Forefront
846 RepliesJump to last post
Jebediah—Re:Your 2 Good Points.
I'm doing more biz with each client because I am doing this more in-depth planning so I just don't think of it as bogus. I see your point about the info that a inheriting broker will have. And I've worried some about it. But I have concluded that the relationship and history that I have with each of my best clients is more important than that plan.[quote=Onward]Jebediah—Re:Your 2 Good Points.
I'm doing more biz with each client because I am doing this more in-depth planning so I just don't think of it as bogus. I see your point about the info that a inheriting broker will have. And I've worried some about it. But I have concluded that the relationship and history that I have with each of my best clients is more important than that plan.[/quote] I have no doubt that the plan gets you additional business. However, this same business can be gotten without exposing all client information to the firm.[quote=Jebediah][quote=Onward]Jebediah—Re:Your 2 Good Points.
I'm doing more biz with each client because I am doing this more in-depth planning so I just don't think of it as bogus. I see your point about the info that a inheriting broker will have. And I've worried some about it. But I have concluded that the relationship and history that I have with each of my best clients is more important than that plan.[/quote] I have no doubt that the plan gets you additional business. However, this same business can be gotten without exposing all client information to the firm.[/quote] I just don't know how to show it to the client in an impressive way without putting it in the plan. Of course we can talk to the client about it...but it looks powerful when it is in the plan. So I've decided to just let it be there (since it is in the client's best interest to have it in the plan) and take the risk that you and I have considered. It is a personal decision. What do you think?[quote=AGEMAN]Let’s see things WFA could do to be more client friendly.
1. Not send out useless and unnecessary mailings. Since we made the change to WS/WFA it seems client mailings have increased 3x. (they could pay us more if they saved all of that postage) It seems if we go to the restroom they need to notify the client!!! 2. Make acct fees simpler. If we have to take time to figure out how to avoid fees for clients and if there have to be footnotes on the acct fee explanations it could be an indication that the rules are too complicated. I had people who had over 1mm sign up for electronic docs because they thought they were going to get a rebate of some sort. They need to do a much better job communicating with the clients!! 3. Pay us for all products!!! 4. Stop the haircuts on annuities and insurance products. 5. It seems that WS had way too many layers of all of these salaried people running around as consultants to the FA's--way too many layers of management and consultants to the FA's. (I think some of this has been cut out now??)(Why do I need a traveling consultant that focuses on fee based products and lending???) 6. Pay a decent rate on MM to clients and pay us on MM!!! It is embarassing to tell clients what our MM pays!! 7. Make your policies and procedures make sense--some progress on this with the traveling old guys--LOL 8. How about refunding the 12b-1 fees to the client in fee based accts or paying me on them?? Just a few thoughts off the top of my head![/quote] Money Market and 12b1 fees. Seems that those issues should definitely be discussed whenever we have the opportunity in the meetings and calls.And we need to demand more communication. We can't be complacent. Thanks for the enlightening thoughts...I'll definitely be talking with management as I hope others (who are reading this) will be doing. Do you know if other firms have this issue?
[quote=Onward][quote=Jebediah][quote=Onward]Jebediah—Re:Your 2 Good Points.
I'm doing more biz with each client because I am doing this more in-depth planning so I just don't think of it as bogus. I see your point about the info that a inheriting broker will have. And I've worried some about it. But I have concluded that the relationship and history that I have with each of my best clients is more important than that plan.[/quote] I have no doubt that the plan gets you additional business. However, this same business can be gotten without exposing all client information to the firm.[/quote] I just don't know how to show it to the client in an impressive way without putting it in the plan. Of course we can talk to the client about it...but it looks powerful when it is in the plan. So I've decided to just let it be there (since it is in the client's best interest to have it in the plan) and take the risk that you and I have considered. It is a personal decision. What do you think?[/quote] Maybe I am just paranoid and making too much of Envision. I one thing I can point to however is that these feelings of mistrust are not my natural inclination, but with everything that has happened since the original merger was announced they are prevalent in my thoughts. The plans are impressive and I do not have a good answer as to how to show all the information to the client without it.[quote=20yrVet]
Why Envision=Forfront=retention? For those of you that swear by that using Envisions to effectively diversify and monitor your clients-I say great. I don't believe in the Envision process, the system etc.. I don't want to bore you with my reasons, but lets just assume that they are valid reasons just as your reasons to use them are valid too. The problem with the firm offering retention if you participate with no other means of acquiring the retention bonus than the use of Envision is troublesome on many levels. From the standpoint of the public, its as if Wells Fargo is trying to get one over on the tax payer offering retention in a sneaky manner. Wouldn't MSNBC and CNN have a field day with this? From the standpoint of the client, the firm is waving $$$$'s to its FA's if complete this proprietary "financial planning" process. That's not that far off to a firm offering extra money to sell proprietary mutual funds. If the firm came out and said that there are a half dozen finanicial planning produres that we must comply with, I'd be fine