Roll Call- Who's Walking from MER
205 RepliesJump to last post
No movement this Friday, but many of the guys in our office are feverishly meeting with the competition- one guy had dinner, breakfast, and lunch meetings the last couple of days....he says he is a free agent and will make his decision this upcoming week, and be gone by the 14th. I am in a pretty good sized office and everyone seems to be highly engaged with the competition.....I have to admit I don't feel any loyalty anymore- really sad.
I will say the people who are the most active about their options in my office are the biggest producers. The small and medium sized guys seem content to stick around and take their chances. The odd thing is the medium size guys have been in the business longer than half of the big producers. I think they are content to slowly increase their business, while the big guys are not satisified with being average or close to it.
For the long-term, mid-level producers, it makes sense. They probably don’t do much heavy lifting anymore, so why not just take some cash to sit and do the same thing, and not worry about moving your book?
"best and brightest" Just curious, been in the biz awhile and wondering what that means? SAT Score, Series 7 Score, IQ, married the richest wife..help me out.. please do not tell me it is determined by AUM or t-12..because what I have seen 99% of time these are among the lower educated group in regards to market knowledge.No movement in our office but many excellent FAs are speaking openly about their plans to leave. ML will not be the same as the best and brightest walk out the door. It’s a shame.
It would be good to see the big producing ML guys get some entrepreneurial spirit, not take it up the pie hole from Ken Lewis, and cut their own deals. The quote by the billion dollar team that they could have gotten twice as much as Ray Jay gave was impressive I thought.
Gekko, can you elaborate on that situation? What happened specifically with the team in question?
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081023/FREE/810229973/1028/BROKERDEALERSGekko, can you elaborate on that situation? What happened specifically with the team in question?
“We are not going because of the paycheck,’’ Mr. Nemes said, noting that they received “less than half of what we could have gotten somewhere else.”
I was only off by $500 million in terms of AUM but their quote (listed above) was spot on.
That’s a great story. I’m an ex BofA employee from another department and can tell this is just not going to work in any way. It will either become a huge disaster or eventually lead to a situation similar to Schwab in which the firm is eventually spun off.
BAI was trying to recruit me a while back and everything they promised in terms of leveraging the “size and scope” didn’t come to fruition, at least for a co-worker who went there and has since left to go indy.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out- is this all a lot of talk or will people really leave. One things for sure, McCann & Sontag have clearly demonstrated their loyalty is to Ken Lewis and not the FAs. Screw them.
[quote=Phan2om]It will be interesting to see how this plays out- is this all a lot of talk or will people really leave. [/quote]
There is always more smoke than fire, but there will be some fire. I would estimate only a very small percentage the people you hear threatening will actually leave. Leaving is scary and there are countless excuses one can always find NOT to. The vast majority will continue to travel this well worn path of least resistance. It's just human nature. If you doubt it, just go back and read some old posts here from others who went through mergers or take overs in past years. You'll notice that very few of those threatenting to leave actually left. This will be no different. "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Or for those who prefer more contemporary material, Yoda said it pretty well: "Do, or do not. There is no try."My guess is that the FA’s that are really goal-oriented and want to grow their practices will seriously consider leaving (either to go indy or another firm).
Those that are near retirement or are just content will probably take their check and stay put. For a lot of them, it might be tough to find "greener grass" anywhere else. These days, there aer few firms that have been left untainted (or better yet, it proves that you never know what might happen to any firm).There has been a lot of talk in my office and also the other offices in my complex. What I find to be amazing is how candid every FA seems to have been about the offers they are receiving. While no one has said that they are leaving, they have certainly checked out what else is out there.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
What I’ve been hearing is that the problem isn’t just the money; it’s the contract that they have to sign. Most everyone expects that BoA will slowly reduce payout but the bigger problem would be if BoA took Merrill out of the protocol network. The way that the contract is worded, the departing advisor would not be able to contact any of their clients once ML is removed from the protocol network. Wouldn’t the same problem exist if a ML advisor went to LPL or some other non-protocol place?
--WM
[quote=WealthManager]</O:P>
What I’ve been hearing is that the problem isn’t just the money; it’s the contract that they have to sign. Most everyone expects that BoA will slowly reduce payout but the bigger problem would be if BoA took Merrill out of the protocol network. The way that the contract is worded, the departing advisor would not be able to contact any of their clients once ML is removed from the protocol network. Wouldn’t the same problem exist if a ML advisor went to LPL or some other non-protocol place?[/quote]
I'm not an attorney, so take this with a grain of salt, but I did go through this process using the Protocol (with legal counsel guiding me) this year so I have a layman's knowledge. First, if either of the firms involved are not signatories to the Protocol, then the terms of the agreement are not binding. Instead, the 'old' rules (or lack thereof) apply, with the result often being the departing broker is prohibited from taking client info but ignores this and does it anyway, and is then sometimes the target of TROs or other legal maneuvers by the old B/D. This then generally leads to some negotiated financial settlement paid to the old B/D to 'compensate' them for the loss of 'their' client. Those who have been in the industry for a while are very familiar with this crazy approach. That is what you should expect if even one firm is not a Protocol signatory, whether that firm is ML or LPL or anyone. Even if the new b/d is a signatory but yours is not, the terms of the agreement do not apply. I would assume it is a separate and distinct issue legally if - quite aside from this Protocol issue - you choose to sign a new contract that imposes broader restrictions on your ability to move and take clients with you. Presumably if you get some value in exchange for agreeing to this new restriction - such as a retention bonus - this would be viewed as you freely entering into a contract in exchange for the new benefits they offered. Bottom line is you should make sure before signing any new contract that you clearly understand the legal implications. Ignorance of what you were signing is no defence, assuming you are of sound mind and under no duress.[quote=shredder]
does anyone "know" what happens if someone desides NOT to sign the agreement?
[/quote] I don't "know", but I can "guess" it would be an uncomfortable situation.[quote=conage][quote=shredder]
does anyone "know" what happens if someone desides NOT to sign the agreement?
[/quote] I don't "know", but I can "guess" it would be an uncomfortable situation.[/quote]Shredder hits the nail on the head.
The answer to this question is too important for anyone directly involved to be content with a guess, or worrying about making someone uncomfortable. You have every right to insist on clear facts, including what happens if you don't choose to sign an entirely new and more restrictive employment agreement.
Do you think management expects no one will ask this obvious question? Do you think you have no choice but to sign whatever is put in front of you?
Come on, guys - reach down and check to see if you can find anything hanging down south! If not, grow a pair!
At least one guy in my office who was spitting nails when the package came out now sounds as if he is not going anywhere. It would surprise me if he leaves although his departure would be understandable, as would it be for another quarter of the office.
It will be very interesting to see how many guys are willing to cut the cord and either head to another firm or go indy. One big team in our office has been upset with management for quite some time. I think this will be the final nail in the coffin and will send them out the door.