Associates don’t fail after 3 years, they are pushed out, to make room for a new associate freshly out of law school.  Law firm partners need worker bees, the type of people who will work 80 hours a week typing briefs and doing research, alone, for $60k a year.  After 3 years, you have too many miles on you, and you are starting to feel entitled to a raise.  Out you go.

[quote=fired?]
xmsbroker, only the top 1% of law school grads get jobs at top firms and 60% of them fail. Do the math, very few lawyers make $100k out of law school. The average is between $40-60k. You have no idea what you are talking about. [/quote]

WOW, I can't believe we have a debate on the starting salaries and working conditions of young lawyers, people on this board will argue about anything.

fired?, as an exlawyer I have to say that your views on the profession are not terribly accurate.  I graduated from a law school that has never cracked the top 25 (I think 26 was its best showing on the US News rankings, but it usually bounces around somwhere in the 30's) and everyone in the top third of my class, and a fair number of those in the top half, got jobs at top firms - and by "top" I mean those firms paying $125,000 plus to first years, the top of the market when I graduated. 

Also, your comparison of our job with that of lawyers is pretty far off base.  Partnership at most firms is a 7-10 year track.  During the first half of that, work is handed to you (or more accurately, forced on you).  No client development on your part is expected.  It isn't until you become a mid-level or senior associate (years 5+) that this becomes an issue.  And despite your assertions, there are plenty of partners that never bring in clients - they are called service partners.  Of course that is its own kind of hell, because without clients you have no job security. 

As a lawyer, you spend the first part of your career working on cases/deals sourced by others and learning the craft.  Only much later do you start to develop your own clients.  In this profession, it's just the opposite.  You are expected to bring in clients from day one or you are fired, and there is no such thing as a "service" broker that has no clients but makes the big bucks.

Good post Lawsucks. 



Just think about the autonomy you have in this profession compared to
what Lawsucks described.  If you can manage to get good at
bringing in clients, you make more money than 1-5 year lawers with
total freedom.  after that your income just goes up and up and
your flexibility with time gets bigger and bigger. 

[quote=lawsucks]

[quote=fired?]
xmsbroker, only the top 1% of law school grads get jobs at top firms and 60% of them fail. Do the math, very few lawyers make $100k out of law school. The average is between $40-60k. You have no idea what you are talking about. [/quote]

WOW, I can't believe we have a debate on the starting salaries and working conditions of young lawyers, people on this board will argue about anything.

fired?, as an exlawyer I have to say that your views on the profession are not terribly accurate.  I graduated from a law school that has never cracked the top 25 (I think 26 was its best showing on the US News rankings, but it usually bounces around somwhere in the 30's) and everyone in the top third of my class, and a fair number of those in the top half, got jobs at top firms - and by "top" I mean those firms paying $125,000 plus to first years, the top of the market when I graduated. 

Also, your comparison of our job with that of lawyers is pretty far off base.  Partnership at most firms is a 7-10 year track.  During the first half of that, work is handed to you (or more accurately, forced on you).  No client development on your part is expected.  It isn't until you become a mid-level or senior associate (years 5+) that this becomes an issue.  And despite your assertions, there are plenty of partners that never bring in clients - they are called service partners.  Of course that is its own kind of hell, because without clients you have no job security. 

As a lawyer, you spend the first part of your career working on cases/deals sourced by others and learning the craft.  Only much later do you start to develop your own clients.  In this profession, it's just the opposite.  You are expected to bring in clients from day one or you are fired, and there is no such thing as a "service" broker that has no clients but makes the big bucks.

[/quote]

thank you

[quote=rightway]Good post Lawsucks. 

Just think about the autonomy you have in this profession compared to what Lawsucks described.  If you can manage to get good at bringing in clients, you make more money than 1-5 year lawers with total freedom.  after that your income just goes up and up and your flexibility with time gets bigger and bigger. 
[/quote]

Exactly why I got out.  I didn't mind that there was a lot of grunt work in the early years - we all have to pay or dues.  But when I started noticing how many partners were siting next to me in that windowless conference room on a Saturday afternoon, I realised that there was no end to the treadmill. 

[quote=fired?]Wealth Advisor my clients are 85% physicians and the remainder are professionals in a variety of different fields. The largest client is $5 million. The top-5 clients account for approximately $10-12 million. My methods were networking, referrals, cold-calling, exceptional service and most importantly luck and hard work. The luck was a result of the hard work.

xmsbroker, only the top 1% of law school grads get jobs at top firms and 60% of them fail. Do the math, very few lawyers make $100k out of law school. The average is between $40-60k. You have no idea what you are talking about. [/quote]

Are you always this ornery or just when youre defensive and know youre talking out of your a$$? 

