[quote=Big Easy Flood]

Greetings from Frankfurt where flights back home await tomorrow.

Yes we all missed you so much…sure you don’t want to stay a few more months?

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

Isn't it a little ironic for you to be talking about posts dripping with negative attitude?

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.

And yet you've managed to survive in the industry, that is if your claims are to be believed....

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.

Especially since we all know that YOU are God's gift to the brokerage industry....thank you so much for gracing our humble little board with your pearls of wisdom.

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.

My first-hand obeservation is that most branch managers are so desparate to find QUALIFIED hires with relevant experience that they'll hire someone with a clean U-4 and the proven ability to raise assets and produce, no matter how small a firm they hail from.  But of course, I'm sure you learned far more than I know about the retail business during your stint as a pit trader(er. Put Trader?) and your many years as Vice-President of Paperclip Purchasing.....

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."

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

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."

[/quote]

It amazes me how much people on this board overestimate the selectivity of major wirehouses.  I guess it depends on your background (i.e., if you got a GED and have been selling newspapers it may be an accomplishment to land a broker job), but anyone w/ a half decent education or mediocre professional success can get hired.  They will hire anyone who can carry on a conversation.  Some of you people act like its equivalent to walking into an assoc. position at Goldman or a major hedge fund.  

Branch managers make mistakes, which is why there are Ex Morgan Stanley brokers.

Another failure sneering that those of us who played the game well are somehow out of touch with reality.

i got offered a better job and didnt think twice.  another common misconception is that being a successful broker is the ultimate professional achievement.

My first-hand obeservation is that most branch managers are so desparate to find QUALIFIED hires with relevant experience that they'll hire someone with a clean U-4 and the proven ability to raise assets and produce, no matter how small a firm they hail from.  But of course, I'm sure you learned far more than I know about the retail business during your stint as a pit trader(er. Put Trader?) and your many years as Vice-President of Paperclip Purchasing.....

Good evening--or is it afternoon over there--Joe, nice to see you're doing nothing productive on a Sunday.

Perhaps you didn't read what I had to say about my career--which, while it includes a stint in the Chicago pits (actually just six months to learn how it's done) also includes ten years in retail production and about two decades of branch office management and administration at the regional and home office level.  Oh, and I hand calculated margin calls back in the early 1970s while waiting to be sent to New York for my initial training.

It would be fun to read about your stint in the pits, or when you were a branch manager, or when you were on a regional staff, or what years you spent at the home office.

There is so much more to this business than flogging mutual funds and trying to get retirees to buy variable annuities.

It is true that the brokers are key players in the game.  But those would be institutional brokers.

You retail guys are as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to what really matters.  Sooner or later you'll be replaced by somebody like Schwab coming along and offering a free lap top and a local class dealing with how to use it with a modest IRA roll over.

Transaction oriented brokers are a thing of the past.  What's going to keep the "financial advisor" in business when the Internet brokerage firms begin to explain trails and offer to return them to the client?

Why should you earn a trail for doing nothing?

[quote=xmsbroker]i got offered a better job and didnt think twice.  another common misconception is that being a successful broker is the ultimate professional achievement.[/quote]

How about knowing that the first letter of the first word in a sentence should be capitalized?  Is that something grown ups know about?

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

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

I[/quote]

Fellow posters:

I apologize if I wasn't clear; I don't think that all brokers from Oklahoma are idiots.

I think that there are A LOT of imbiciles in the brokerage industry in general (they are, however, rapidly departing) AND that it is generally tougher to make big numbers in areas with low average net worths and which are not economically vibrant.

[quote=xmsbroker]

It amazes me how much people on this board overestimate the selectivity of major wirehouses.  I guess it depends on your background (i.e., if you got a GED and have been selling newspapers it may be an accomplishment to land a broker job), but anyone w/ a half decent education or mediocre professional success can get hired.  They will hire anyone who can carry on a conversation.  Some of you people act like its equivalent to walking into an assoc. position at Goldman or a major hedge fund.  

[/quote]

I think that it's highly regional. The impression that I get is that the standards are quite a bit higher in some places than in others. The quality of people coming through the door in the last few years of my office have amazing (frankly intimidating) resumes - ones that you would have expected to see from associates or even VP hires in IBanking a few years ago. I think that the lack of big payoffs associated with associate level positions on the institutional side has driven many to see retail as a relatively attractive opportunity.

Every time I go down to the institutional floor in my office, it seems like there are more empty cubes. My impression is that these guys just aren't making the big bucks and no one is hiring. My guess is that most of the new hires assume that their pedigrees and (presumed) superior intelligence will result in being at $1million in production in the next few years. This isn't how it's working out, though... (as far as I can tell - we don't post the numbers in my branch or anything...)

