Deals as of October 2008
53 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=Morphius]
[quote=Provocative Put]When a portfolio has never been liquidated for
generations why should the next generation expect that they will not
inherit it?
When the inheritance is measured in millions of equities and the next
generation has millions as well does it make sense for the next
generation to be in equities too?
[/quote]
You actually raise a good point, Puts.
You
mom should be using a Generation Skipping Trust. Sounds like the
perfect situation for that. Obviously neither you or your brother
need the money.
What did she say when you suggested THAT to her?[/quote]
Of course I raise good points.
As for generation skipping trusts.
Why do you think there is a second generation to skip to?
[quote=Provocative Put]
What she says is, "My grandfather held the portfolio through the great
depression as was his father’s wishes. My mother held it through
the war, as was her father’s wishes. I am holding it through
this, as was my mother’s wishes. You and your brother can sell it
if you want to, I won’t put my wishes into your brain."
She then adds, “But you know what my wishes are.”[/quote]
So now we get to the nub of it: your family’s financial plan is to never sell, and to blindly follow whatever an ancestor did in the past? Even when everything is different?
I guess that way you at least never have to worry about capital gains!
[quote=Provocative Put]
Of course I raise good points.
As for generation skipping trusts.
Why do you think there is a second generation to skip to?
[/quote]
I said good point. Singular. About why you shouldn’t inherit from your mom. And it took me to recognize it, since it obviously never occurred to you. You were too busy talking about options strategies and the coming apocalypse and branch administration issues to worry about mundane things like potentially saving hundreds of thousands in taxes.
Neither you or your brother have children then?
So you're saying the family tree ends with you and your brother? The world does seem a bit brighter today![
Of course I raise good points.
As for generation skipping trusts.
Why do you think there is a second generation to skip to?
[quote=Morphius]
So now we get to the nub of it: your family’s financial plan is to
never sell, and to blindly follow whatever an ancestor did in the
past? Even when everything is different?
I guess that way you at least never have to worry about capital gains!
[/quote]
I did not say that is my plan, what I said was that has been the wishes of my forefathers.
No doubt the same is true in your own family. What do you plan to
do with your great great grandfather’s holdings when they get passed
down to you?
[quote=Provocative Put]
[quote=Morphius]
So now we get to the nub of it: your family’s financial plan is to
never sell, and to blindly follow whatever an ancestor did in the
past? Even when everything is different?
I guess that way you at least never have to worry about capital gains!
[/quote]
I did not say that is my plan, what I said was that has been the wishes of my forefathers.
No doubt the same is true in your own family. What do you plan to
do with your great great grandfather’s holdings when they get passed
down to you?
[/quote]
I get it, anyone who isn’t a trust fund baby must be stupid, right? Because it takes quite a bit of courage and brains and ambition and accomplishment to inherit - right?
I tell you what, you go ahead and derive your sense of self worth from your “forefathers,” as you don’t seem too concerned about anyone that follows you in your royal family tree.
Me, I’m more of the Abe Lincoln school of thought on that: “I don’t know who my grandfather was; I’m much more concerned to know what his grandson will be.”
Nope I have never said that those who are not trust fund babies are stupid. What I do believe is that a very legitimate portion of financial planning is anticipated inheritances. I also believe that unless your own parents have significant assets you cannot possibly grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship. You simply confirmed what I already knew--you really cannot identify with those of us with money because you have never been exposed to it. The idiocy being spewed about my mother being failed because my brother and I did not force her to sell her holdings reveals the shallowness of your experience and qualifications.
I get it, anyone who isn’t a trust fund baby must be stupid, right? Because it takes quite a bit of courage and brains and ambition and accomplishment to inherit - right?
Nope I have never said that those who are not trust fund babies are stupid. What I do believe is that a very legitimate portion of financial planning is anticipated inheritances. I also believe that unless your own parents have significant assets you cannot possibly grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship. You simply confirmed what I already knew--you really cannot identify with those of us with money because you have never been exposed to it. The idiocy being spewed about my mother being failed because my brother and I did not force her to sell her holdings reveals the shallowness of your experience and qualifications.[/quote] ....PLEASE tell me you've had a vasectomy![quote=Morphius]
I get it, anyone who isn’t a trust fund baby must be stupid, right? Because it takes quite a bit of courage and brains and ambition and accomplishment to inherit - right?