with that. The fact that it has to be with (what I think is bogus) Envision seems to be just a bit unfair and unethical. And as an FA, the rules are being made up as we go. I am not as savy as some of my buddies are with software. There is little or no chance that my plans could appear to be as thorough as theirs. In my opinion, the planning process doesn't start or finish with software, its just an effective tool in the process. The process can take months to complete for high net worth individuals, IF they are responsive to the additional data you require. Trying to bang out 100 of these in a few months isn't in the best interest of the client or the FA. Had the firm made it a situation that you'd be paid as you finished each client, I think everyone would be treated more fairly. If I can effectively finish a dozen in one month and 2 dozen in another, the chances of that info being thorough is greater than if I am told that I have to have 100 done in 30 or 60 days or 90 days (as we were) and having the criteria constantly be changed during the months that have ensued. The all or none aspect of the levels is unfair to everyone and should not have ever been used. [/quote] You would not "bore me with your reasons" for thinking it is a bogus plan. Actually I am intrigued. First of all...I admit that I am a fan of Envision. I've used this tool for five years and it is not perfect. It keeps getting better. But this is why I think that this planning tool has paid for my efforts. It does take work to service the clients using Envision. But boy...does it pay off. Had you presented these plans you'd know what I mean. Why is the client so responsive as to give all that additional data? I think it's because they look at the plan results score and become curious as to what the plan would look like if they had really given you every detail. "Trying to bang out 100 plans in a few months". Why would you want to do that? The 4-front side of this is good for over a year! Unless you're doing half-hearted plans and desperately trying to get a quick retention these plans (for the client's sake) need to be good. Envision doesn't make recommendations that are proprietary. It is a unique planning tool. To be honest, if there were a dozen different planning tools out there that the firm would include for 4-front, my pea brain would explode. I may be simple and naive but I just want them to improve on this one. (It needs improvement of course.) From the "for what its worth" department. I would just do my regular business and try a few Envision plans on some of those tough clients for size. See if you like it. If you do (like it) you can be rewarded for stepping up your level of service. If you don't like it...the plans that you use right now are bringing in business. Either way, you'll be fine. In my opinion that's the way business should be. We choose...not the firm. I know you were concerned about "boring us" with your reasons for thinking these are bogus plans. But I solicit your thoughts. Maybe you mean the the half-hearted plans that people are preparing for the goal of getting a retention are the bogus plans. In that case I agree, those would be bogus. And the firm should not pay on them.Why is the client so responsive as to give all that additional data? I
think it’s because they look at the plan results score and become
curious as to what the plan would look like if they had really given
you every detail.
*******************************************************
I have done some unsolicited Envisions for a few not so responsive clients where I plugged in the data I had and mailed the report to the client with a note to call and discuss. Sure enough they call and then come in with data that is missing. Clients liked the service and it also resulted in business for me.
[quote=AGEMAN]
I was reviewing an envision plan today for a client and noticed on the allocation pie chart that over 5% was in REITS and I said to myself wait a minute this client doesn’t have REITS so upon further investigation I found that the plan was classifying MLP’s as REITS. I called the Env. help desk and was told to turn in an asset reclassification form which I did and then I received an email which stated this was a known problem and probably wouldn’t be corrected because they were actually looking at reducing the number of classifications rather than expanding them. This doesn’t make sense!! I am not comfortable that tells my client as we discussed you need to realign your portfolio to this model and the chart isn’t even accurate!!! I pulled up the portfolio report in Smarstation and it had MLP’s classified better. Why aren’t these applications the same?? I give my clients both reports on the same portfolio and it seems they have different portfolios!! Are you kidding me??
By the way the MLP's have done great!![/quote]You can customize the allocations yourself. The cash component on many of the models are too low of a percentage for many a client to tolerate. I often increase this % to come in line with the clients comfort level.
AGEMAN…that classification is annoying. Have you sent in an “Excellence First” on that. They always get back with you…in my experience. They probably won’t fix it immediately but Danny and his staff see every one of those and department heads tend to really pay attention to those posts; because they know upper management is watching.
I guess I should even though they told me it probably wouldn't change, but perhaps through the excellence first it could be??[/quote] Excellence First needs to be used in cases where someone does an excellent job or in cases where we could constructively become excellent. It isn't used for gripes...but recognition and improvement. Now that I think about it----the classification issue may or may not fit....your call. I was just wondering. By the way though...if you want to help someone in the home office get a raise...its a golden way to help them.[quote=Onward]AGEMAN…that classification is annoying. Have you sent in an “Excellence First” on that. They always get back with you…in my experience. They probably won’t fix it immediately but Danny and his staff see every one of those and department heads tend to really pay attention to those posts; because they know upper management is watching.
