500 or bust?
3938 RepliesJump to last post
Oh btw AGE friends…if your required training is not completed by dealine you WILL be charged $500 smackers…
Heard today (ISG) that deal has been presented and that push was to settle before presidents day to avoid a risky 3 day weekend for moving…rent the u-haul now! Also, speculation was that like other deals out there, lower level producers may be stiffed.
[quote=Gaddock][quote=maddog]Wait a minute…you mean none of you have been doing ‘aircraft leasing’ deals???
When the WB 'Banking Specialist' came to our office last year - he said WB was a leader in personal 'aircraft leasing' - highlighting this as an advantage the bank brings to help us cross-sell.[/quote] We probably had the same 2 bozos are our office I remember thinking I cant believe I sat through 30 mins of this BS Jet Airplanes???????? yeah sure.[/quote]I bet they were wet behind the ears but had on really nice suits....
Yes, deals unfortunately no good for 500k and lower. They arent going to pay out 3 billion but will pay for larger brokers. danny will say “Just let me keep the core of my guys” and will let us larger producers “Inherit” the accounts when the others leave in a bad mkt. Larger as in 750K+_
I would love to see an LOS exception. The dude(ette) who's been doing 600k for 10 years and not growing their business is not nearly the asset as someone who's growing at 15-20%/yr, did 500k and has been in under 5. UBS and Morgan use an LOS equation for their deals to walk, so why not use one to stay?
John Thain May 2008:
This slowdown “won't impact Merrill so much,” Mr. Thain said.
“The next problem area will be those financial institutions who have large exposures to consumer-related debt — home equity loans, auto-loan receivables, credit card receivables. And they would be primarily regional U.S. banks."
Also, I recently read that Merrill regional managers were making $2,000,000 each! And, all the while, they were cutting payouts to brokers, eliminating under $100,000 households, slamming equity trades, and so on.With this information coming to the surface I can see why the ranks of independent advisors must be soaring. Who wants to deal with the "middle-men" anymore? Thain blowing money like a rock star must really aggravate the $350K producer who's trying to survive for his family. I mean if you think about the pain felt by many of the brokers as their payouts kept getting lower and then some of these golf playng. ass kissing, primadonna's kept pick-pocketing everybody under them to support their own opulent lifestyle! If you cleaned all those people out - imagine what the broker payout would be. Even though some may dislike Ken Lewis at least he's bringing those people back to earth. Bottom line - if you can sell you'll always make a living - you will always have a job. If you manage - you may have issues depending on how closely the firms are looking at the income distribution.
On retention: The call clearly announced (to me anyway) that the already well paid AGE guys will not be receiving much - they've already been paid and we have to take that into account is what was mentioned. That makes a good amount of sense to me. Fair is fair and it's a tough environment.
So start slicing - under $350 nothing. AGE not much. ISG - probably nothing. Who's that leave? About 4000 brokers if not less -- all WS over $350K and perhaps the AGE over $1 Million. If we take $700,000 and mutiply by .40% as a rough average -- and then multiply by 4000 brokers - well then we have $1.12 Billion. Not a terrible hit to have a good chunk of the sales force locked in. Wells probably will have to do back end growth bonuses to satisfty smaller brokers and the AGE guys that didn't get any uprfront and give them something to shoot for. In addition we are the highest payout on the street. They need to calm the retention issue down and focus on that very real fact. Wells is the only AAA rated bank - no prospect for future aggravation in the short run (as opposed to ML and C and MS) and stability. The goal should be loyalty - not just buying off people but having them feel like a team again. I believe that outcome is absolutely an option. You want to tie people in to the corporate direction - image - and have them feel great about working for the most stable wirehouse left. Perhaps this delay will pay off because when they do come through with something they can play it up - have the Wells guy announce it with DL - and get people pumped up again.Check your S&P report again. WFC is AA.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20081219&ID=9465412&Symbol=WFC
funny…the most profitable arm per broker for Wachovia Securities is ISG. They have been paid nothing in the past. So, you’re going to pay brokers who just received a retention and pay nothing to the brokers that fit Wells model the best? Someone’s smoking some GOOD stuff…
Well said ISG got the shaft last year. PCG will have no change with the merger Danny even said ISG will have the most impact of the change. If I were wells I might think lets give ISG 50% and PCG 0% as they are on a deal already.
Wells has had PLENTY of opportunity to buy a brokerage firm in the past, but has never wanted to. Wells bought a bank and happened to get a brokerage firm too. Kind of like getting married to someone who has kids from a previous marriage. You take the baggage to get the prize. Only difference is Wells can eventually sell the “baggage”. PCG may get theirs, in stock options of new firm they create or in retention from the new buyer. Really, what does Wells care if they lose brokers when it was never part of their plan to begin with? They spent very little cash to get the bank exposure they desired in the south and probably would have spent the same cash anyways for the deal Citi wanted for just the bank. Seriously, everyone wants to be “wanted” but it’s just not the case here. If you’re that desperate for cash, take a deal from another firm. Wells is calling the bluff that assets just won’t move in huge numbers with the market down 40%.