First of all,  far more than "1%" of all law school grads get jobs at top firms.  I love it when people throw out arbitrary percentages as fact.  Virtually everyone at the top 15 or so schools can have a 'top' job if they want it.  Those schools alone account for ~10-15% of all law grads.  So your 1% claim is automatically wrong by at least a factor of 10.  And as Lawsucks pointed out, the top 1/4 - 1/3 grads of schools in the top 30 or so can get these jobs.

Secondly, that assertion is really neither here nor there.  I never made any statements about ALL law grads.  You brought up the WSJ article which only applies to the top grads and the top firms.  Why are you suddenly making statements about all law school grads/firms?   This is irrelevant.  Obviously if someone goes to law school at Western New England College they are going to have a hard time getting a good job.

Courtesy of the US Department of Labor:



Earnings [About this section] Back to Top



In May 2004, the median annual earnings of all lawyers were $94,930. The middle half of the occupation earned between $64,620 and $143,620. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of lawyers in May 2004 were as follows:



Management of companies and enterprises $126,250

Federal Government 108,090

Legal services 99,580

Local government 73,410

State government 70,280



Median salaries of lawyers 9 months after graduation from law school in 2004 varied by type of work, as indicated in table 1.



Table 1. Median salaries of lawyers 9 months after graduation, 2004 Type of work Salary

All graduates

$55,000



   

Type of work

   

Private practice

80,000

Business/industry

60,000

Judicial clerkship and government

44,700

Academe

40,000



   

Source: National Association of Law Placement



Salaries of experienced attorneys vary widely according to the type, size, and location of their employer. Lawyers who own their own practices usually earn less than those who are partners in law firms. Lawyers starting their own practice may need to work part time in other occupations to supplement their income until their practice is well established.



Most salaried lawyers are provided health and life insurance, and contributions are made to retirement plans on their behalf. Lawyers who practice independently are covered only if they arrange and pay for such benefits themselves.

[quote=fired?]Courtesy of the US Department of Labor:

Earnings [About this section] Back to Top

In May 2004, the median annual earnings of all lawyers were $94,930. The middle half of the occupation earned between $64,620 and $143,620. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of lawyers in May 2004 were as follows:

Management of companies and enterprises $126,250
Federal Government 108,090
Legal services 99,580
Local government 73,410
State government 70,280

Median salaries of lawyers 9 months after graduation from law school in 2004 varied by type of work, as indicated in table 1.

Table 1. Median salaries of lawyers 9 months after graduation, 2004 Type of work Salary
All graduates
$55,000

   
Type of work
   
Private practice
80,000
Business/industry
60,000
Judicial clerkship and government
44,700
Academe
40,000

   
Source: National Association of Law Placement

Salaries of experienced attorneys vary widely according to the type, size, and location of their employer. Lawyers who own their own practices usually earn less than those who are partners in law firms. Lawyers starting their own practice may need to work part time in other occupations to supplement their income until their practice is well established.

Most salaried lawyers are provided health and life insurance, and contributions are made to retirement plans on their behalf. Lawyers who practice independently are covered only if they arrange and pay for such benefits themselves.

[/quote]

what is your point?

The point is it is very rare for an entry-level attorney to make six-figures plus. Fact is a number of law specialties are very similar to the career of a financial planner. Most of the posters on this site are simply brokers and salesmen, not financial planners. That is the final point. I will never post on this forum again.

Please forgive me if I try to steer this thread back onto the original topic.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Ok, I’m progressing in my interview process with ML.  I am now scheduled for a ½ day assessment/simulation.  Part of my job is to prepare a 15-minute presentation (without electronic presentation materials) to pitch an IRA geared towards small business owners.  Can anyone offer any insight or suggestions to this phase?

Partly (and thankfully) due to these forums I’m facing the grim reality that I will likely be taking a pay cut if I am to accept this position.  While that annoys me to no end, I’m not necessarily deterred from pursuing this career path.  What do the experienced players see as being the critical success factors?  How long should I expect to wait until I’m making the $140K per year that my peers are making?  (Assuming that I’m in the NY metropolitan area and that I am able to make the hurdels)

In these forums I’ve heard that the success rate for new FAs ranges from as low as 10% to as high as 80%.  What is everyone’s feeling as to the correct success ratio. 

