Contracts genereally state “XYZ firm and its successors” not to say that a material change in ownership structure couldn’t be argued and possibly challenged - excellent question given the current environment.  I will get a legal response ASAP and will post.

what quintile is 450-600k, and what type of retention…if any…LOS over 6

Retention packages are still to be determined with the top end rumored at 50-60% of T12.  I believe that  that 450-600k LOS 6 is in the lower 3rd quintile.

I say don’t take the retention.  Instead move to an indy and take 90% payout.

snaggle-problem with indy is you are in the same boat as everyone else, meaning you have to compete. I’m not saying indy isn’t good- I think it is, but you DO NOT have the capabilities of ML, MS, SB, etc. With banks behind them, you have just moved WAY BEHIND. Think about it. If BAC lies, ML will bolt. But LPL can’t do what ML can do-no way. I’ve looked, and it’s not close.

badmove-upper quintile 3, very low quintile 2

snaggle-problem with indy is you are in the same boat as everyone else, meaning you have to compete. I’m not saying indy isn’t good- I think it is, but you DO NOT have the capabilities of ML, MS, SB, etc. With banks behind them, you have just moved WAY BEHIND. Think about it. If BAC lies, ML will bolt. But LPL can’t do what ML can do-no way. I’ve looked, and it’s not close.

[quote=donatello]snaggle-problem with indy is you are in the same boat as everyone else, meaning you have to compete. I’m not saying indy isn’t good- I think it is, but you DO NOT have the capabilities of ML, MS, SB, etc. With banks behind them, you have just moved WAY BEHIND. Think about it. If BAC lies, ML will bolt. But LPL can’t do what ML can do-no way. I’ve looked, and it’s not close.

[quote=donatello] I’m not saying indy isn’t good- I think it is, but you DO NOT have the capabilities of ML, MS, SB, etc. [/quote]

You mean the capability to run the firm into the ground by putting all their capital into flim flam CDO’s and shaky mortgage backed securities?  Or the capability to sell themselves to a bank to avoid collapse?

Which one?

snaggle-problem with indy is you are in the same boat as everyone else, meaning you have to compete. I’m not saying indy isn’t good- I think it is, but you DO NOT have the capabilities of ML, MS, SB, etc. With banks behind them, you have just moved WAY BEHIND. Think about it. If BAC lies, ML will bolt. But LPL can’t do what ML can do-no way. I’ve looked, and it’s not close.

donatello,



Specifics please:



Exactly what capabilities do wirehouse FAs have that independent FAs lack?



How exactly does having “banks behind them” offer any meaningful benefit to an FA?



What is it that an LPL advisor can’t do that a ML advisor can (with or without a bank behind them)?



Since as you say you’ve looked, and it’s not close, you must have a ton of specifics that you can share with us. Enlighten us, by all means.

Name the lending side of the business you can do.

Also, do you have discretionary stock accounts?

Lending and discetionary accounts?  Is that the sum total of what you think wirehouses have that independents do not?  

Lending is considered an outside business activity and you can represent many institutions (and get paid). Discretionary accounts are okay as well.

[quote=Mucho de Tejas]Lending is considered an outside business activity and you can represent many institutions (and get paid). Discretionary accounts are okay as well.

Morphius,

[quote=donatello]Name the lending side of the business you can do.[/quote]

Do you read the newspaper?  Do you really think it’s an advantage to be affilliated with a lender these days?  Think about it.

You want to help people grow their ASSETS and minimize their need to take on debt.  That’s my old-fashioned opinion.

[quote=donatello]Morphius,

Tello,<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Why do all of these capabilities need to be within your own firm? What difference does it make if you perform these activities outside of your business? It just so happens that referring these lending related activities out (and still getting comped) has certainly helped independent advisors everywhere build their network. If I market my core competency as investment management then I don't expect (or want) the client to assume that I would be proficient in making him a car loan.  

I worked as an FA at both Merrill and at BAI and I thought ML was great and BAI sucked. The combination could be great if they can integrate the cultures but with all the offerings each has, most advisors end of being jack of all trades and masters of none and float into mediocrity. Independence forces you to choose a path and master your core competencies.

Take a breath, donatello.  You seem to be imagining enemies everywhere.  When did I “trash ML/BOA”?  I simply asked for you to explain your statement that independents can’t do what ML can do.  Based on your response, a few things seem clear.

First, the discretionary account thing is simply a non-issue, as that is almost universally easier to do at an independent than a wire.  Discretionary portfolio management makes up the vast majority of my business, so yes I can do exactly what you ask.  I’m sure further due diligence on that will make that very clear so I won’t belabor that further. 

Second, you apparently believe that  providing lending services of all kinds, and doing so strictly from inside a common corporate umbrella is important to clients and to individual FAs.   That is an opinion.  Personally, my opinion is that this is not important to most clients or FAs.  My observation is most clients are mainly ninterested in getting help addressing their lending needs, but don’t necessarily care if it is at the same institution they use for investing or banking or insurance.  In fact, the concern about proprietary products and potential conflict of interest would, I suggest, make that LESS attractive for most clients. 

Similarly, if you happen to be one of the rare FAs who earns a significant portion of your comp from lending, then by ball means keep your emphasis on lending capabilities. Obviously most FAs do not, and never will, make enough from lending to make this a critical element of their practice.  Perhaps you are an exception.  One of the great things about this business is that we can choose to serve clients in many different ways, with wildly different focuses.  Just realize there are plenty of ways to provide this sort of service outside of the wires - and get paid for it - with the added distinction of not being limited to an inhouse proprietary product.

Third, consider the possibility that the firm itself may be far less important to clients than you might think.  If you are like most FAs, your clients would say they are doing business with you, not the firm.  In that respect, it doesn’t matter much if ML is better than LPL or firm A is worse than firm b.  All that really matters is if you have the ability to serve your clients in such a way as to leave them - and you - satsified.  ML may be a fabulous FIRM, but it certainly is not the best for every FA and every client, and the same is true of LPL (which I use as an example only because you used them as the alternative to ML, not because I am afflilited with them - I am not).   To me it’s a bit like worrying about if GM is a better company than, say, Ford, when really all that matters is if the specific car I drive satisfies my particular needs and budget.

Work wherever you want, donatello my friend, but don’t sell yourself short - your success is far more due to you and your abilities than it is your firm or it’s capabilities.  That will be true whether you choose to stay OR go.  Good luck with your due diligence.