500 or bust?
3938 RepliesJump to last post
By the way the A.G. Edwards retention package was announced way before they announced all of the new leadership positions. I think DL was feeding us a line yesterday. He also said we just merged 14 days ago. The A.G. Edwards guys had to pick a retention package before the merger was complete with Wachovia.
Food for thought.[quote=agebroker5]By the way the A.G. Edwards retention package was announced way before they announced all of the new leadership positions. I think DL was feeding us a line yesterday. He also said we just merged 14 days ago. The A.G. Edwards guys had to pick a retention package before the merger was complete with Wachovia.
Food for thought. [/quote]ummmm...that is ummmmm...true....ummmmmmm
I thought the same thing. - thought he was patronizing us with that 14 day comment. That,s bull. He also moved off that topic very quickly also. The TOTAL DISREGARD for our worth or value to the firm was so evident. I don’t believe anything DL says at all. If I patronized my clients like that, I’d be out of business.
This is going way slower than anyone could have predicted, except for the Wells management team, of course.
I think Ludeman is doing the best he can given the circumstances. Wells obviously will act more slowly and deliberately than our previous parent - perhaps, in the long run, that will be a good thing.I’m falling back on the idea that there is no retention pkg b/c WFC is planning on selling us. Why else would they: 1. pluck ISG out of the firm and align it with their WM. 2. Not announce a name. Other than WF something, maybe, we just have to ‘formalize’ it…? WTF 3. Keep putting off the retention issue. I think we are being shopped…I’ve heard UBS is interested. Wouldn’ that be great?!?
Another grassy knowl theory: Jan 08 was a huge month for the firm and most FA's, maybe they are waiting till it drop's off the T12...I know it was a record month for my team.[quote=shredder]I’m falling back on the idea that there is no retention pkg b/c WFC is planning on selling us. Why else would they: 1. pluck ISG out of the firm and align it with their WM. 2. Not announce a name. Other than WF something, maybe, we just have to ‘formalize’ it…? WTF 3. Keep putting off the retention issue. I think we are being shopped…I’ve heard UBS is interested. Wouldn’ that be great?!?
Another grassy knowl theory: Jan 08 was a huge month for the firm and most FA's, maybe they are waiting till it drop's off the T12...I know it was a record month for my team.[/quote] The exit strategy is in place[quote=shredder]I’m falling back on the idea that there is no retention pkg b/c WFC is planning on selling us. Why else would they: 1. pluck ISG out of the firm and align it with their WM. 2. Not announce a name. Other than WF something, maybe, we just have to ‘formalize’ it…? WTF 3. Keep putting off the retention issue. I think we are being shopped…I’ve heard UBS is interested. Wouldn’ that be great?!?
Another grassy knowl theory: Jan 08 was a huge month for the firm and most FA's, maybe they are waiting till it drop's off the T12...I know it was a record month for my team.[/quote] That makes a lot of sense, would not be surprised. I had heard that story this week as well, but it was UBS shopping their brokers to Wells, I immediately thought BS. Your version makes sense.Here’s a thought - what if they partly sell us back to ourselves - take a stake (35%) like PRU had in WS. Different name - retention for PCG. Delay attributed to negotiation of new structure.
[quote=Ferris Bueller] [quote=mnbondguy]
You ever see the movie deliverance? Squeal piggy.
[/quote]nope, but I'll bet it is your favorite movie.[/quote] It's a scene about a hillbilly ceo promising his brokers retention.
[quote=maddog]Here’s a thought - what if they partly sell us back to ourselves - take a stake (35%) like PRU had in WS. Different name - retention for PCG. Delay attributed to negotiation of new structure. [/quote]
And if you did somehow find the spare change lying around to buy 65% of yourself, would you then offer yourself a retention bonus to stay?
Ummmmmmm.
I just had a thought on the speculation of the brokerage being sold again to someone else. AGE, Wachovia, Wells, and ??? within 2 years? If you think brokers are screaming for retention now, sell us again. That is so depressing it is funny.
