[quote=Big Taco][quote=Philo Kvetch]

Allreit's painting with a broad brush?  You're the one that maintains that AMP is somehow great because they have a lot of CFPs.

Look, Taco, like it or not, your firm is one of the laughingstocks of the industry, Jones being the other.  There's a reason for that.  So you're the one AMP guys who's ethical and does the right thing at all times.  Reminds me of how 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

[/quote]

to me, it seems that you maintain that the CFP is about as worthless as yesterdays newspaper.  Yet you say you took all the courses, and learned, and yet you don't want to just take thoses test and get the credential?  Sounds suspect to me, but that's just my opinion.

I'm not saying (as you say) that I'm the one ethical person in a company.  That's my whole point.  I know quite a few other investment professionals/competitors in my area.  some are good, some aren't.  It's not a firm specific issue. 

I rank my office compared to the other competitors in my area.  All the new accounts that have come over through the years from indys, insurance companies, wirehouses, and banks.... I know this happens for all of us, but you know how you look at the statements from other firms and think: those guys are idiots, or worse, crooks.  I've had accounts leave, too.  Happens to the best of us.  and then, of course, we all have clients that still have accounts elsewhere, and haven't consolidated with us yet.  What I'm getting at is: we all get an idea of how other firms are operating in our communities.  It's partly how we find our niche:  I believe I do fee based asset management better than anyone else in my county.  and as I've gotten familiar with the M.O.'s of the local branded and indy firms, I know that at least in my neck of the woods, Ameriprise is not even close to being the laughingstock you claim it is.

[/quote]

I didn't say that I didn't get the credential...I said that I don't pay for it or do the continuing ed, meaning that I can't use it on my business card.  I never did anyway, as the reason I took the courses was for MY information...not for the public aggrandizement that many seem to think it engenders.  As to learning, yeah, I suupose I did learn something, though not enough to make it worthwhile given the cost and effort.  Now I don't use my CFA on my card either, but THAT is a credential that I consider worth maintaining, and it was certainly worth the effort.

[quote=blarmston]

"Taco, as long as AMP remains a platform for flogging VUL and annunities, AMP will never be respected by anyone inside the industry or outside the industry."

Partly accurate... The majority of people in the industry consider Ameriprise a third- tier firm... Those in the general public may have a better perception of the firm- if only due to its past affiliation with American Express and its recent catchy advertising campaign...

[/quote]

Okay, Blarmston, we're getting back to the issue of "tiers".  What are the parameters of these tiers?  this is essentially what the original poster/thread starter was asking, I think.

what firms are eligible?  I would guess that they have to be national to qualify.  what other characteristics do these "tiered" firms posess? 

1st Tier:  (this is what characteristics a national firm has to exhibit to fit into this tier)

2nd Tier: (etc...)

3rd Tier: (etc...)

Are there 4 tiers?  5th? 

Is any of this at all quantifiable?

Taco, I wouldn’t even say that they have to be national firms…there are lots

of boutique firms that most definitely qualify. However, if we want to keep

this strictly among the bigger guys, an outstanding training program would

be a qualifier in my book.

Philo- Why are do I keep running into those who advise regular "Joe's" who have the CFA?? Typically, the most common profession for a CFA is an analyst or a portfolio manager.

Lastly, on this whole CFP business: One thing to note: BOTH Merrill and AMP boost the largest number of CFP's and have the largest "push" for their producers to get this designation. (Heard of the debate on the "Merrill Rule" on the disclosure of Merrill CFP's?)

In my original question, I was trying to see who had good training programs, overall. I was looking for a veteran's experience.

It is basically branding. The big b/ds are busy pushing out low producers, and creating special new products for the ultra rich.

It has always been about perception, the cool stuff you talk about at a cocktail party. That's why it is cool to get rid of your broker and go "direct", or go to a botique firm and get "special treatment" (or at least specially hosed) by an RIA.

It is all retail sales - of products and advice.

The really crazy thing is that folks like blarn continuously take the bait and focus on things that keep all of us at the mercy of a huge intermediary managment and labor force that shifts and feeds with the tides of perception, regulation, and taste.