[quote=Provocative Put]
Why would you give him anything to bring his blow-up book of clients? As I was trying to say last night to our resident brainiac, Morphius, things are different now. Trailing twelve is meaningless and won't become a valid benchmark for several years. Virtually everybody with a book of any size is going to be embroiled in arbitration actions for years to come. In the immediate future will come the wave of actions being taken by those who feel that they were cheated by the market--that their advisor did not get them off the track before the bear train ran them down (ya gotta love that line). A sin of ommission.[/quote]This is a bunch of horseshit. T12 and AUM is and will remain the benchmark of performance for FA's. The amount of business we have received over the past couple of months directly contradicts your statements. I can only speak for our clients, but they have seen overwhelming success in moving their clients and books. (Average of 85-95% percent retention) Like I have said before and I'll say again... clients are much more loyal to their brokers than the firms.
Nope I have never said that those who are not trust fund babies are stupid. What I do believe is that a very legitimate portion of financial planning is anticipated inheritances. I also believe that unless your own parents have significant assets you cannot possibly grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship. You simply confirmed what I already knew--you really cannot identify with those of us with money because you have never been exposed to it. The idiocy being spewed about my mother being failed because my brother and I did not force her to sell her holdings reveals the shallowness of your experience and qualifications.[/quote] Pro Put, Please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that since I didn't come from a high net worth background I'm limited in my ability to work with those people that did? or Understand the parent/child relationship?[quote=Morphius]
I get it, anyone who isn’t a trust fund baby must be stupid, right? Because it takes quite a bit of courage and brains and ambition and accomplishment to inherit - right?
[quote=SuperRecruiter]
This is a bunch of horseshit. T12 and
AUM is and will remain the benchmark of performance for FA’s. The
amount of business we have received over the past couple of months
directly contradicts your statements. I can only speak for our clients,
but they have seen overwhelming success in moving their clients and
books. (Average of 85-95% percent retention) Like I have said before
and I’ll say again… clients are much more loyal to their brokers than
the firms.
[/quote]
I didn’t say that T-12 and AUM are not measures of performance.
What I said was that paying upfront bonuses based on those numbers will
be meaningless until it can be established that the investors have not
fled the markets, and especially the AUM model.
If you owned a football team would you pay a huge bonus to get a star
running back if he had a badly broken ankle that had yet to heal?
As a recruiter I can understand your wanting to scream, “I don’t want
to believe what you’re saying…” but that does not mean that I
am wrong.
I invite you to make a case for why a hiriing manager would want to pay
upfront to get a guy whose book may have disappeared overnight?
"I know you’ve been hitting .365 Joe, but I"m worried about the fact
that you’ve had shoulder surgery so I’m going to wait awhile to see how
it all works out."
Why can’t you kids grasp that the entire playing field has been turned
upside down and it probably won’t come back for years and years and
years.
[quote=Provocative Put]
I didn’t say that T-12 and AUM are not measures of performance.
What I said was that paying upfront bonuses based on those numbers will
be meaningless until it can be established that the investors have not
fled the markets, and especially the AUM model.
If you owned a football team would you pay a huge bonus to get a star
running back if he had a badly broken ankle that had yet to heal?
As a recruiter I can understand your wanting to scream, “I don’t want
to believe what you’re saying…” but that does not mean that I
am wrong.
[/quote]
It has nothing to with “I don’t want to believe what you’re saying…” because we are moving more producers now than in previous months. Your point may have some validity but it’s simply not true.
[quote=Provocative Put]
I invite you to make a case for why a hiriing manager would want to pay
upfront to get a guy whose book may have disappeared overnight?
[/quote]
What? Logic must fail you. No one can make a case for that because there is no firm that would hire on an FA, give a big upfront check, if they had no assets.
However, and I can only speak from the experience I have had with OUR clients, we don’t see a single person who has had all their assets drained. That’s just a silly and absurd notion.
[quote=apex01]
Pro Put, Please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that since I didn't come from a high net worth background I'm limited in my ability to work with those people that did? or Understand the parent/child relationship?[/quote]
To a degree yes, especially in understanding the parent/child relationship when it comes to talking about money matters.
We saw it in play today when Ferris Bueller--of all people--was sneering that my brother and I had failed our mother because we did not force her to sell her holdings AFTER having heard for our entire lives that she did not want to sell her holdings.
As far as working with high net worth types. I am in a school of thought that believes that monied people tend to trust other monied people when it comes to matters such as this.
There are obviously exceptions--a rich college guy who invests with his fraternity brother without considering that the frat brother is not of the same caste.
But generally I believe that money follows money. It's just my opinion and what will happen is I will be flamed by the same flamers who cannot stand to hear anything that they fiind uncomfortable to deal with.
If you are not from the monied class in your town, if you don't have the rich friends, you can still make a damn attractive living because there are a lot more people who are not the monied class.
