i applied to one of those jobs not knowing any better. I got to the interview and they gave me a real basic math test to take. Me and the other guys taking it with me all passed. They said it was the first time a whole group of interviewees had passed. Anyways, they then told me I had to pass the series 7 and that if i didnt attend their on site review class everynight for 2 hours for a month that i would unequivocally fail. They asked me to come back for another round for I dont even know what, but i politely declined. It’s a real salesman type role and if you are not comfortable selling (I’m not) then i advise against it.
oskigo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sure index funds work fine for those without any > real net worth. but with ultra high net worth > individuals (which are the people any successful > FA must have) their circumstances are more > complicated and many financial advisors can add > significant value in that regard. I would say you’re right. But I also think that the appropriate financial advisor for these types of clients will not be your typical brokerage firm. These clients are best handled by a family office type firm that can manage/quarterback all aspects of the clients financial affairs. There are wealth managers I know that have 10 or fewer clients. One family office I know of deals exclusively with just 1 client.
Dapper425 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i applied to one of those jobs not knowing any > better. I got to the interview and they gave me a > real basic math test to take. Me and the other > guys taking it with me all passed. They said it > was the first time a whole group of interviewees > had passed. Anyways, they then told me I had to > pass the series 7 and that if i didnt attend their > on site review class everynight for 2 hours for a > month that i would unequivocally fail. They asked > me to come back for another round for I dont even > know what, but i politely declined. It’s a real > salesman type role and if you are not comfortable > selling (I’m not) then i advise against it. I think I worked at this firm. It sure was a racket. They would discourage advisors from learning about capital markets and instead encourage them to market, market, market for clients. Most of the time you were told to prospect your friends and family which I was not comfortable with.
jimmylegs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would say you’re right. But I also think that > the appropriate financial advisor for these types > of clients will not be your typical brokerage > firm. These clients are best handled by a family > office type firm that can manage/quarterback all > aspects of the clients financial affairs. There > are wealth managers I know that have 10 or fewer > clients. One family office I know of deals > exclusively with just 1 client. well family offices really dont make much sense unless you have over 50 mil in my experience. i do believe that anyone with under a mil liquid probably would pay a lot more using a FA and not see significant benefits besides peace of mind.
I guess my argument is that if you’re dealing with the general investment public and you’re going to diversify those clients into mutual funds, those clients would be better off in no-load index funds that don’t suffer from turnover (short-term gains), expenses, and management fees. My experience in those firms was that mutual funds were pushed heavily, particularly proprietary funds.
jimmylegs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I guess my argument is that if you’re dealing with > the general investment public and you’re going to > diversify those clients into mutual funds, those > clients would be better off in no-load index funds > that don’t suffer from turnover (short-term > gains), expenses, and management fees. > > My experience in those firms was that mutual funds > were pushed heavily, particularly proprietary > funds. most reputable firms have gotten away from pushing proprietary funds after all the lawsuits following the dotcom bust. any generally nothing is “pushed” except that mutual funds have higher comissions than say a wrap account (or a pm account or something) which obviously gives the broker a bigger incentive to sell them.
oskigo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimmylegs Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I guess my argument is that if you’re dealing > with > > the general investment public and you’re going > to > > diversify those clients into mutual funds, > those > > clients would be better off in no-load index > funds > > that don’t suffer from turnover (short-term > > gains), expenses, and management fees. > > > > My experience in those firms was that mutual > funds > > were pushed heavily, particularly proprietary > > funds. > > > most reputable firms have gotten away from pushing > proprietary funds after all the lawsuits following > the dotcom bust. any generally nothing is > “pushed” except that mutual funds have higher > comissions than say a wrap account (or a pm > account or something) which obviously gives the > broker a bigger incentive to sell them. Well I guess the business has changed somewhat since I left. But the wrap accounts and access to equity managers do have minimums correct? When I left a client needed to have minimum $100,000 for a wrap account and/or the managed equity firms. Oh well I don’t want to argue. I just think there are alternatives for bright eager young college grads than getting into this business if it’s something they’re not sure about. I think they would be better served selling something more tangible with a defined benefit.
jimmylegs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Well I guess the business has changed somewhat > since I left. But the wrap accounts and access to > equity managers do have minimums correct? When I > left a client needed to have minimum $100,000 for > a wrap account and/or the managed equity firms. > > Oh well I don’t want to argue. I just think there > are alternatives for bright eager young college > grads than getting into this business if it’s > something they’re not sure about. I think they > would be better served selling something more > tangible with a defined benefit. if you only have 100K you’d probably be better off in loaded A shares than a wrap account. don’t get me wrong there are definetly a lot of slimeball FAs, but there are also many very good ones that do right by their client. do they cost more than vanguard? certainly. but that doesn’t make them all slimeball salesmen. you have hedge fund managers charging 2% and 20% of the profits, yet those people aren’t considered slimeball salesmen ripping people off on this board. For a large account i’d say most FAs who manage their own accounts charge 1% for equities and .5% for fixed income. which one is a bigger rip off? people here are insecure because they see FAs making big money working 40 hours a week and yes they have better people skills than most here too. that doesn’t make them stupid or scam artists.