Too bad, 'cause it's our clients money, and our money ( remember, we're the ones that do the work) that perpetuates the myth of tangible differences between the various packagers we support through our hubris.

Not that I have any illusions that we could collectively increase our awareness as professionals. The thinking in this little fishtank just about says it all.

The really crazy thing is that folks like blarn continuously take the bait and focus on things that keep all of us at the mercy of a huge intermediary managment and labor force that shifts and feeds with the tides of perception, regulation, and taste."

All I focus on bud is developing my business and the activities it takes to do that... I realize the weaknesses of my firm, as well as its strengths... I realize those in the other players as well... I simply point out that the collective wisdom of this fishtank would place my firm a couple tiers above yours....

Sorry bud- it is what it is...

I did both the CFP and the CFA programs and find them both very very
usefull.  They are both difficult, the CFA more so, but they serve
very very different things.  As we evolve as advisors, we should
embrace all area’s where we can improve, not pick on the ones that we
feel do not suit us or represent some political stigma you don’t
like.   These two designations, will  help every advisor
who has not gone through the training improve.



If we all got all of the designations and never put any of them on our
cards we would not have this debate so often, all be better advisors,
and all be MUCH better salespeople. 

[quote=Indyone]

Sorry...while the CPA exam is more difficult than the CFP, the PFS is just a rubber stamp for CPAs to do financial planning...not difficult or prestigious at all, which is why I didn't bother even though I already had the CPA.  The CFP is also considerably more recognized than the PFS.

...and while the CFA is consiferably more difficult to obtain than the PFS or CFP, recognition among the masses is very low.  It's fine if you're chasing mid-seven figures and up, but my market demographic understands CPAs and is just now figuring out CFPs...other designations are meaningless to them at this point.

[/quote]

Recognition of the CFA depends upon the age of the client (inverse relationship) and degreee of contact that they have with financial types like VCs, Investment bankers and analysts (positive correlation). Certainly people who have regular contact with research reports see the CFA as being widely held by analysts and there aren't any analysts that I've ever seen touting their CFPs...

[quote=rightway]I did both the CFP and the CFA programs and find them both very very usefull.  They are both difficult, the CFA more so, but they serve very very different things.  As we evolve as advisors, we should embrace all area's where we can improve, not pick on the ones that we feel do not suit us or represent some political stigma you don't like.   These two designations, will  help every advisor who has not gone through the training improve.

If we all got all of the designations and never put any of them on our cards we would not have this debate so often, all be better advisors, and all be MUCH better salespeople. 
[/quote]

It's important to note that "Private Wealth Management" has become a large component of the CFA curriculum and that the non-commissioned higher end of retail is increasingly getting this credential, though...

[quote=Philo Kvetch][quote=Big Taco][quote=Philo Kvetch]

Allreit's painting with a broad brush?  You're the one that maintains that AMP is somehow great because they have a lot of CFPs.

Look, Taco, like it or not, your firm is one of the laughingstocks of the industry, Jones being the other.  There's a reason for that.  So you're the one AMP guys who's ethical and does the right thing at all times.  Reminds me of how 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

[/quote]

You earned the CFA and you don't use it? My God - I would tattoo it to my forehead if my wife would let me after all that work and sacrifice....

to me, it seems that you maintain that the CFP is about as worthless as yesterdays newspaper.  Yet you say you took all the courses, and learned, and yet you don't want to just take thoses test and get the credential?  Sounds suspect to me, but that's just my opinion.

I'm not saying (as you say) that I'm the one ethical person in a company.  That's my whole point.  I know quite a few other investment professionals/competitors in my area.  some are good, some aren't.  It's not a firm specific issue. 

I rank my office compared to the other competitors in my area.  All the new accounts that have come over through the years from indys, insurance companies, wirehouses, and banks.... I know this happens for all of us, but you know how you look at the statements from other firms and think: those guys are idiots, or worse, crooks.  I've had accounts leave, too.  Happens to the best of us.  and then, of course, we all have clients that still have accounts elsewhere, and haven't consolidated with us yet.  What I'm getting at is: we all get an idea of how other firms are operating in our communities.  It's partly how we find our niche:  I believe I do fee based asset management better than anyone else in my county.  and as I've gotten familiar with the M.O.'s of the local branded and indy firms, I know that at least in my neck of the woods, Ameriprise is not even close to being the laughingstock you claim it is.

