500 or bust?
3938 RepliesJump to last post
WFC has no clue. UBS deal is not done and now no one knows what to say. The lack of communication from management is downright scary. What a joke.
[quote=Wheat-ie]You have to give them one thing: this is the most well kept closely guarded secret in the history of Wall Street.[/quote]
Maybe the best thing yet said on this board.
I have believed from the beginning, as soon as they pulled ISG for WS and put them in the bank, that is what we are…the bank. They don’t pay retention to bank employees. If you don’t like that get the f out of dodge on the next stage coach ! They will have a meeting on Tuesday to give the bad news that we work for the bank and there will be no retetion. In a bank broker dealer, the bank is like Vegas…IE: the house…and the house always wins…there were a couple of post about % of accounts that leave the bank…it is 15% to 25% of assets…they can fill the seat if anyone leaves…some books may be more, but not likely…there is no conference call tomorrow or next week or next month…it is part of the game.
I think you’re right about retention, but the numbers you quote for leaving are inaccurate, at least now. I’m in contact with 3 ISG reps who have left in last 3 months and they’ve all been able to pull just about every client they wanted. None regret leaving, except for the guy who went to BofA, and his regret is not about leaving, it’s just about going there.
Since ISG clients are so closely tied to the bank as compared to the other channels they are much more sensitive to bad news about the bank. Service has been awful and turnover in the branches is rampant. My clients are scared to death of the bank and have only hung on because of me. I’m their only connection to the bank now. It’s not always like that, and I would agree that, ordinarily, the percentage is pretty low. But, not now and not with all the black eyes the bank has gotten in the press. I would advise any ISG FA who is planning to leave, though, to do so before the Wells signs go up and while the bank still appears to be “Wachovia”.
[quote=Ferris Bueller] [quote=nestegg]
[quote=Ferris Bueller]I told my manager that I’ll stay and all he has to do to keep me is let me cherry pick the accounts of the twitchy fools in my branch that leave![/quote]You really think those accts will stay?[/quote]
Dunno. I’ll give it a shot and if they don’t then no loss.[/quote]
Hey Ferris. We see you’ve changed your avatar. Now we all really appreciate a good Chicago dog, so maybe your new one will work, especially over a (now-evidently-dismal) weekend. But dogs only go so far (like WFC).
So when you get ready to change it again, we all thought something even better (read prettier) might work. (And given the pace of things at this firm, you’ll probably need to change it at least once again before all’s done).
Here you go:
[quote=Wheat-ie] [quote=wishiwaseveren]
What kind of higher payout do you give the profit formula's?
[/quote]We are at 75% and they pull all expenses from that...waiving expenses is the only way to "better". PF is huge w/higher producers so i think this whole "higher payout" thing is something pulled from left field.
There are multiple channels out there, so perhaps one is getting a higher payout, one is getting cash, etc, etc....who knows.[/quote] Same with Finet. Only way for that to make sense for us would be to completely waive fee-based admin fees and for them to virtually eliminate all haircuts. Would not have a very big impact.
[quote=training wheels] [quote=Wheat-ie] [quote=wishiwaseveren]
What kind of higher payout do you give the profit formula’s?
[/quote] We are at 75% and they pull all expenses from that…waiving expenses is the only way to “better”. PF is huge w/higher producers so i think this whole “higher payout” thing is something pulled from left field. There are multiple channels out there, so perhaps one is getting a higher payout, one is getting cash, etc, etc…who knows.[/quote]Same with Finet. Only way for that to make sense for us would be to completely waive fee-based admin fees and for them to virtually eliminate all haircuts. Would not have a very big impact.[/quote]
And that would essentially mean no income to the firm, which won’t happen.
There is a good chance that this thing can come out ok for everyone. Every guy on here has had either a BM or RM tell him either pretty good or pretty bad, they’ve all identified 5 different “tell dates”, they’ve conspired every possible way to “screw the FA” (the FAs on that post, that is, not mgt) but the only thing this 200,000+ hit board has shown with any reliability is that no one has yet contributed one tid-bit that has had any basis in reality.
I am as sick of waiting as everyone, and agree it is total BS to string out your revenue generators like this, but am willing to hang onto one last shred of optimism (here come the cool aid comments, I know) that this will b reasonable for all of us that are reasonable themselves:
ISG: big disruption to them, the most of all…they’re due something but not large percentages–the bank provides their lifeblood. They all say they “own” because they have a lot of clients with loans…but try to leave and see if your new bank will offer similar terms on new loans.
AGE: come on guys, you just got nice checks 12 months ago…if you think the environment causes you to be newly due (I know you’ll sream "Wachovia! Ludeman! Jackass! Etc! Etc! All your usual little putdowns…) BUT it is the environment as much as anything. You do deserve something, no doubt. You should be vested, or paid back up to your pre-deal %%s, but in no way is a restart a reasonable expectation…like 12 months ago never happened.
WS: we (my channel) should expect a market retention (take 75% as the pendulim up or down for production basing at 1mm) MINUS the prior retention that went into deferred comp…which will bring our retention in line with AGE.
