Wachovia layoffs
101 RepliesJump to last post
Layoffs at Wellwachedwards? That wouldn't surpise me a bit. Wachovia is the old Prudential and those folks were pricks of the first order. Masters at ripping off clients, clusterf**ks when it came to running a profitable business, and no problem blaming everyone but themselves. That they would fire any broker is just the same old same old.
I've never met anyone who was happy at Pru/Wach. Shame that Edwards sold out to them. The culture shock from going from a honest management to Wells/wach should have been enough to force most of Edwards sales force to commit suicide just out of honor. Now, those who chose to stay with the dirtbag company get to pay for that decision.It's all based on circumstances. I have a buddie at a WS branch, he said there are 6 brokers, 23 empty offices/cubes. How can the breakeven be 200K+ in that case. I would think a guy doing 150K would be far better than the desk collecting dust.Bud, you’re pretty close on the break even at $150-$200k. It’ obviously different in every branch. I know my buddy who manages a Morgan Stanley office had to get $227k per FA last year to break even based on his branch P&L. That’s in a branch with about 25 FAs in a decent market. Clearly bigger offices with a lot of top end producers can afford more trainees, and more dead weight. In small market offices with say… 10-12 FAs, even though overhead is typically lower, I can’t imagine the number being much less.
[quote=fritz]
It's all based on circumstances. I have a buddie at a WS branch, he said there are 6 brokers, 23 empty offices/cubes. How can the breakeven be 200K+ in that case. I would think a guy doing 150K would be far better than the desk collecting dust. [/quote] Sounds like an office up for consolidation or closure, especially if they had advisors doing 150k.[quote=Buckeye][quote=fritz]
It's all based on circumstances. I have a buddie at a WS branch, he said there are 6 brokers, 23 empty offices/cubes. How can the breakeven be 200K+ in that case. I would think a guy doing 150K would be far better than the desk collecting dust. [/quote] Sounds like an office up for consolidation or closure, especially if they had advisors doing 150k.[/quote]6 advisors, 23 open cubes?... sounds like an office in a particular city in Northern CA that will go unnamed as to not thoroughly embarrass the manager. That WFA office has bled brokers from 30+ down to 5 or 6 there as of a few weeks back. In fact, I don't think the former manager is even there anymore.
Sounds like my AGE Branch…9 Brokers and 9-10 empty offices. out of the 9 left I would say 1 is about 450k and two are about 350k everyone else is 250k and under with 3 probably under 150k…pretty sad.
I have been following things and finally registered and saw the layoffs discussion - is this just really rumor, we have never had a layoff in 20 years in my office and no matter what people make they just go on forever. we have new hired people here for 2 and more years who are not anywhere near their prod . levels and they are never let go.
they either leave on their own eventually or just keep working so has anyone actually seen someone let go ?? we have about four who are using up space now - one was actually hired as a fc -word in ISG is if you are annualizing less than 250k as of Jun 30, you will be gone. I dont know this for fact but was told that individuals who are in this category have been advised of this. I dont doubt this possibility any longer, seeing what happened at UBS.
Are the old wachovia ISG groups with wells fargo banks now ?
It truly is just rumor that anyone will get laid off , with all that have left on their own, maybe we can get better service now with less people to tend too. \ If they get rid of our office laggards it would be amazing and a good thing because they are using up service help too . . I am one of those old pru people and not all were as someone described as negative. there are always good and bad in every branch and every firm . and not all AGE people were grand - the AGE people I have met are arrogant and think they were the best thing going and from who I have met not many are anyone i would be friends with the attitude they have. I am tired of hearing how wonderful age was and I loved it at pru but dont go on and on about how good i was treated and we did have contact with the higer ups at pru and we were a close group overall ..I wish it was just a rumor. I heard from a person in a regional president’s office that it was coming. Then I came to this board and someone had started this discussion. So my feeling is that the person from the RP’s office has never lied to me before, and had no reason to lie about this. I was told that it takes some time to make this happen but it is going to happen. There are lots of legal issues to work through.
I know my production is high enough, but we have a couple in the office who could be in trouble. I guess nearly every legacy AGE office probably has a few in trouble. Remember when the merger was announced Danny talked about the difference in production between AGE and Wach. Danny said the goal was to have the average be somewhere closer to the Wach numbers. There are only a few ways to do that. Many thought Wach had some magic way to get more production from the AGE people. AGE people do not want to believe that the easiest way to increase the average is to cut off the low producers.
I am legacy AGE and realized along time ago that the firm I grew up in is gone. Others have not, they complain about everything. I do not want to see people loose jobs. But I have already seen an unprofitable office closed, other offices merged, and even more lost support staff. So why is it so hard to believe that broker cuts are not possible.
The notion that low producers do not cost the firm anything is false. Edwards lived by it and we believed it. But it is not true. For every broker there is a lot of home/local office staff.
We work for a bank and were sold to another bank. The world has changed. AGE was client first, Wach told us upfront that they were broker first. What did you think that meant? No company puts low producing sales people first. Broker first… as long as you are a big producer.
FWIW. Someone who returned from a trip from HQ was told letters are going out to low producers.
I have been told directly by 2 reliable sources that there is going to be significant pressure on FAs < $300k. Wells management is not going to be very tolerant of the bottom 1/3rd of producers and pressure is on WFA management to make major changes. If you know anything about the Wells Fargo bank based advisory program, you’d know there’s zero love for FAs < $500k at the very least.
Under 300k? So that would mean a big chunk of the sales force would be pressured in light of the past 12 months falling production. Doesn't sound like it's going to be a fun place to be especially if you're legacy AGE.I have been told directly by 2 reliable sources that there is going to be significant pressure on FAs < $300k. Wells management is not going to be very tolerant of the bottom 1/3rd of producers and pressure is on WFA management to make major changes. If you know anything about the Wells Fargo bank based advisory program, you’d know there’s zero love for FAs < $500k at the very least.
I heard something little different from hays and ludeman. Anyone doing under 750 will be canned by June 30. Any other reliable sources?
It’s not fun to be in any of the wires < $300k. Your production is down, AND the grid is pretty unforgiving, although it’s been better for WFA guys in that respect this year, at least for the time being.
Two in our market have 2 months to do a certain number, which considering what they have done in the last 4+ months is unreachable. Both are under 150K.
What did you hear about the trainees at Wells Fargo getting let go?
If so, what is their requirement?
Anyone see the email where WFC is changing pay to twice monthly starting Jan 2010?