[/quote]

I didn't say that I didn't get the credential...I said that I don't pay for it or do the continuing ed, meaning that I can't use it on my business card.  I never did anyway, as the reason I took the courses was for MY information...not for the public aggrandizement that many seem to think it engenders.  As to learning, yeah, I suupose I did learn something, though not enough to make it worthwhile given the cost and effort.  Now I don't use my CFA on my card either, but THAT is a credential that I consider worth maintaining, and it was certainly worth the effort.

[quote=Big Taco][quote=blarmston]

"Taco, as long as AMP remains a platform for flogging VUL and annunities, AMP will never be respected by anyone inside the industry or outside the industry."

Partly accurate... The majority of people in the industry consider Ameriprise a third- tier firm... Those in the general public may have a better perception of the firm- if only due to its past affiliation with American Express and its recent catchy advertising campaign...

[/quote]

Okay, Blarmston, we're getting back to the issue of "tiers".  What are the parameters of these tiers?  this is essentially what the original poster/thread starter was asking, I think.

what firms are eligible?  I would guess that they have to be national to qualify.  what other characteristics do these "tiered" firms posess? 

1st Tier:  (this is what characteristics a national firm has to exhibit to fit into this tier)

2nd Tier: (etc...)

3rd Tier: (etc...)

Are there 4 tiers?  5th? 

Is any of this at all quantifiable?

[/quote]

1st Tier: PWM divisions of Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, PBIM at Merrill, Citigroup Private Bank, JP Morgan Private Bank. People fed with IBD leads, generally have VERY strong educational pedigrees, everyone has a bloomberg terminal and the firm pays for first class airfare. Also would include elite local RIAs in Trophy Class A office buildings. The standard would be WHICH Ivy league business school the top office manager went to.

2nd Tier: Merrill Lynch GPC, Smith Barney, UBS, Morgan Stanley GWM. Firms where there are plenty of eight figure accounts at every branch and where million dollar plus producers are treated like the first tier, but don't pay base salaries to anything but trainees. Class A office space. Managers are usually unsuccessful former brokers, act like well-programmed robots.

3rd Tier: National Bank Brokerages, AB Edwards, Edward Jones. Firms that have national recognition, decent technology systems (ex Jones), have solid benefits but don't allow for discretionary accounts. Firms where million dollar accounts are a big deal, but no real investment banking. Class B office space. Managers in production.

4th Tier: Regional firms, indy brokers like LPL. Firms where a broker's biggest account is $2.5 million and the offices are generally located in Class C office space. No real management.

5th Tier: Firms with a boiler room atmosphere and undeveloped fee-based platforms. Firms with names you've never heard of. Generally subleasing Class A office space. Manager is fat slob wearing gold pinky rings.

san fran you seem to be pretty knowledgeable but in this case it is interesting to see how your perspective is somewhat skewed.  I am sure that guys like Bob Fragasso, Ron Carson, and our local 1 mil + producer would be interested to see that you rank LPL as 4th tier.

One of the things that surprised me when I began to investigate the indy channel was the high level of talent present at some shops.  I don’t mind if you guys continue to underestimate us…it makes it easier to steal accounts.

[quote=joedabrkr]
One of the things that surprised me when I began to investigate the indy channel was the high level of talent present at some shops.  I don't mind if you guys continue to underestimate us...it makes it easier to steal accounts.
[/quote]

well put.

It really doesn't matter if you're a "1st tier" PWManager when your client has a $350K nestegg that they depend on for the next 20 years, along with SS, a pension, watching out for icebergs on the horizon like LTC, and trying to reduce unnecessary taxes. 

If you do an excellent job with your niche market, then you're a "tier 1" firm in their eyes.

[quote=san fran broker][quote=Big Taco][quote=blarmston]

5th Tier: Firms with a boiler room atmosphere and undeveloped fee-based platforms. Firms with names you've never heard of. Generally subleasing Class A office space. Manager is fat slob wearing gold pinky rings.