Institutional sales SEEMS to me to be a very easy job. I've never really gotten why these guys are so well paid - they don't even need to get clients. Some iBankers impress me, but the vast majority of the VP level I can't imagine EVER becoming rainmakers - too socially retarded. I have a friend that was a morgan stanley banker before he went to get both his JD and MBA from Chicago. Guy makes like $150k a year at 45 as a securities attorney. He's not a moron or jerk either. I think that there are very few financial jobs that pay really well right now and SUCCESSFUL retail broker is one of them.

Ultimately, I think that if you don't correct for survivorship bias, the position of post-rookie retail financial advisor at a decent firm is one of the best jobs out there.

[quote=san fran broker][quote=xmsbroker]

It amazes me how much people on this board overestimate the selectivity of major wirehouses.  I guess it depends on your background (i.e., if you got a GED and have been selling newspapers it may be an accomplishment to land a broker job), but anyone w/ a half decent education or mediocre professional success can get hired.  They will hire anyone who can carry on a conversation.  Some of you people act like its equivalent to walking into an assoc. position at Goldman or a major hedge fund.  

[/quote]

I think that it's highly regional. The impression that I get is that the standards are quite a bit higher in some places than in others. The quality of people coming through the door in the last few years of my office have amazing (frankly intimidating) resumes - ones that you would have expected to see from associates or even VP hires in IBanking a few years ago. I think that the lack of big payoffs associated with associate level positions on the institutional side has driven many to see retail as a relatively attractive opportunity.

Every time I go down to the institutional floor in my office, it seems like there are more empty cubes. My impression is that these guys just aren't making the big bucks and no one is hiring. My guess is that most of the new hires assume that their pedigrees and (presumed) superior intelligence will result in being at $1million in production in the next few years. This isn't how it's working out, though... (as far as I can tell - we don't post the numbers in my branch or anything...)

Institutional sales SEEMS to me to be a very easy job. I've never really gotten why these guys are so well paid - they don't even need to get clients. Some iBankers impress me, but the vast majority of the VP level I can't imagine EVER becoming rainmakers - too socially retarded. I have a friend that was a morgan stanley banker before he went to get both his JD and MBA from Chicago. Guy makes like $150k a year at 45 as a securities attorney. He's not a moron or jerk either. I think that there are very few financial jobs that pay really well right now and SUCCESSFUL retail broker is one of them.

Ultimately, I think that if you don't correct for survivorship bias, the position of post-rookie retail financial advisor at a decent firm is one of the best jobs out there.

[/quote]

I completely agree selectivity varies by region... However, youre way off base w/ your conclusion that bankers arent making good money these days.  Its been widely documented that they are doing exceptionally well recently

Likewise, the competition for IB/institutional jobs is far, far greater than for retail. 

[quote=xmsbroker][quote=san fran broker][quote=xmsbroker]

I completely agree selectivity varies by region... However, youre way off base w/ your conclusion that bankers arent making good money these days.  Its been widely documented that they are doing exceptionally well recently

[/quote]

You're basing that off Managing Director level pay. I get the impression that VP and Associate level pay is generally WAY down from where it was 5 years ago.

You get the impression?  What does that mean?

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

You get the impression?  What does that mean?

[/quote]

Based on the stated salaries and cash flows of the brokerage accounts of the IBD associate and VP level personnel of my bulge bracket investment bank who have their accounts with me. The stated incomes and bonus check deposits they get are smaller than they were in 2001, when I started working with the same level personnel.

I don't have any clients who are MDs, but I have read the same articles in the WSJ about the higher level of pay that everyone else has, and, assuming they are true; it would appear to me that VP and lower compensation has not similarly recovered in the last few years, at least at my firm.

Additionally, new equity issuance, particularly IPOs are still at relatively low levels since the late 90s and 2000 and this would similarly suggest that there is less bonus money flowing around.

That's what I mean by "I get the impression."

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

But then I don't know anything. 

[/quote]

Yes, I would agree that your insight is of limited value.

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

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.

[/quote]

I see now! You're a MANAGER.... The fact that you are a manager explains so much, while it reveals how rotten the industry is in some dark corners...

Tell me, do you "motivate your troops" with the same sort of unnecessary and excessive beligerance that you bring to this forum?

You've been doing this for more than 30 years - which included the greatest bull market in history and you didn't make and save enough to retire? You're quite the role model.

No, wait... I'm sure you love reviewing patriot act documents and syndicate forms all day; that's why you stayed instead of retiring along with all of the other managers with more than 20 years in. No, wait.. you love to snoop through brokers' emails. That's it...

I truly feel sorry for those poor souls under you....

nicely done sf broker!

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

My first-hand obeservation is that most branch managers are so desparate to find QUALIFIED hires with relevant experience that they’ll hire someone with a clean U-4 and the proven ability to raise assets and produce, no matter how small a firm they hail from.  But of course, I’m sure you learned far more than I know about the retail business during your stint as a pit trader(er. Put Trader?) and your many years as Vice-President of Paperclip Purchasing…

Good evening--or is it afternoon over there--Joe, nice to see you're doing nothing productive on a Sunday.