Maybe…if “retention” is defined as strictly cash upfront from Wells, then I don’t believe that will happen if you’re PCG. If you define retetion in the form of restricted stock of a spun off company, then I think that’s a possibility. I just wonder how often a company is required to “retain” people. An NFL player is still under contract, even if the team is sold (unless you’re Parcells). The new owner buys the contracts with the team from the old owner. We all sound like T.O. wanting new contracts/signing bonuses every year. Everyone has the option to be a free agent here. Test the water. If they’re willing to pay off your contract to Wachovia/Wells and you think the grass is greener on that side, then go.
hellowells:
As previously mentioned, there is a genetic template here. Predecessor to WS is the Everen spinout of Kemper (via First Union). In the early '90’s (read: last financial industry fiasco) Kemper realized it didn’t want the unwieldy burden of the five regionals it had ammassed, only to find that the climate was such that it couldn’t sell them. Not even to any German bank (then the only possible buyers). Hence, employee-owned Everen – now, WS.
This type of solution for Wells is the only one that makes sense, on all levels.
[quote=Sell High].
In addition we are the highest payout on the street. Wrong...higher than some...but I can think of a few that are much higher...especially when you take out BS comp like defferred comp and stock...Danny just likes us to believe we are the highest...AGE was even higher before Danny came to town! Wells is the only AAA rated bank - no prospect for future aggravation in the short run (as opposed to ML and C and MS) and stability. ummmm...where have you been...Wells was downgraded to AA months ago and i beleive is still on credit watch...I am sure they will be single A by years end at best [/quote]I hope to GOD they spin us off in an employee buyout. Greatest deal in the world. Especially if they get Wells to match whatever the employee puts up.hellowells:
As previously mentioned, there is a genetic template here. Predecessor to WS is the Everen spinout of Kemper (via First Union). In the early '90’s (read: last financial industry fiasco) Kemper realized it didn’t want the unwieldy burden of the five regionals it had ammassed, only to find that the climate was such that it couldn’t sell them. Not even to any German bank (then the only possible buyers). Hence, employee-owned Everen – now, WS.
This type of solution for Wells is the only one that makes sense, on all levels.
[quote=hellowells]Wells has had PLENTY of opportunity to buy a brokerage firm in the past, but has never wanted to. Wells bought a bank and happened to get a brokerage firm too. Kind of like getting married to someone who has kids from a previous marriage. You take the baggage to get the prize. Only difference is Wells can eventually sell the “baggage”. PCG may get theirs, in stock options of new firm they create or in retention from the new buyer. Really, what does Wells care if they lose brokers when it was never part of their plan to begin with? They spent very little cash to get the bank exposure they desired in the south and probably would have spent the same cash anyways for the deal Citi wanted for just the bank. Seriously, everyone wants to be “wanted” but it’s just not the case here. If you’re that desperate for cash, take a deal from another firm. Wells is calling the bluff that assets just won’t move in huge numbers with the market down 40%.[/quote]
Stumhp(sp) had said it didn’t make sense to own a brokerage when it wasn’t a nationwide bank. Now that Wells is he says it makes sense now.
Lets have the correct info here. ROFLMAO
Our Branch administrater called for my manager last night after 5. I answered the phone because I can’t stand hearing it ring. I asked him if he thought we would have a new name in the next month and he said he could see that not happening, but he doesn’t know anything for sure. He did mention that as well as losing brokers at pretty good rate, they are losing good home office people in droves. This prompted me to ask why would management allow this situation to happen, the lack of information, lack of a name affecting our ability to mass market. He said they may not want to sacrifice the long term plan… I am sick of seeing the Wachovia is now WFC ads everwhere, TV, Yahoo and the radio. I am convinced the spinoff with partnerships to use WFC banking services is coming. I don’t know think that would be a bad situation , other than the fact that our management can’t be trusted. 50 or 60 scenarios, what are we stupid.
maybe you should have correct info… per Stumpf:
ut 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.Hellowells you are way off base. Obviously work for ISG. I am a 1mill AGE broker and am expecting UPFRONT 50% or more.
It really doesnt matter who got paid what in the past, WB paid it not Wells. If you are AGE you got a retention bonus which by March you paid back 15%+/- , and March 16th you will receive your last 13th month bonus which is almost better that any retention bonus, more than 10% if you do over a million. So right of the bat AGE brokers get a 10% paycut next year. I talked to SB yesterday and they are offering 230%. There is no reason not to take that. WFC knows this. SB is saying there is value in the brokerage, and they are setting the bar.
I dont know about you, Hellowells, but I do not have a contract where it says I will make x next year, like TO does. We are commision based employees and it is our obligation to go where we and our clients will be treated best. Please stop your innane analogies. Look at what GOOG did yesterday by repricing their options but adding a year to the vesting. Successful companies retain their best employees. My bet is that WFC will do that, unless of course they spin us off, but I see know reason why they would do that in a down market.