[/quote]

This sounds just like Ed Jones, except most of the nation has heard of them.  The manager is also usually wearing a fuzy, purple hat pimping out the brokers below him to sell ICA

The standard would be WHICH Ivy league business school the top office manager went to.

 Your post reminds me of the Cornell graduate in the TV series " The Office ", a fellow who is sucking up for a junior manager job.

The problem with your logic is a misapplication of economic diminishing returns.

As if you add any more value than the local solo LPL branch office guy who pulls down a couple hundred thousand net a year net and spends every afternoon golfing with client friends.

Guess it depends on how you define value added, and personal success.

Your tiers might end up being a self-fulfilling scarlet letter. You'll be too busy commuting and sitting in your corner office to know the difference.

Wow, extremely well said and a moment of absolute clarity

on this otherwise stale forum.

1st Tier: PWM divisions of Morgan Stanley,

Goldman Sachs, PBIM at Merrill, Citigroup Private Bank, JP Morgan Private

Bank. People fed with IBD leads, generally have VERY strong educational

pedigrees, everyone has a bloomberg terminal and the firm pays for first

class airfare. Also would include elite local RIAs in Trophy Class A office

buildings. The standard would be WHICH Ivy league business school the

top office manager went to.

2nd Tier: Merrill Lynch GPC, Smith Barney, UBS, Morgan Stanley GWM.

Firms where there are plenty of eight figure accounts at every branch and

where million dollar plus producers are treated like the first tier, but don’t

pay base salaries to anything but trainees. Class A office space. Managers

are usually unsuccessful former brokers, act like well-programmed

robots.

3rd Tier: National Bank Brokerages, AB Edwards, Edward Jones. Firms

that have national recognition, decent technology systems (ex Jones),

have solid benefits but don’t allow for discretionary accounts. Firms

where million dollar accounts are a big deal, but no real investment

banking. Class B office space. Managers in production.

4th Tier: Regional firms, indy brokers like LPL. Firms where a broker’s

biggest account is $2.5 million and the offices are generally located in

Class C office space. No real management.

5th Tier: Firms with a boiler room atmosphere and undeveloped fee-

based platforms. Firms with names you’ve never heard of. Generally

subleasing Class A office space. Manager is fat slob wearing gold pinky

rings. Where your account executive (they still use the

term) is likely named Bruno, Hal or Dominick.

[quote=AllREIT] [quote=Philo Kvetch]I did the coursework for the CFP, but I refuse to

pay for nothing more than a trademark. Try the CFA on for size if

you think CFP is impressive. Then you can laugh at CFPs

too![/quote]



Allreit - why would a client mgr want a cert for the investment mgr’s job? Isn’t that why we hire investment mgrs?

I'm sorry if I was unclear on my previous post. I am simply tiering in terms of the average client size and production, not necessarily quality of personnel. But, I would suspect that the average level of competence at Northern Trust or Credit Suisse is a bit higher than Merrill Lynch, or LPL or Edward Jones.

There are very high quality advisors at all of the firms (well, maybe not ALL) and I'm NOT arguing that the BEST advisor MUST be at Goldman Sachs. I'm just talking about AVERAGE competence, AVERAGE income and AVERAGE sophistication of clients. And for those people that only money is the name of the game - yes, its always better to TAKE HOME $1.2 million at LPL than to simply PRODUCE $2.4 million at JP Morgan Private Bank and take home $300k. I'm just talking about how nice the view from your office is, how hot the receptionist is and whether people with fancy degrees are impressed with where you work...

[quote=Ashland]
Allreit - why would a client mgr want a cert for the investment mgr’s job? Isn’t that why we hire investment mgrs?[/quote]



So that they can evaluate and understand what the investment managers are doing. And so they can do that job themselves and have real value over other less eduacated competators.



Also the rigor of the CFA process is such that it tends to screen out the obviously stupid/fraudulent/dangerious such as the Chartered Senior Annuity Advisors etc floating about.



My $0.02 cents as a non-CFA.