of which is in order to be a presence in a community where there might be some corporate or municipal finance business to be had.

My thesis is that there is not a full service brokerage firm that would mind a bit if the retail side went the way of the buggy whip. Consequently it's nonsensical to think that a retail broker is the bread and butter of the firm.

If Merrill shuttered every retail branch in the country next week the firm would continue as an investment banker, wealth manager, clearing firm, and institutional broker.

The stock would probably soar in value.

You might be right, Put, but an investment banker is NOT a company manager, a wealth manager is NOT a company manager, an institutional manager is NOT a company manager and there would be no need for most of the clearing folks in the absence of retail business.

You've refuted your own nonsense.  As usual.

[quote=Starka]

You might be right, Put, but an investment banker is NOT a company manager, a wealth manager is NOT a company manager, an institutional manager is NOT a company manager and there would be no need for most of the clearing folks in the absence of retail business.

You've refuted your own nonsense.  As usual.

[/quote]

Refuted in what way?

Investment banking requires management.  Wealth management groups require group Vice Presidents.  Institutional brokerage has layers of management responsibility.

I forgot proprietary trading desks--lots of supervision there.

As for the comment about clearing.  Are you saying that only retail trades are cleared?

How about stock loan?  Would Merrill need stock loan if the retail side closed up next week?

Why do you suppose that Legg Mason and Smith Barney worked out their deal?  Chip Mason is no dumm--and Legg had a pretty respectable retail side.  Why did Legg let it go if it's such a big deal?

Whose next? Do you think Wachovia might sell its retail branches and keep the indy side?  Perhaps they'll sell them both and keep the banking side?

Is First Clearing contributing enough to the bottom line at Wachovia or should it be spun off to somebody else?

It's your flawed logic laughing boy, not mine.

You seem to get confused regarding the difference between knowing how to do a job, and managing people who know how to do their jobs.  That's probably why you're now unemployed.

[quote=Starka]

It's your flawed logic laughing boy, not mine.

You seem to get confused regarding the difference between knowing how to do a job, and managing people who know how to do their jobs.  That's probably why you're now unemployed.

[/quote]

Nah, I'm unemployed because I'm 61 years old and had 35 years of service.

You may not believe this, but we don't live forever.  There's a big world out there.  I've seen a lot of it and I hope to see the rest before I can no longer appreciate it.

You get it, right Starka?  I'm doing what your clients hoped to do before them ran into you.

Unlike you Put, I'll work as long as a) I'm physically able, and b) I can be of service to my clients.

You see sonny, I've already seen much of the world and I've learned that what you own and what you do for yourself are completely self-serving, hence unimportant.  What you do for others matters.  And if I can make a good living doing it, so much the better.  Clearly, you are impervious to those kinds moral teachings.

Therein endeth the lesson.

[quote=Starka]

Unlike you Put, I'll work as long as a) I'm physically able, and b) I can be of service to my clients.

You see sonny, I've already seen much of the world and I've learned that what you own and what you do for yourself are completely self-serving, hence unimportant.  What you do for others matters.  And if I can make a good living doing it, so much the better.  Clearly, you are impervious to those kinds moral teachings.

Therein endeth the lesson.

[/quote]

Isn't the internet a great place, the sleazest penny broker in town can appear to be a priest.