500 or bust?
3938 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=Broker Fee]
Are there any AGE Legacy or even WS guys left at Wach Securities that are content with the current events at the company & are intent on staying regardless of how it shakes out?
[/quote] I will be staying. I love the platform and the guys in my branch. I know our home office support sucks compared to the way it used to be (I'm legacy AGE). Regarding the retention, I think I figured it out: The reason for the delay on the "decision on retention" is because Wachovia Securities is going to be spun off as a seperate company similar to what American Express did with Ameriprise Financial a few years back. Think about it. Wells can keep a 50% ownership stake and allow us to have access to their mortgage products. The IPO may raise $10billion. So, Wells can raise $5 billion in needed cash by spinning us off and still contol the comnpany. Wells keeps ISG (the reason ISG was seperated last week from the Securities division and put in the bank branch division). Regarding retention, DL said "the decision on retention" is coming and he also said "don't expect the worst" regarding retention. He never said we would be getting a retention because we won't. What we will receive are shares of the spun off company. So when he said "don't expect the worst", that was his way of saying there won't be a retention, but we will receive significant shares in the spun off company.[quote=ryedog123][quote=Broker Fee]
Are there any AGE Legacy or even WS guys left at Wach Securities that are content with the current events at the company & are intent on staying regardless of how it shakes out?
[/quote] I will be staying. I love the platform and the guys in my branch. I know our home office support sucks compared to the way it used to be (I'm legacy AGE). Regarding the retention, I think I figured it out: The reason for the delay on the "decision on retention" is because Wachovia Securities is going to be spun off as a seperate company similar to what American Express did with Ameriprise Financial a few years back. Think about it. Wells can keep a 50% ownership stake and allow us to have access to their mortgage products. The IPO may raise $10billion. So, Wells can raise $5 billion in needed cash by spinning us off and still contol the comnpany. Wells keeps ISG (the reason ISG was seperated last week from the Securities division and put in the bank branch division). Regarding retention, DL said "the decision on retention" is coming and he also said "don't expect the worst" regarding retention. He never said we would be getting a retention because we won't. What we will receive are shares of the spun off company. So when he said "don't expect the worst", that was his way of saying there won't be a retention, but we will receive significant shares in the spun off company. [/quote] Boy that would be a nice pipe dream but there are 2 major issues in overcoming that hurdle: 1. The same clowns are still in charge of the circus. 2. IPO?? Who is going to buy a Financial Services company in this enviroment?[quote=Bud Fox]I, for one, am staying at this point. I would like to see how things level out once the dust settles. I do feel that Wells is a very slow moving, conservative type of company. That is simply why they are still AAA and did not get overly involved in the mortgage mess that is plagueing everyone else. I don’t need the retention, nor do I need a big up-front paycheck to move to another lousy firm. What I do need is to continue to focus on my clients needs and not get myself contracted into what could turn into a horrible company.[/quote]
Well WS is willing to, and WS branch employees have agreed to ,spend 3 weeks in an AGE office at conversion to be a resource for the AGE offices. That’s over 600 “in the trench” employees that are willing to be away from home and family to help out. “Those selfish Bastards”.
[quote=shredder][quote=ryedog123][quote=Broker Fee]
Are there any AGE Legacy or even WS guys left at Wach Securities that are content with the current events at the company & are intent on staying regardless of how it shakes out?