100k into A shares? So your recommendation is that you are best off by dropping somewhere between $4,500-5,700 to get into the fund? Rather than no loads or etfs or indiv equities or whatever else? What exactly am I getting for that 5k, your expert selection of a MF manager…and thats it? Steep. Interesting reco considering those A shares payout the most to the FA…oh wait, thats not interesting, that is just the truth.
noooooo. i’m suggesting that IF you use a FA and have 100K you should buy A shares and therefore you are paying the front end load and not a 1-1.5% load every year. I previously said I dont’ suggest using an FA unless you have over a mil liquid.
“Re: Financial Advisors are well-dressed used car salesman” This is such a generalization. I know plenty of Financial Advisors who dress poorly and plenty of used car salesmen (and women) who dress well. What an insult… Oh, and when I was a broker in a past life, a sales manager said, “People like to do what they’re good at.” I hated being a broker (I wasn’t good at it) but I am not bitter and would not make such generalizations. Let’s face it…there are plenty of analysts, IBers, hedge fund managers, police officers, politicians, Mary Kay reps, doctors, priests, teachers, etc. that are unscrupulous. Okay, not sure about the Mary Kay reps (not even sure if that’s how you spell it).
load funds are so hopelessly misunderstood by retail investors, and apparently finance professionals as well. there is a 100k breakpoint on most load funds that limits the commish to ~3% depending on the fund family. that commish steps down to 0% for breakpoints over 1M. if an advisor can’t provide 3k in value over the expected multi year holding period well then…
CFAdummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know someone at UBS at their FA program. He told > me their salaries were in the 50’s to 60’s to > start. What is the daily life of an FA like? Hi there, CFAdummy. My salary was actually $36K/year, and this was in '02. MerrillLynch paid $60K/year base. In both jobs, you show up early. At UBS, since this was on Pacific Daylight/Mean Time, I had to show up at 6:30 AM. However, I would show up at 6:00 AM at first, but this changed to 7 as day light saving time changed. I would read and and study a LOT on my job and learn the products, softwares, wall street journal’s Money and Investing, etc. From 8:30 AM onwards, I was prospecting the retirees of the city that I lived in. I was part of a team of 2 other more senior, SLEAZY, guys who were older. So I prospected, one team mate would “warm walk” their homes. another words, when I got a good lead that I wrote up information on, this guy would show up at their homes unannounced. This actually worked well, as this guy was 60 or so, and he made a good connection. Anyways, the final guy on the team would do the post-sales/account management. He had the most seniority and tenure at UBS, and once again, he was a SLEAZE BALL. These guys created a modern-day slavery situation and indentured servitude situation there. By being on their team, I was guaranteed to be at “3/3” - that is level 3 in assets under management and level 3 in production. NOTE: the 3 is *NOT* a quintile, since over 80% leave within a year, and anyone who’s at 4 and 5 were doing very bad, and they’d be asked to leave (i.e. they’d get fired). Anyways, regarding the indentured servitude: So I’m working from 6:30 AM - 8:30 PM at night, and every saturday hustling very hard to get leads. I’m working with these 2 sleazeballs who’d always play mind games, who’d tell quite a few ethnic jokes, and your SURVIVORSHIP is at the hands of this team. Since they kept you at the borderline level of staying in the job and getting fired, you were at their mercy. Also, if your teammates didn’t like you, they’d ask you to leave the team, and within a week, you’re fired from the company, since your employment is dangling by a thread. This was the most stressful, low-paying, and sleazy job that I’ve ever had, but going to Weehawken for 3 weeks rocked at UBS.
KJH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a big difference between a 22 year old > registered rep at a large shop and a 55 year old > independent fee based advisor. Yes because the 55 year old has more innovative and discreet ways to screw the fvck out of you, whereas the 22 year old is more naive and righteous.