[quote=AGEMAN]Well we could constructively become excellent if we were able to classify securities correctly.[/quote] Then…Make it so. (It has worked for me when I had issues.)
[quote=showmethemoney]
[quote=AGEMAN]
I was reviewing an envision plan today for a client and noticed on the allocation pie chart that over 5% was in REITS and I said to myself wait a minute this client doesn’t have REITS so upon further investigation I found that the plan was classifying MLP’s as REITS. I called the Env. help desk and was told to turn in an asset reclassification form which I did and then I received an email which stated this was a known problem and probably wouldn’t be corrected because they were actually looking at reducing the number of classifications rather than expanding them. This doesn’t make sense!! I am not comfortable that tells my client as we discussed you need to realign your portfolio to this model and the chart isn’t even accurate!!! I pulled up the portfolio report in Smarstation and it had MLP’s classified better. Why aren’t these applications the same?? I give my clients both reports on the same portfolio and it seems they have different portfolios!! Are you kidding me??
By the way the MLP's have done great!![/quote]You can customize the allocations yourself. The cash component on many of the models are too low of a percentage for many a client to tolerate. I often increase this % to come in line with the clients comfort level.
[/quote]
You can customize the allocations, but you can't change the portfolio assumptions, many of which are out of date or just wrong. Moderate Growth and Income having a potential downside of 8%? Clients love that, but not when they are down 30% a few months ago. Stess testing.....my ass! By using the 9 levels of risk tolerance that exactly line up with the Fundsource or DMA models, it's intention is to steer the FA in that direction. Envision is a crummy tool.
To base any kind of award program on Envision usage is stupid. It could only have been though of by people who don't sit in our chairs and have never engaged in a genuine consulting process.
"It could only have been though of by people who don't sit in our chairs and have never engaged in a genuine consulting process" Nah you think? Had a Region guy at MS come in tell us how to do it, what to do, etc for 30 minutes awhile back..you would have thought he had been through the wars for 10-15 years, then he dropped the bomb shell said he had been a stewardess (flight attendant, sorry) for 12 years and got caught in downsizing. I will never forget the look on everyones face.
what a joke!!! My manager called me in his office this morning to hand me a list of all my Envision/4Front accounts - keep in mind there were none highlighted on the 1st review and I was told that they were fine.
They hand you a list of households that are in BLUE, saying that they're incomplete, however, they DON'T tell you what's missing. All my envisons were done the same - yet only two of them passed. If a retiree owns his house (no mortgage), and has no credit card debt, why the hell would I put anything under liabilities!!???? Needless to say, all management said is that they're trying to push everyone back because they don't have the money to pay. That's worse than the guy from the Buffalo Bills who fumbled asking for them to kick over so that he can stay in the end zone for a touchback. Rumor has it that WF (not Wach) added another layer of people to review because too many people qualified. Don't dangle the carrot if you don't want it to be taken.AG Edwardman,
One great thing about our business is you can always leave.
Why dont you take a check? sounds like you hate it there.
deposit $ for the 25% of FA’s that cleared will show up in accts starting tomorow. The remaining 75% of advisors will see accts rejected that need to be cleared or are clear but plans still havent
approved thru the heirarchy. Those folks wont get $ till next qtr.
[quote=tdude]deposit $ for the 25% of FA’s that cleared will show up in accts starting tomorow. The remaining 75% of advisors will see accts rejected that need to be cleared or are clear but plans still havent
approved thru the heirarchy. Those folks wont get $ till next qtr. [/quote]
There is going to be a lot of people leaving soon IMO. If you cleared they have to pay. According to them they will pay when the review process is done. If you cleared they have to follow through and pay. What bullsh*t it will be if you cleared, but oh, we cant pay till next qrtr.
This is the most aggravating, distracting experience I have had in my career. Where do you get your figures that 75% of advisors will not be paid? That is just outrageous!!
what a joke!!! My manager called me in his office this morning to hand me a list of all my Envision/4Front accounts - keep in mind there were none highlighted on the 1st review and I was told that they were fine.
They hand you a list of households that are in BLUE, saying that they're incomplete, however, they DON'T tell you what's missing. All my envisons were done the same - yet only two of them passed. If a retiree owns his house (no mortgage), and has no credit card debt, why the hell would I put anything under liabilities!!???? Needless to say, all management said is that they're trying to push everyone back because they don't have the money to pay. That's worse than the guy from the Buffalo Bills who fumbled asking for them to kick over so that he can stay in the end zone for a touchback. Rumor has it that WF (not Wach) added another layer of people to review because too many people qualified. Don't dangle the carrot if you don't want it to be taken.