[/quote] I will be staying. I love the platform and the guys in my branch. I know our home office support sucks compared to the way it used to be (I'm legacy AGE). Regarding the retention, I think I figured it out: The reason for the delay on the "decision on retention" is because Wachovia Securities is going to be spun off as a seperate company similar to what American Express did with Ameriprise Financial a few years back. Think about it. Wells can keep a 50% ownership stake and allow us to have access to their mortgage products. The IPO may raise $10billion. So, Wells can raise $5 billion in needed cash by spinning us off and still contol the comnpany. Wells keeps ISG (the reason ISG was seperated last week from the Securities division and put in the bank branch division). Regarding retention, DL said "the decision on retention" is coming and he also said "don't expect the worst" regarding retention. He never said we would be getting a retention because we won't. What we will receive are shares of the spun off company. So when he said "don't expect the worst", that was his way of saying there won't be a retention, but we will receive significant shares in the spun off company. [/quote] Boy that would be a nice pipe dream but there are 2 major issues in overcoming that hurdle: 1. The same clowns are still in charge of the circus. 2. IPO?? Who is going to buy a Financial Services company in this enviroment? [/quote] You missed his point, there would not be an IPO. Wells would keep a portion, and give out shares to employees of WS. Since they paid $0.00 for WS this actually makes sense. The new company would not even need to be publicaly traded. It would be a way to retain employees, avoid bad press, and instill loyalty. At Baird, employees are given shares that trade at book value. At some point in the future, there could be an IPO.Interesting that DL went from “There absolutely will be retention” to “Don’t expect the worst!” And the guys this is aggravating are the over $350K guys that have some hope og getting something - that’s the audience you’d want to keep happy.
Here's a thought:" Wells Fargo is huge - so although I don't feel like doing the math or research, what percent of Wells Fargo revenue or income is now coming in from Wachovia Securities? Maybe 4% or less? So we have 96% of more productive things ahead of us on Wells Fargo's list of stuff to do. If a million dollar guy leaves do they care in the scheme of things? NO! If 5000 of the top producing brokers walk out does Wells care? I'd say yes. Wachovia is still paying 100% upfront to bring brokers in after all. Does Wells want the $200K - $300K guys - AGE or WS? Probably not. But those people may have no place to go anyway so they probably won't leave regardless of retention. If you're not finding a way to do business in here, I think its imperative you do. Many firms are punishing lower producers. So the over $350k with growth brokers will probably get paid. The under $350K will probably get some growth bonus if they become more productive in the future. As for spin off or an IPO - they, in my opinion, wouldn't sell at the low. Just like a house - they own us for cash - wouldn't you retain brokers just like keeping the house in shape, wait for the market to recover, and sell at better prices. With all the turmoil who would sell a brokerage sales force now at the lowest valuation in maybe 20 years? Citigroup had no choice. Also, the bonus some of the home office people counted on was eliminated completely - 100%. That killed many - I mean killed them. In some cases I understand that was as much as 70% of their expected annual income eliminated. Now they are stuck in St. Louis with houses they can't sell! So, the bottom line is don't look for charity - they won't pay because of any moral obligation. Only if they get a sense many if not most of that top 1/3rd will move and destroy the value of the organization. With no retention, as opposed to the other big firms dumping the bottom 1/3rd - they'll effectively eliminate a good percentage of the top 1/3rd and maybe the top 1/2! I don't think that will happen as it would destroy the value of the firm. However, the timing of the retention information is probably more a result of the WS contribution to revenue placing it at the end of the list. It's all business from here on in. At least Wells Fargo isn't doing mass terminations for lower producers (MS a few years back) or cutting the under $350K to 30% payout or less (Citgroup and Merrill to some degree last month). Finally, one thing I'm looking at is assuming things continue as they have and the market sucks for another year. Managed money - out the door... Stock trading - cooked. Annuities - maybe as long as the companies are still in business and the guarantees don't continue to be removed. Refinancing - may prove to be on of the few remaining good businesses. Are you going to re-write loans at ML? NO. MS? NO. UBS? Probably not. Wells could give us some power in that area.Wells has to pay Pru 5Billion for their share of WSllc, so I guess they have that much invested. Do you think Pru wants to pay their share of the retention bonus since they have already excercised their put? There are certainly a lot of things to figure out on this deal.
[quote=mnbondguy]
Wells has to pay Pru 5Billion for their share of WSllc, so I guess they have that much invested. Do you think Pru wants to pay their share of the retention bonus since they have already excersiced their put? There are certainly a lot of things to figure out on this deal.
[/quote] What? Pru doesn't have to pay anything. Pru has a non-controlling interest in the firm. Pru is selling its interest anyway. The retention would come out of the pocket of Wachovia Corportation (now Wells). The only way Pru would be against the retention is if Pru was keep its noncontrolling stake and thought the retention would hurst the long term value of its stake in WS.Retention payments would be charged to WSllc p&l, amortized over the term of the agreement. Retention is taxed as income, you work for WSllc, not Wells, eventhough Wells is now the majority owner.