I’m not overly concerned with the success ratio but my feeling is that the culture of the office plays a key role.  How big of a part is culture when compared to individual drive/determination?

Thank you!

[quote=WealthManager]

Please forgive me if I try to steer this thread back onto the original topic.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Ok, I’m progressing in my interview process with ML.  I am now scheduled for a ½ day assessment/simulation.  Part of my job is to prepare a 15-minute presentation (without electronic presentation materials) to pitch an IRA geared towards small business owners.  Can anyone offer any insight or suggestions to this phase?

Partly (and thankfully) due to these forums I’m facing the grim reality that I will likely be taking a pay cut if I am to accept this position.  While that annoys me to no end, I’m not necessarily deterred from pursuing this career path.  What do the experienced players see as being the critical success factors?  How long should I expect to wait until I’m making the $140K per year that my peers are making?  (Assuming that I’m in the NY metropolitan area and that I am able to make the hurdels)

In these forums I’ve heard that the success rate for new FAs ranges from as low as 10% to as high as 80%.  What is everyone’s feeling as to the correct success ratio. 

I’m not overly concerned with the success ratio but my feeling is that the culture of the office plays a key role.  How big of a part is culture when compared to individual drive/determination?

Thank you!

[/quote]

Good lawd, why do you feel the need to post in BOLD AND BIG LETTERS????

Bud Fox -

after re-reading your 1st post, this must be 'Wall Street' FLAME...  NYU mba -> retail brokerage??.  Either life imitates art, you suck interviewing, or nyu is a vastly overrated bschool...  why not get a fat paycheck and make some connections before throwing yourself to the retail wolves.  why would you spend $$ on nyu to be a broker??...

[quote=WealthManager]<p =“Msonormal” style=“margin: 0in 0in 0pt;”>Please forgive me if I try to steer this thread back onto the original topic.<o:p></o:p>

Ok, I’m progressing in my interview process with ML.  I am now scheduled for a ½ day assessment/simulation.  Part of my job is to prepare a 15-minute presentation (without electronic presentation materials) to pitch an IRA geared towards small business owners.  Can anyone offer any insight or suggestions to this phase?

Partly (and thankfully) due to these forums I’m facing the grim reality that I will likely be taking a pay cut if I am to accept this position.  While that annoys me to no end, I’m not necessarily deterred from pursuing this career path.  What do the experienced players see as being the critical success factors?  How long should I expect to wait until I’m making the $140K per year that my peers are making?  (Assuming that I’m in the NY metropolitan area and that I am able to make the hurdels)

In these forums I’ve heard that the success rate for new FAs ranges from as low as 10% to as high as 80%.  What is everyone’s feeling as to the correct success ratio. 

I’m not overly concerned with the success ratio but my feeling is that the culture of the office plays a key role.  How big of a part is culture when compared to individual drive/determination?

Thank you!

I’d estimate that you’ll need 40MM in assets to make 140k per
year.  If you’re gathering the 7.5 per year that ML wants, it will
take you 5.3 years.



40MM * .01 annual fee = 400,000 in production

400,000 * 35% payout estimate = $140,000



Thats IF you make it.  Flush your NYU MBA down the toilet along with everything you learned there…

[quote=fired?]The point is it is very rare for an entry-level attorney to make six-figures plus. Fact is a number of law specialties are very similar to the career of a financial planner. Most of the posters on this site are simply brokers and salesmen, not financial planners. That is the final point. I will never post on this forum again.[/quote]

What a tragedy....

[quote=WealthManager]

Please forgive me if I try to steer this thread back onto the original topic.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Ok, I’m progressing in my interview process with ML.  I am now scheduled for a ½ day assessment/simulation.  Part of my job is to prepare a 15-minute presentation (without electronic presentation materials) to pitch an IRA geared towards small business owners.  Can anyone offer any insight or suggestions to this phase?

Partly (and thankfully) due to these forums I’m facing the grim reality that I will likely be taking a pay cut if I am to accept this position.  While that annoys me to no end, I’m not necessarily deterred from pursuing this career path.  What do the experienced players see as being the critical success factors?  How long should I expect to wait until I’m making the $140K per year that my peers are making?  (Assuming that I’m in the NY metropolitan area and that I am able to make the hurdels)

In these forums I’ve heard that the success rate for new FAs ranges from as low as 10% to as high as 80%.  What is everyone’s feeling as to the correct success ratio. 

