Retention....please do not hijack
480 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=AGE Forever]
I am a 1.2 mill broker and yes I also look forward to "Retention", but lots of pesimism. We will get same deal as Merrill. WFC is taking their time just like they took their time to buy us. They bought us when THEY were ready and they will produce retention when THEY are ready
[/quote] Not sure you were following it that close, they bought Wachovia Bank, they wanted the branches back east.I am a 1.2 mill broker and yes I also look forward to “Retention”, but lots of pesimism. We will get same deal as Merrill. WFC is taking their time just like they took their time to buy us. They bought us when THEY were ready and they will produce retention when THEY are ready
On that same note, the WFC deal was better for shareholders than the Citi deal. Just because they are taking time does not exclusively mean that they are going to screw the producers
I don't think he is the second coming and never thought he ran the show. Fact is what you and I think is all speculation at this point. Whether its about what the retention will be and how many people will leave nothing is certain at this point. We will know when we know. WW[quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything. [/quote]
At this point we need to face the facts…whether you think Danny is the second coming or not, he doesnt run this show anymore…even if he wants a great retention package…which I doubt anyway…it likely will not happen. I can’t see them doing nothing…but I think it will be small or back end loaded and top heavy. I think for the avg producer it will be underwhelming at best. If you want a good package your best bet is not staying at WS/WFC…this is also true if you want less BS, and better payout…my suggestion would have something in place sooner rather than later…there will be more brokers wanting out of WS, SB, ML etc soon than there will be places willing or able to take them
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don't even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE's 401k to Wachovia's. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention.I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything.
Well, lets look at it this way. If you are a million dollar producer and you left you would have to pay back 58 months (About 60% of 70% upfront). So if your lucky to get 150% upfront somewhere else you are moving for 90%. If Wells pays 50% on the high end you would be moving for 40% difference. You will probably lose that in clients staying put in this environment.
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don't even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE's 401k to Wachovia's. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention. [/quote][quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything.
You are already stuck to your desk, vis-a-vis your prior retention contract. Get back to work like you've been paid to do.
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don't even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE's 401k to Wachovia's. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention. [/quote][quote=ryedog123][quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything.
You are already stuck to your desk, vis-a-vis your prior retention contract. Get back to work like you've been paid to do.
[/quote] Nope. Eating Christmas cookies at my desk waiting for my retention check. Happy Holidays!
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don't even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE's 401k to Wachovia's. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention. [/quote][quote=Hank Moody] [quote=ryedog123][quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything.
You are already stuck to your desk, vis-a-vis your prior retention contract. Get back to work like you've been paid to do.
[/quote] Nope. Eating Christmas cookies at my desk waiting for my retention check. Happy Holidays![/quote]
You have a sales assistant named "Christmas Cookies"?
I think Wells is in a pretty good position to either lowball the retention if they offer any at all. Where are people going to go? We have seen the new payouts at ML/BAI and SB and those are terrible, and AGEFOREVER summed it up pretty well, you will lose money leaving.
I am curious why you think you are getting or even deserve a retention bonus
Maybe the answer is to flood Danny’s email box with these concerns rather than on an outside forum. If he received 14,600 emails of similar kind…it would let him know how serious this is. Then on a conference call he couldn’t use the retention subject like “O by the way…” and brush it off. It’s not a topic within a conference call Danny, it’s the headliner for the conference call - .
Follow the bouncing ball once again...Perhaps the question to be asking is the following; Where will my valued clients be treated best? The rest gets pretty easy after that.
That seems to be the question that is not being answered -What will the WFC platform ultimately offer my clients in terms of product, services, and fees. That would seem to be an easy one to answer - if they intended to keep the brokerage at all, which I have my doubts about.[quote=WSxAG]Perhaps the question to be asking is the following; Where will my valued clients be treated best? The rest gets pretty easy after that.
[/quote]Sounds to me like that's the way ole' Ben himself would have addressed the issue.
You guys are spending a lot of time speculating about the 'yield' on this deal to you....time that could be spent securing your relationships with clients, or doing business, or talking to prospects.
I'm not trying to antagonize y'all, just pointing out what might be obvious to some.....but not all.
Good luck. I wouldn't want to be dealing with all the cr*p y'all have been through in the last 12 months.
So if they don't intend to keep the brokerage at all....who do you think they'd sell it to? How long before a retention with the new owner??
Why wouldn't they want to keep WS? They got it for a steal. Heck, they got the bank for pennies, and the brokerage was a bonus.
If they decide not to do anything, "You can't cure stupid."