The shear volume of thought on this thread (such as it is) definitely provides some perspective. If Wells had one really smart M&A guy (or gal) with some experience with brokerage retention of any kind that they had tasked with thinking about this issue for one hour per work-day for the past three months, I’ll bet it could have been signed, sealed and delivered by now. After all, just look at all the figurin’ the highly intelligent, experienced and successful minds here have come up with, while doing their own full time jobs, over the same period of time. It is curious that whatever man power it would have taken at Wells has not been allocated for this purpose yet.
[quote=shredder][quote=ryedog123][quote=Broker Fee]
Are there any AGE Legacy or even WS guys left at Wach Securities that are content with the current events at the company & are intent on staying regardless of how it shakes out?
[/quote] I will be staying. I love the platform and the guys in my branch. I know our home office support sucks compared to the way it used to be (I'm legacy AGE). Regarding the retention, I think I figured it out: The reason for the delay on the "decision on retention" is because Wachovia Securities is going to be spun off as a seperate company similar to what American Express did with Ameriprise Financial a few years back. Think about it. Wells can keep a 50% ownership stake and allow us to have access to their mortgage products. The IPO may raise $10billion. So, Wells can raise $5 billion in needed cash by spinning us off and still contol the comnpany. Wells keeps ISG (the reason ISG was seperated last week from the Securities division and put in the bank branch division). Regarding retention, DL said "the decision on retention" is coming and he also said "don't expect the worst" regarding retention. He never said we would be getting a retention because we won't. What we will receive are shares of the spun off company. So when he said "don't expect the worst", that was his way of saying there won't be a retention, but we will receive significant shares in the spun off company. [/quote] Boy that would be a nice pipe dream but there are 2 major issues in overcoming that hurdle: 1. The same clowns are still in charge of the circus. 2. IPO?? Who is going to buy a Financial Services company in this enviroment? [/quote] I guess we can agree to disagree. With all of the cash on the sidelines, the smart money wouldn't have any problem investing in a spun-off non-bank brokerage firm. Wachovia Securities is profitable. Without the bank weighing on us, institutional money would buy our shares. Who cares about what retail investors think about "financial services" because all we want is institutional interest. And institutions know there is a big difference between banks (investment and/or retail) and brokerage firms. Brokerage firms are consistently profitable and have simple business structures. However, with the ARS problem out of the way, my main concern for the brokerage business is the onslaught of litigation we are about to experience from the firm's clients losing money.OK, for those of you that DO believe Wells is paying a retention, what are your Guesstimates based on production numbers??
If they do pay retention a big concern has to be what time period will they use to measure T-12? Most if not all FA’s T-12 is being chipped away at monthly.
has the fact that there is a Jim Hays call for FA’s only this thursday been discussed yet??
think that'll be the announcement??Also, I had a deal from one of the majors at 265% and decided to trun it down and play the hand that gets dealt.
I believe that my relationships are very strong, but did not want to take the chance right now. I did this because I believe there will be a "nice" retention deal for producers over $1.5MM. I hope I made the right decision. Only time will tell for sure.Does Hays oversee just the pcg channel? Or is he head of the isg and finet as well? I would bet that wells will convert the wachovia bank brokers to their comp plan which I am pretty sure is salary + bonus. If they do that, they will pay those guys a decent bonus to stick around.
mnbondguy…the question was asked on one of those ISG only calls about salary and it was stated that they are on commission only. Did I mishear that?
I know a guy at wells, I don't know him real well, he works in a bank branch and he is paid salary, but maybe he is more involved in their wealth managment/trust dept area. Our branch runs in to him a lot. He works with their commercial lenders quite a bit and seems to only work with the 1mm+ accounts.mnbondguy…the question was asked on one of those ISG only calls about salary and it was stated that they are on commission only. Did I mishear that?
Hays just oversees PCG.Does Hays oversee just the pcg channel? Or is he head of the isg and finet as well? I would bet that wells will convert the wachovia bank brokers to their comp plan which I am pretty sure is salary + bonus. If they do that, they will pay those guys a decent bonus to stick around.