But if your business plan is to somehow end up being the broker for the folks who live over there in the rich folks houses, and have their small business pension plans and all that--you should never give up, but you should work towards that by opening lots and lots of accounts that you wouldn't want to have if you were the advisor to the rich and famous.
[quote=Provocative Put]Nope I have never said that those who are not trust fund babies are stupid. What I do believe is that a very legitimate portion of financial planning is anticipated inheritances.[/quote]
So what difference does it make, then, if I personally inherited or will inherit? Does that change in any way your situation? Or is it yet another of your pointless points?
And what about your kids - isn’t THEIR anticpated inheritance a legitimate enough portion of your financial plan to include consideration of a GST? You really just prefer to ignore that uncomfortable issue, don’t you? Less money for you, and all.
I wonder if your Mom would share your apathy if she was made aware of the potential long-term family legacy benefits of a GST?
Wow. And I thought we had reached bottom with your bizarre statements. Obviously not. This one is so bizarre, I think it deserves to be repeated and highlighted:
[quote=Provocative Put]I also believe that unless your own parents have significant assets you cannot possibly grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship.[/quote]
Nope. It doesn't get any better the second time around. Still absurdly bizarre.
Tell us all, Putsy, precisely how "significant" do mommy's assets need to be before one begin to "grasp the dynamics of a parent child relationship?" $1 million? $2.3 million? $17.8 million? $146.8 million?
And if the value of mommy's assets drop below this threshhold due to, say, a bear market where "everything is different" - do you then re-lose your ability to "grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship?" Or are you grandfathered in forever once you are admitted to the parent child dynamics club? Inquiring minds want to know.
[quote=Provocative Put]You simply confirmed what I already knew--you really cannot identify with those of us with money because you have never been exposed to it.[/quote]
You don't read very well, do you? If you did, you would have noticed I never said I didn't have money. I merely implied I didn't inherit wealth. It's your warped perspective that simply measures wealth according to what one is given via inheritance. Pathetic. Your poor great grandfather (or whoever was the one responsible for actually creating that wealth that you are itching to inherit) must be turning in his grave at your distorted attitude of entitlement and arrogance. I bet HE didn't need his daddy to have money in order to "grasp the dynamics of the parent child relationship."
And as for your twisted logic that someone can't "identify" with those with money if they have never been "exposed" to it ... do you even believe half the crap you write or are you just stupid? Oh, and if your mom gets ill and needs a doctor make sure you find one who inherited a lot of money so he can "identify" with her, or he won't be able to help her.
[quote=Provocative Put]The idiocy being spewed about my mother being failed because my brother and I did not force her to sell her holdings reveals the shallowness of your experience and qualifications.[/quote]
Really? There's your reading comprehension problem coming into play yet again.
Cite one instance in which I said anything of the sort. Just one example will do.
[quote=SuperRecruiter]
However, and I can only speak from the
experience I have had with OUR clients, we don’t see a single person
who has had all their assets drained. That’s just a silly and absurd
notion.
[/quote]
I suggest that the phone call that says, “Mr. Johnson, I have decided
to switch from Acme to Ajax…” is the perfect opportunity for a
client to say, "Well, Mike I’ve been so worried about what has been
happening that I think I will just stay put for the time being."
The bond that ties the advisor to the client is only strong when the market is strong.
This is a perfect time to try to pick off other people’s clients.
For the first time in about thirty years there is not a single investor
who would not be open to listening to a new voice.
We’re not talking about decisons that result in action taken withini
seconds. There is a gnawing doubt in the minds of investors
regarding the quality of the advice they’ve been getting.
Please tell me why any client should pay for, "Hold on, it will come back?"
Bernard Baruch is said to have commented, "I’ll give up the last 20% of
a tired bull market and miss the first 20% of a new one in order to get
the 60% in between."
The “Hold on it will come back” model failed, and it failed huge at the
wrong time with the wrong people–the boomers who are approaching
retirement and are also well educated enough to know about how to go
about contacting an attorney.
Years ago I heard somebody ask, “Do you know the difference between an American and a Japanese?”
"In the US if a fan at a baseball game got hit by a foul ball he’ll
sue. In Japan the guy who was hit by the ball will bow and thank
the batter for the honor of being hit."
My point is that Americans are the most litigious society in the world, and the plaintiff’s bar is licking their chops.
Against that backdrop it’s insane–as in INSANE–for the firms to be
handing out money to hire people who may bring their own legal problems
along with a book that may not transfer.
EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT NOW.