Perhaps you didn't read what I had to say about my career--which, while it includes a stint in the Chicago pits (actually just six months to learn how it's done) also includes ten years in retail production and about two decades of branch office management and administration at the regional and home office level.  Oh, and I hand calculated margin calls back in the early 1970s while waiting to be sent to New York for my initial training.

It would be fun to read about your stint in the pits, or when you were a branch manager, or when you were on a regional staff, or what years you spent at the home office.

There is so much more to this business than flogging mutual funds and trying to get retirees to buy variable annuities.

It is true that the brokers are key players in the game.  But those would be institutional brokers.

You retail guys are as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to what really matters.  Sooner or later you'll be replaced by somebody like Schwab coming along and offering a free lap top and a local class dealing with how to use it with a modest IRA roll over.

Transaction oriented brokers are a thing of the past.  What's going to keep the "financial advisor" in business when the Internet brokerage firms begin to explain trails and offer to return them to the client?

Why should you earn a trail for doing nothing?

[quote=san fran broker][quote=Big Easy Flood]

You get the impression?  What does that mean?

[/quote]

Based on the stated salaries and cash flows of the brokerage accounts of the IBD associate and VP level personnel of my bulge bracket investment bank who have their accounts with me. The stated incomes and bonus check deposits they get are smaller than they were in 2001, when I started working with the same level personnel.

I don't have any clients who are MDs, but I have read the same articles in the WSJ about the higher level of pay that everyone else has, and, assuming they are true; it would appear to me that VP and lower compensation has not similarly recovered in the last few years, at least at my firm.

Additionally, new equity issuance, particularly IPOs are still at relatively low levels since the late 90s and 2000 and this would similarly suggest that there is less bonus money flowing around.

That's what I mean by "I get the impression."

[/quote]

Well, you have the wrong impression.  Its widely known and well documented that bankers are killing it and have been doing increasingly better over the past couple years.  Are they doing better than 2001?  Actually probably so.  1999, 2000, and 2003 were record years for bonuses.  2001 was not.

Even if some are earning less than a couple years ago does not mean they are not doing well.  Certainly the comp of associates pales in comparison to MDs, but people right out of bschool are getting 6 figure bonuses and college grads are getting a $60k+ bonus.   There arent open desks bc people are starving.  Im not sure if you dont work at a true BB IB or if your clients arent getting it done or what, but there is no doubt that both the anecdotal evidence and reputable reports show bankers are doing quite well for themselves.

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/biz/features /15197/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/29/news/economy/banker_bonuses/ index.htm

Xmsbroker enjoys message board confrontation. He has not offered insight on any subject thus far. He claims that his family is full of successful attorney’s who make terrific salaries yet he could not use these contacts to develop a legitimate book of business. Why is an ex-morgan staley broker posting on the registered rep forum anyway. He must be a wholesaler who hates advisors because he has to flatter them all day every day.

I greatly appreciate all of the input/suggestions that I have received in this thread.  I feel that it has been beneficial for me to hear the varying perspectives that exist.  I’d rather learn these things now than once in a program.  The most important deciding factor for me will be fit.  This includes both the position/company’s fit with me and my fit with the position/company.  I don’t have a fear that I won’t eventually be successful in this career, but rather I am concerned with how long it will take and how much my past experience and schooling will help me achieve my goals.  This concern has rightly been brought forward by the response in this thread.  <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Even though the program may not be everything that I was expecting or hoping for, I’m certainly going to keep my options open and will continue with the application process.  I am scheduled to start the Financial Advisor Assessment at ML.  The first step is a 3-1/2 hour day in the life of an FA.  This includes a 15-minute sales presentation for which I can not use and electronic media presentation devices.  Can anyone provide me some more information as what to expect?  Is this assessment setup entirely to assess me or is it intended to serve some additional purposes?  Am I permitted to bring in some non-electronic presentation materials? (i.e. handouts and overhead transparencies)

I am not only considering ML.  I have also been meeting with JP Morgan, US Trust, UBS, Goldman Sachs and other non-related companies about varying positions.  I am attracted to the opportunity at ML because of the latitude they give and entrepreneurial aspect of the position.  My mentors and professors describe me as a self starter with an incredible entrepreneurial spirit.  Some were surprised to hear that I would go work for another company rather than start my own venture.  It is my point of view that an FA position at ML can give you the rewards of running your own business while providing the resources and support of a large institution.  Does anyone feel to the contrary?

Thank you!

WM

[quote=WealthManager]

I am not only considering ML.  I have also been meeting with JP Morgan, US Trust, UBS, Goldman Sachs and other non-related companies about varying positions.  I am attracted to the opportunity at ML because of the latitude they give and entrepreneurial aspect of the position.  [/quote]

Real life translation:

They give you plenty enough rope to hang yourself.