I’m not overly concerned with the success ratio but my feeling is that the culture of the office plays a key role.  How big of a part is culture when compared to individual drive/determination?

Thank you!

[/quote]

Wealth Manager,

I think that there are essentially a few questions that you are asking so, I will try to answer them with direct and brief responses:

1. Is there a fundamental difference in the ease of building a business at different firms?

- Yes. It is VERY easy to build a business and make a LOT of money almost immediately when you are working for the small private client business of an emerging growth investment bank andit is during a period in which the bank is underwriting several highly successful IPOs. I have met individuals whose intelligence is SO limited that it is amazing they don't forget to breathe who made north of $2 million in their first few years. Unfortunately, these positions don't currently exist as their aren't any firms that meet the definition. You will currently find that the firms that have the primary advantage to rookies are the wirehouses (Merrill, Smith Barney, UBS) because they have established names and non-investment products (loans particularly) to offer and in mediocre markets, these products are very helpful in establishing relationships. The only firm that has an absolutely splended name that actually helps get business is Goldman Sachs. All of the other firms are essentially lumped into the same bag by the affluent public as far as I can tell...

2. Will I find it hard to accumulate $15 million in 18 months, even with established connections and solid credentials?

- Yes, you will. Ultimately, the profession is overcrowded, you have no clients and you still don't know what you are doing. Ultimately, the only thing that really helps you build a business are raving fan clients who actively help you build your practice. The one exception is if you can successfully leverage your relationships to get your firm's retirement plan people or money management people together with a pension, foundation or 401k plan's people and they decide to do business together. (You "brokered" the business.) The client will not really care who you are, but rather what your firm's capabilities are and the relationship manager will probably not be you - you will, however, collect trailing revenues off the account and have a chance to learn as a bystander. Great business - if you can get it. Your degree will matter MUCH less than you would expect (you did get a lot out of it, though). In my office, now EVERY new trainee has an MBA from a name school. The only magic bullets for business school, I am sad to say, are Harvard and Stanford (not even Wharton seems to make a difference. It has to do with their alumni associations and their perception in the popular culture, not their ranking in US News.

3. What's the difference between ML PWM and global private client?

- Separate nicer branch offices, better access to research (like Thompson First Call) and all of the real brokers (team leaders or "Private Bankers") have several $10million + clients. You can move into this level after you have proven yourself at the branch level and brought in several $10 million relationships. There is still some doubt as to whether ML will continue this program, as they mainly recruited the mouth breathers from the small ibanks I described above and, by and large, they have not been particularly effective at penetrating the ultra-wealthy or keeping their existing clients. Most of these people have their relationships at SEVERAL firms and have a marked preference for small, boutique asset management shops (This is where the brokers or "wealth managers" or whatever term you use with Harvard MBAs tend to work.) Merrill really suffers from its retail and downmarket roots in the eyes of the ultra-wealthy or aspiring ultra-wealthy. I've floated the idea with clients before about moving to ML and I always get a negative response. I don't understand entirely why, but I think it has to do with that "Wall Street to Main Street" ad campaign of 1946-1999. Most of your clients (if you are successful) are going to be fairly young and want to feel like they've arrived...

4. How important is culture?

Every branch office of every firm is different. The branch manager and the top brokers in the office will set the culture.

Most of the high end firms (Goldman, Alex Brown, Credit Suisse, Lehman) tend to be investment oriented only and really tend to be essentially casinos for rich people - that's why they tend to use small wealth management boutiques when they get serious about their money. I was head hunted to a number of these firms in the last few years and always asked what the average production and assets where for the offices. Generally, the level of assets was slightly less than those of my wirehouse bretheren, but the revenue generation was much higher. My impression is that times are CURRENTLY very hard at these places. I'm sure it will get better when there are more IPOs in the future, however.

Choose wisely.

5. What's the success rate?

- No one in management anywhere seems to want to answer this question - anywhere. It seems to be a closely guarded secret and there seems to be issues with the data, as people are absorbed into established teams but still recognized as junior brokers, while allocated commissions which are effectively a salary and can be said to have "succeeded" when they really have become assistants who the firm cannot reasonably expect to grow much beyond what their former colleague, now boss chooses to pay them. Additionally, this gross revenue is just being reallocated, not generated from new sales. My guess is that the success rate nationally is totally irrelevent. The issue is the city / region in which you are located and the ratio of brokers to new money. How economically vibrant your area is will have SOOO much to do with the success rate.