They wanted East Coast bank deposits - they ridded themselves of Piper years ago, b/c at the end of the day - though you and I may believe the brokerage business is a viable business entity - They don’t. Actions speak louder than words, and from what I’ve seen, thus, far they (WFC) are woefully short on both counts.
[quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything.
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don’t even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE’s 401k to Wachovia’s. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention. [/quote]
I think if you believe that WFC isn’t going to prorate your retention you are fooling yourself. You SIGNED a contract and there is the difference. Legacy WS did not sign a contract and received no money up front. Here is the difference and there are several presidencies for this. Have a former co worker who left to take over a relatives business with Advest who was within 6 months purchased by Merrill. This particular individual absolutely despised M.L. Not only did he NOT get a retention bonus ( he was under contract with Advest) but, he was not able to leave Advest without having to pay back the prorated portion of his contact. It wasn’t his choice to stay with M.L. AND he was not compensated for being acquired.
I do not know what WFC is or is not going to do with legacy AGE brokers who are under contract but I would (were I a legacy AGE broker) be think the best case scenario would be a prorated amount… I think you are kidding yourselves if you are going to get identical retention to a guy who isn’t currently under contract
They wanted East Coast bank deposits - they ridded themselves of Piper years ago, b/c at the end of the day - though you and I may believe the brokerage business is a viable business entity - They don’t. Actions speak louder than words, and from what I’ve seen, thus, far they (WFC) are woefully short on both counts.
Clearly you do not know much about WS then. WS is unique among the national scale firms. The break even point is about 450,000 for ML that is precisely why the pay out for brokers doing under 300 drops off so steeply. It really amazes me how little people in this business seem to understand how compensation and why firms set grids the way they do. It is also why Wachovia is much closer in pay out grid to regionals verse the SB, UBS, MS and ML of the world. A broker at WS doing 250 IS PROFITABLE to the firm at ML, SB, UBS and MS they are not.
You cant compare Piper to a firm that is #2 in head count. Its apples and oranges in comparison. None of WS main competitors is even remotely close in terms of profitability... not even same zip code close. If WFC was so dead set against brokerage business they wouldn't have nearly 3500 brokers as a part of the bank.
Frankly, if they didn't want the brokerage they would have structured the offer similar to Citi.... its pretty clear you didn't think this through or you do not work for WFC or WS.
WFC wanted the entire firm and knew they were getting it for a song and dance. The bank is HIGHLY profitable once the mtg debacle is factored out of the equation.
Wells has a MASSIVE tax credit, paid next to nothing for the entire bank and was forced to take TARP money. They are in a very good position financially and I simply do not see the circumstances by which they low ball producers. It serves no positive purpose to drive people out. The firm is highly profitable and it would be a very, very poor decision to blow up the firm it simply makes no sense to toss away a highly profitable division of the bank.
[quote=BukiRob2] [quote=ryedog123] [quote=Go_Long]I don’t see why it should be “LESS” anything. [/quote]
Completely agree. We (legacy AGE reps) were given a retention for being purchased by Wachovia Corp. Now we are being purchased again. Completely unrelated. Why would we be penalized b/c we received a retention for a PREVIOUS merger unrelated to this one. We don't even know for certain what our name is going to be. We are receiving questions AGAIN wondering how this new merger is going to effect them. Other questions that I have include: what is going to happen to our 401k? We already took it under the chin when we converted from AGE's 401k to Wachovia's. How about other benefits? AGE reps received a temporary transition subsidy that ends at the end of 2009 to help us transition from better AGE benefits to the higher cost Wachovia benefits. Now what changes can we and our clients expect with the Wells merger? Some reasons why we better get a retention. [/quote]
I think if you believe that WFC isn't going to prorate your retention you are fooling yourself. You SIGNED a contract and there is the difference. Legacy WS did not sign a contract and received no money up front. Here is the difference and there are several presidencies for this. Have a former co worker who left to take over a relatives business with Advest who was within 6 months purchased by Merrill. This particular individual absolutely despised M.L. Not only did he NOT get a retention bonus ( he was under contract with Advest) but, he was not able to leave Advest without having to pay back the prorated portion of his contact. It wasn't his choice to stay with M.L. AND he was not compensated for being acquired.
I do not know what WFC is or is not going to do with legacy AGE brokers who are under contract but I would (were I a legacy AGE broker) be think the best case scenario would be a prorated amount... I think you are kidding yourselves if you are going to get identical retention to a guy who isn't currently under contract [/quote] I don't disagree with you. I do expect the retention to prorated for AGE reps under contact. My point it is not right for the retention to be prorated b/c this is a seperate transaction. Other AGE reps have said the same thing. Plus, it works out better for me if it isn't prorated. Hopefully, Danny sees it my way.