It is said that the biggest cause for marriages breaking up is money.
There is not an “advisor” around whose relationship with a client is as strong as the one between a husband and wife.
If a huge number of husbands and wives divorce over money why is it not
logical to believe that a huge number of clients will “divorce” their
advisor?
[quote=Provocative Put] [quote=apex01]
Pro Put, Please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that since I didn't come from a high net worth background I'm limited in my ability to work with those people that did? or Understand the parent/child relationship?[/quote]
To a degree yes, especially in understanding the parent/child relationship when it comes to talking about money matters.
We saw it in play today when Ferris Bueller--of all people--was sneering that my brother and I had failed our mother because we did not force her to sell her holdings AFTER having heard for our entire lives that she did not want to sell her holdings.
As far as working with high net worth types. I am in a school of thought that believes that monied people tend to trust other monied people when it comes to matters such as this.
There are obviously exceptions--a rich college guy who invests with his fraternity brother without considering that the frat brother is not of the same caste.
But generally I believe that money follows money. It's just my opinion and what will happen is I will be flamed by the same flamers who cannot stand to hear anything that they fiind uncomfortable to deal with.
If you are not from the monied class in your town, if you don't have the rich friends, you can still make a damn attractive living because there are a lot more people who are not the monied class.
But if your business plan is to somehow end up being the broker for the folks who live over there in the rich folks houses, and have their small business pension plans and all that--you should never give up, but you should work towards that by opening lots and lots of accounts that you wouldn't want to have if you were the advisor to the rich and famous.
[/quote] Thanks for expanding. I didn't read all the history of the post so I didn't know what got you to your statements. I will agree with you on the parent/child relationship in regards to money. I struggled with that early on as an advisor. Specifically when dealing with the widow and her sons who were often times twice my age. Money does follow money for the most part. Although I will say having attended a top 15 business school and having many "trust fund" friends I wouldn't hold them in any higher esteem than anyone else-they just hit the DNA jackpot in certain cases. I think for the intelligent and ambitious (not necessarity in that order, unfortunately) there is the ability to work your way into that upper sect. If you believe that "money follows money". Than you would believe that if an advisor can establish a professional and ethical practice coupled with HNW advocates then it is possible to service that group. I would add that while it is possible to join their group in a business sense you will never join them in a social sense. I'm talking about the "old money" circles. I dated a girl in college who was part of that group. I grew up middle-class and felt like Leonardo Dicaprio in "Titanic"-Remember the scene where is sitting with John Astor and all the well-to-do's?-major difference being they didn't even acknowledge me.
[quote=SuperRecruiter]
[quote=Provocative Put]
Why would you give him anything to bring his blow-up book of clients? As I was trying to say last night to our resident brainiac, Morphius, things are different now. Trailing twelve is meaningless and won't become a valid benchmark for several years. Virtually everybody with a book of any size is going to be embroiled in arbitration actions for years to come. In the immediate future will come the wave of actions being taken by those who feel that they were cheated by the market--that their advisor did not get them off the track before the bear train ran them down (ya gotta love that line). A sin of ommission.[/quote]This is a bunch of horseshit. T12 and AUM is and will remain the benchmark of performance for FA's. The amount of business we have received over the past couple of months directly contradicts your statements. I can only speak for our clients, but they have seen overwhelming success in moving their clients and books. (Average of 85-95% percent retention) Like I have said before and I'll say again... clients are much more loyal to their brokers than the firms. [/quote]
Superrecruiter,
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if Putsy says that black is white and that the sun will no longer rise in the morning, that's pretty much the end of the conversation, since "everything is different" this time. You'll also note that he will make no attempt to support his guesses because that would really interfere with his posting output and, besides - that part about using facts and logic and rationale and such - well, that's way too much work. After all, he is retired.
But once upon a time he was a real live, honest-to-goodness senior vice president. On Wall Street. Honest. He said so himself.
I bet you've never actually met, much less talked to, a real live senior vice president on Wall Street, have you? I mean, excluding the 67 bazillion other senior VPs on Wall Street. Disincluding them.
So if Putsy says T12 is meaningless, and no one follows their advisor to a new firm, and everyone other than him is stupid ... well, ipso facto, if he says it, it must be so.
Otherwise, why would he keep saying it?
P.S. EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT. Really. Just ask Putsy.
[quote=Morphius]
I bet you’ve never actually met, much less talked to, a real live senior vice president on Wall Street, have you? I mean, excluding the 67 bazillion other senior VPs on Wall Street. Disincluding them.
[/quote]
Everyone and their dog, on wallstreet, is a god damn VP.