6. How long until I get to $140k in income.

Probably 5 years. It's tough to say - so many factors. The average broker at a ML, SB or UBS makes $175 to $200k and has been doing this for 15 years, but that includes a lot of lazy idiots in less affluent places like Oklahoma and Arkansas who have 800 clients and lack the initiative to work more than 35 hours a week. If you work very hard, are in an area with a decent amount of new money and you are very charming, then you should be able to become a $1.5 million dollar producer after 10-15 years. Then you can either choose to coast or continue working. The main issue of how big you can be is how many clients you have. I believe that you cannot have more than 100 clients and do a decent job for them. A return on assets of about 0.75% is considered standard, so that would mean that you would need $200 million to make $1.5 million in production, which translates to a take home pay of about $700k a year and the average client would need to have $2 million with you.

7. So, where should I go?

My guess is that the choice largely rests between a large firm like UBS, SB or ML or going to an established small wealth management boutique firm in your area. I would plan to check out all of these different firms, but have a preference to starting at a small boutique. You will make more money initially than a wirehouse, but less down the road. If you so desire, you can move to a wirehouse after a few years. It is much harder if you go to a wirehouse, then fail and move to a boutique than the reverse. The stink of failure (deserved or not) is something that nobody likes.

Nice post, san fran.  Accurate and informative.

Same opinion here, good post san fran.

By the way, I hate your guts, since you're lucky enough to live and work in a great scenic area. However, if you ever get the hankerin' to see fields of cotton, corn, and peanuts, come to South Georgia! Yee-haw!

[quote=doberman]

By the way, I hate your guts, since you're lucky enough to live and work in a great scenic area. However, if you ever get the hankerin' to see fields of cotton, corn, and peanuts, come to South Georgia! Yee-haw!

[/quote]

I'm rather fond of the South and how business is conducted down there - reputations tend to reflect people's true worth and roots in the community run DEEP. 

Also, this place is so insanely "broker-ed out" that you need to constantly work to protect your existing relationships and steal clients from other firms.

Brokers STILL can't accept that the dot com thing is totally gone and there are countless idiots who were huge producers during that era because they were at a small ibank like Robbie Stephens or H&Q. They took a massive check to switch firms immediately after it hit the fan and they suck up enormous amounts of firm resources and do absolutely no real business, but act like they are still the s--t.

The Google thing was huge and it made some rookies into real brokers, but the reality is that the average level of professionalism strikes me as being VERY low, but then again, I've never worked in another market.

Greetings from Frankfurt where flights back home await tomorrow.

What a great response, even though it was dripping with negative attitude--"Idiots in Oklahoma" for example. 

I do not believe that idiots become successful--plain and simple, success requires lots of things and being an idiot is not on the list.

But then I don't know anything.  I've only been in the industry since the early 1970s and have had a career that featured ten years in retail production, a stint as a pit trader in Chicago, branch office management, regional staff and home office administration.

Nonetheless the piece above is well written and essentially accurate. 

What has amused me since I started reading this forum is how many people think that they are going to be God's gift to the brokerage industry and all they have to do is let some branch manager know that they're willing to be hired.

The reality is that the business is over populated, but it is still relatively difficult to be hired.  There are hundreds, often thousands, of resumes reviewed--meaning glanced at before discarding--for each job offer that is made.

It's foolhardy to even consider turning down an offer from (say) ML because you figure you're going to be hired by Smith Barney at the end of the week.

For my money the biggest mistake is not to accept an offer from any of the top tier firms--but instead it is to enter the business too young, and via a questionable firm.

In other words, if you're too young to get an offer at a national wirehouse do NOT figure that you'll go to work for Ameriprise and then jump ship later in life.

Moving from one wirehouse to another is commonplace and very easy to do--in baseball jargon you're a major leaguer already so you're very attractive to any major league team.

However, if you're not with one of the major league teams you are going to find it just as hard to make the transition as some guy who is playing in the minors is going to find it to hook on with the Yankees.

A better use of  your time, when you're under thirty, and don't offer anything of interest to a wirehouse is to sell something else.  Sell insurance, for example, for a few years then approach the wirehouses again.

You will not be a thirty two year old brokerage industry failure, you'll be an unknown entity--hopefully with a track record of success in whatever you've been doing so far.

This really is a business where being young and filled with exuberance is not an asset--being older and more mature will always trump being "wet behind the ears."