RycherX Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > boston_level2, > > I guess you couldn’t cut it. No worries man…I > couldn’t either . Though you didn’t meet your > expectations in sales at the wirehouse, you may > succeed in other sales roles. > Nothing wrong with being a salesman. When you’re > higher up on the food chain at an Ibank, PE, or > HF, you’ll work in some sort of sales capacity. > > Sales is a very broad function ranging from > Creative outside sales (financial advisor) “Eat > what you Hunt” > to inside sales (bank brokerage advisor) “Eat what > you’re fed”. > > Granted if you’re a natural, the former would be > more lucrative, taking extraordinary talent. > However, the latter where most of us belong can > bring home well enough bacon. For me, I’m looking > for a career where I can use my MBA/CFA charter > and work to enhance the bank’s existing > relationships to bring in new business. Rycher, Thanks for the kind words. After a lot of stumbling in the world, I do think that sales is right for me - though not retail financial advisory. Good luck my friend.
jimmylegs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I worked for a total for 4 different firms in 3 > years, hoping that the grass would be greener at > the next place. It was never greener because each > place was exactly the same. I did this right out > of college. Now that I am 33, I look back and > wonder how can any kid right out of college be > giving financial advice and selling financial > products. It’s all about transactions. Every > placed I worked I was told “Don’t be an analyst.” > The firms want their advisors to understand as > little about the investments as possible. They > just want sales. It boggles my mind how a 22 year old, with acne, and blue-collar sentiments can relate to a 60 year old, golfaholic, high networth client. It’s not going to happen. however, exploiting 22 year old Americans is not as frowned upon as exploiting the Malaysian/Vietnamese soccer ball stitcher who never takes bathroom breaks. I don’t know why, but it’s true. > I actually sold cars for 2 months as well in > between jobs. I would say that car sales is > actually a more honorable postion. A good car > salesman will know his products so basically the > buyer knows what he is getting. The seasoned car > salesman has a book of returning customers who > trust him and these car salesmen make bank. Used car salesman do, IMHO, contribute more to society than financial advisors. here in Bosotn, I was on a subway, and some random guy in front of his 2 other young friends, was nosy about my profession, and he tried being my best friend. it was odd and tacky, but that’s what they’re taught. a used car salesman, OTOH, are pretty professional sometimes. > From my experience, the seasoned financial advisor > knows nothing about investments. He basically > knows how to take advantage of customers’ > ignorance when it comes to investments. YOU ARE 100% CORRECT HERE! Also, the series 7 exam is VERY VERY VERY impertinent and unimportant. YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO USE THIS CRAP. I gaurantee that you’ve probably never sold an option, and options were the biggest part of the series 7. most Financial advisors don’t know anything about yield curve, they don’t know bretton-woods, today’s unemployment rate, the fed funds discount rate, the definition of Cash Flow from Operations! Heck, I swear to you that over a year into my job as a FA, it was then that I realized that the equity section of a balance sheet does *NOT* reflect the price of the equity! Prior to then, I thought that the company became wealthy when the stock did well. I actually used to post a lot to some blog sites asking very basic questions. > I realize > that’s a general statement, but having been in the > business I can honestly say from experience that > the vast majority of advisors, even the “Good” > ones, do not have the client’s interest at heart. You’re 100% right again. They’re sleaze balls. They take advantage of everyone, and they don’t know what the fvck they’re talking about. My experience with the people at MerrillLynch was slightly better, but I was duped by one of the FAs to take a Sandler Sales course. He was pressing me to do this using sleazy tactics, because the lady teaching it was a prospect of him. That WAS THE BIGGEST RIPOFF THAT I EVER DID, AND I LOST $2000 IN THAT. > If they did, they would just recommend index funds > to save the clients fees and expenses that just > erode their capital.
jimmylegs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oskigo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > sure index funds work fine for those without > any > > real net worth. but with ultra high net worth > > individuals (which are the people any > successful > > FA must have) their circumstances are more > > complicated and many financial advisors can add > > significant value in that regard. > > I would say you’re right. But I also think that > the appropriate financial advisor for these types > of clients will not be your typical brokerage > firm. These clients are best handled by a family > office type firm that can manage/quarterback all > aspects of the clients financial affairs. There > are wealth managers I know that have 10 or fewer > clients. One family office I know of deals > exclusively with just 1 client. I totally remember American Express paying $18K/year back then, and they recommended you to borrow money from your friends/family! I also remember another company…I can’t remember the name of the company, but htey had a pretty high rated municipal bond fund, and they paid $0 in salary, and it was pure commission. the branch manager was a former boy scout, and he acted VERY VERY polite and you’d feel sorry for him. he’d always convince us that “there is a *LOT* of money to be made here…”. I stuck around for a 3 days, and I took the Seriest 6 book with me. I believe that he, also, recommended us borrowing money from friends/family.