Finet: you guys are on your own; you’re due nothing. This is a risk you take as a “business owner”.
My 2 cents…I’m not management and don’t aspire to be, only a lowly FA who wants to put all this behind us and move on. Good luck to everyone.
Ok guys . I going to say what you will not. First, thanks for giving me months of entertainment. We where wrong. We thought we entered a business with great exciting people that had a positive mental additude and fun to be around. A " friendly competitive business" were we competied during the day but had a drink at the pub that evening , exchanged stories and went home to the wife and kids. I know this sounds middle class, kind of like the rec softball league.
Maybe not. I am an AGE guy. Always will be. I dislike wirehouses. Now everyone is one. Maybe the Indy channel is the new ....what I just said. Maybe we should leave and do the same thing that made us attacted to this business in the first place. Remember , AGE recruitment polices never paid upfront money because we did not want them to come to us for the money but because they understoood and appreciated the firm cuture and commitment. Who is that firm now ?[quote=agebroker5]I asked this question before but I have never received an answer that makes sense. Why on earth would there be different retention deals for Legacy AGE and Legacy WS brokers. It doesn’t make sense. WS bot AGE and we got paid. Wells Fargo bot the merged WS so everyone should be paid the same. I don’t understand why the Legacy WS guys got paid when they bot AGE. It shouldn’t make a difference that the AGE guys received retention form WS. Wells Fargo is not WS.
[/quote] because you are under contract.[quote=BukiRob] [quote=agebroker5]I asked this question before but I have never received an answer that makes sense. Why on earth would there be different retention deals for Legacy AGE and Legacy WS brokers. It doesn’t make sense. WS bot AGE and we got paid. Wells Fargo bot the merged WS so everyone should be paid the same. I don’t understand why the Legacy WS guys got paid when they bot AGE. It shouldn’t make a difference that the AGE guys received retention form WS. Wells Fargo is not WS.
because you are under contract. [/quote]
.
One word: contract…applies to any assigns, as well.
WS got appx 1/3 of the AGE retention AND it was via deferred comp…not one spendable dollar.
Why should you have gotten anything when you bot AGE? We didn’t get paid when you bot PRU. This is a new firm buying the combined company. It should be a new deal equal for everyone. If you adjust it now I think you would have to adjust 26 times or however many firms WS screwed over and bot.
So what. Under and old contract with WS. This is a new contract with a new company.
Remember the AGE guys were the best treated and best paid group on the street. We loved coming to work every day. We were in the top 100 companies to work for in america every year the list was out. This was voted on by the employees. Ask that same question now. Now we got sucked into a shi##y payout and are name is now mud. We should be compensated for that.
I have a feeling, no source, that the UBS thing could go down this weekend. It would make complete sense in the way this has been handled.
If it doesnt happen with UBS, and they are trying for 5 months on how to keep brokers it is a complete embarrassment.Maynard—I have never thought WFC wanted us…complete the conversion…announce the JV with UBS…new name/retention…it does make some sense.
Question is: so far, nothing WFC has done has made senseRemember the AGE guys were the best treated and best paid group on the street. We loved coming to work every day. We were in the top 100 companies to work for in america every year the list was out. This was voted on by the employees. Ask that same question now. Now we got sucked into a shi##y payout and are name is now mud. We should be compensated for that.
You WERE compensated: you received money to make the move, you greedy POS. You COULD HAVE performed your due diligence and found another b/d similar to AGE and moved over there but you took the bait and stayed with Wachovia. YOU made a bad business decision, not them. They baited you and you took it... take some responsibility.
My 800k t12 will get me $1.6 mil at SB. Buh bye WFC. Fricken dumb arses! I would stay for 400k (idiotic). But no. WFC have fun with a brokerage of 6000 200k producers.
[quote=agebroker5]Why should you have gotten anything when you bot AGE? We didn’t get paid when you bot PRU. This is a new firm buying the combined company. It should be a new deal equal for everyone. If you adjust it now I think you would have to adjust 26 times or however many firms WS screwed over and bot.
[/quote] G'morning agebroker5 -- couple of thoughts on your questions. First, WS brokers got some (minor) deferred comp (vesting in like 2012 or something) for only one reason. The back office staff would be shifting focus to integrate AGE and that disruption to the normal support functions would cause some WS broker business slowdown. I know that's not what you want to hear but that was the reason. And in fact takeovers like AGE do disrupt the flow of tech, marketing, and support functions to brokers whose home office staff is now doing two jobs instead of one. Second, WS didn't buy PRU. That was a joint venture deal where WBank owned 5/8ths and PRU owned 3/8ths of WS. Pru Securities brokers NOT UNDER CONTRACT ALREADY got retention deals. Those under contract did not. Finally, the recent PRU to WBank deal was simply PRU exercising its put on the deal, putting back its 3/8ths to WBank in exchange for some much needed $. That wasn't a change of control and got no change of $ to or from any brokers. Hope that helps clear up things.