Retention will be here. Just as Danny said, dont read too much into it. I am a 1.2 mill AGE producer and will admit 400k and less may not receive retention but Wells will keep larger producers. News on BofA/ML retention and MS/SB retention will put Wells in position of doing retention. While Wells is very slow they arent stupid, press would have a field day with “No retention” and Wells knows that. I am as frustrated as others with the time it is taking but it will come, then we can all focus 100% on clients without cheching the latest post or latest rumor. Unfortunately we may never see another Ben Edwards, but a retention in our pocket and the financial backing of Wells with our clients will help in getting us through the market bloodbath
This is from a post I made last June, I think Stumpf’s comments recently about not having interest in a brokerage firm until very recently have confirmed the accuracy of my info.
Post Options Post Reply Quote mnbondguy Edit Post Quote Reply Posted: 07 June 2008 at 12:19pmthat is complete b.s.....Bagby made the decsion to sell on his own, he approached wells fargo, that said no interest at any price, he went to WB and they put up a big#, end of the story. A few other WB facts, many complex manager are in production, resident managers will make no more then 1% of the offices gross on a good year, WB reps do not get paid on money funds, the instittutional funds do not sweep, you need to manually do it and your acct will pay a postage and handling fee. If you forget to liquidate, or if a client is late on payment, you will get charged interest every day the payment for the trade is late at a rate which is about prime + 3.5% or so...I am sure some wb reps could verify this.
If Wells really cared about all the brokers leaving, they would be acting to stop it, and they are not. I would have liked to link the whole thread into this one, I just don't know how.I wish I really believed retention was an option. I have long been reading this discussion to hear of the rumors/half truths surrounding this transition. Although I certainly do not have the production/experience many of you claim to have, I have my own thoughts on what I “think” will happen.
Per Stumpf's comments to the Charlotte Observer on December 11 http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2871411 I actually have not historically had that much interest in that type of business when we were more of a regional company," Stumpf added. " (But) we are now a national company ... and as we look to build out our brand and build out our distribution, that's an important adjunct or part of the company."Wells has revealed few details about what Wells Fargo plans to do with Wachovia's various business units, so Stumpf's speech is sure to be dissected by Wachovia employees who are worried about losing their jobs and looking for hints about what to expect.
But Stumpf tempered his praise of the brokerage business. "If you're talking about something large that's maybe in the commercial space, or investment banking type, we have historically not had interest in that, and I don't think we will in the future," he continued. "...Not that it's a bad business. It's just not consistent with where we're going."Two of the country's other mega-banks, Charlotte's Bank of America Corp. and New York's JPMorgan Chase & Co., have recently bought ailing investment firms with large brokerage units, so Wells may wish to keep Wachovia's brokerage for the competitive advantage. Bank of America is set to close on its purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. this month, and JPMorgan Chase bought Bear Stearns Cos. in the spring
I have to completely agree with the comment earlier about spinning off the PCG division. It seems somewhat pointless to change the structure unless you wanted a "clean split" sometime in the future. Looking at just simple production numbers, Wachovia reports average production as the following from the Talent Scout brochure I received from an ISG rep: PCG- $395,000 ISG-$408,152 FiNet-$592,000 Latin America-453,000 PCG compenstaion is no different that a typical wirehouse. It's my understanding that Wachovia receives about 10% of the revenues from generated by FiNet. It's also my understanding that ISG has bigger "haircuts" on some of their payouts, plus Wachovia keeps a higher percentage in the business generated from the bankers. I know nothing about Latin America. But from the outside looking in, wouldn't this mean ISG is the most profitable division for Wachovia (Wells) in terms of revenues per FA kept by the company? In doing my homework on Wells, it seems like they have a model in the way they do business, which has made them very profitable. Brokerage has never been a central part of this, regardless of what "DL" says. If you ran a business, wouldn't you invest your free cash in the most profitable areas, rather than putting cash in a division you were going to sell anyways? PCG will be spun off and retention will be paid, but not by Wells. Hello HSBC securites? Any thoughts?I think you’re right that ISG is the most profitable piece of the wealth management business. Expenses in the ISG channel are also about 4% less than PCG.
Has anyone any thoughts on the survival of the Profit Formula model within PCG? I know some guys who’ve moved into that this last year who are pretty happy. I’m told though that it’s yet to prove profitable to the firm and in some branches, managers don’t want anyone in it because of the hit to the P&L. Any chance retention may be sliced and diced differently as well if you’re Profit Formula vs. part of the regular rank and file FAs?