> if you only have 100K you’d probably be better off > in loaded A shares than a wrap account. don’t get > me wrong there are definetly a lot of slimeball > FAs, but there are also many very good ones that > do right by their client. do they cost more than > vanguard? certainly. but that doesn’t make them > all slimeball salesmen. you have hedge fund > managers charging 2% and 20% of the profits, yet > those people aren’t considered slimeball salesmen > ripping people off on this board. For a large > account i’d say most FAs who manage their own > accounts charge 1% for equities and .5% for fixed > income. which one is a bigger rip off? people > here are insecure because they see FAs making big > money working 40 hours a week and yes they have > better people skills than most here too. that > doesn’t make them stupid or scam artists. let me guess…oskigo is a financial advisor. it doesn’t make one bit of sense to spend $5000 on a $100,000 purchase of mutual funds. that’s the silliest thing in the world. also, the wrap account at UBS was called PACE, and it had a 1.5% fee associated with it (in ADDITION to the 1.4% that the average equity mutual fund charged). very STEEP! but you could do many transactions, and that was ok, but ~3%!!! why not put your money at fidelity, and pay less than 1%? Oskigo, 1% < 3%. FAs that I’ve seen are stupid, jock-types, and the ones with staying power there, are very handsome, sneaky, liars. anyone who isn’t photogenic, tall and handsome will not survive here. Oh yes, it helps to come from a rich family (and good looking) and not a minority, such as Indian, Chinese, Black, Hispanic. Believe me.
my former landlord is a FA at Citi. That guy is a sleezeball. i used to live in a rich suburb. the cops were driving around and i was unloading groceries from my bmw. the cop pulls up and asked whether i seen any black guys running around. i said no. i told the landlord what the cop said to me and he laughed and said “Good.” a few days later, he brings a black friend over for drinks. LOL
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/13/business/bias.php NEW YORK: For almost seven years, Glenn Capel has been a financial adviser in a busy Merrill Lynch office in Greensboro, North Carolina, but he says that he has never felt more isolated. For most of his time with Merrill,Capel said, he has been the only black financial adviser among about 40 employed there, or anywhere nearby. At the end of last year, he was one of only two in all of North and South Carolina, according to a racial-discrimination lawsuit against Merrill Lynch, the largest U.S. brokerage firm, that is seeking class-action status in federal court in Chicago. “It’s a lonely struggle,” said Capel, one of dozens of current and former Merrill brokers who asked to join the suit after it was filed last year. “Even Noah’s ark had two animals that were exactly alike.” Wall Street has long been seen as an exclusive club, and the discrimination suit against Merrill underscores that the industry is still struggling to overcome its reputation as a workplace where only white men are comfortable. In the last decade, the country’s three biggest brokerage firms - Merrill, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup - have paid more than $400 million to settle sex-discrimination suits filed by women. In an amended complaint filed this week, the plaintiffs in the race-discrimination case contended that Merrill had systemically limited the opportunities for blacks to succeed as brokers, denied them a fair chance to rise into management and retaliated against those who complained. Some of the brokers’ allegations involve offensive remarks and other slights, but the core of their complaint is economic. They are seeking a large monetary award and court- ordered initiatives to increase diversity in the ranks. Merrill Today in Business with Reuters EU inflation surge fuels debate over interest rates Group calls for higher interest rates worldwide to tackle inflation Oil’s new record high bolsters energy shares and lends support to stock indexes officials dispute many of the plaintiffs’ claims and say that the firm’s record on diversity is above the norm for Wall Street. But they also acknowledge that the firm has had an inadequate record of hiring and promoting blacks in its brokerage operation. Robert McCann, the president of Merrill’s global brokerage business, said that he and E. Stanley O’Neal, Merrill’s chairman and chief executive, were dissatisfied with the firm’s slow progress on diversity. "We’re not where I want us to be, where Stan wants us to be or where Merrill Lynch wants to be,"McCann said. Merrill presents a diverse face to the public, whose investments it wants to manage. O’Neal is the only African- American running a major Wall Street company and his management team includes several women and minorities. A current Merrill television commercialfeatures a black actor portraying one of the firm’s successful stockbrokers. In reality, though, as even Merrill officials concede, black brokers at the firm are rare and successful ones are much rarer. If this case is accepted as a class action, it could lead to the first trial of race-discrimination complaints against a major Wall Street firm, labor lawyers said. In another case pending in federal court, three black brokers are trying to press a discrimination class action against UBS, whose brokerage operation was previously known as PaineWebber. Complaints of discrimination within Merrill have existed for more than 30 years. The firm is still wrapping up a drawn-out legal battle with more than 900 women who worked for it. In the mid-1970s, Merrill settled another discrimination suit by promising that it would increase the racial and sexual diversity of its broker ranks, but the firm repeatedly fell short, saying that the goals it had agreed to were impossible to meet. Only 128 of Merrill’s full-fledged financial advisers were black at the end of last year out of the more than 14,000 sales people in its brokerage operations,according to an amended complaint filed this week. Merrill, which employs 55,000, has brokers in every state, but the suit contends that in more than half of them, the firm did not employ one black financial adviser at year-end. Among black Merrill brokers with at least 10 years of experience, half ranked in the bottom fifth in 2003 when it came to producing revenue for the firm, which is the main determinant of a broker’s income, according to the amended complaint. Among those with six to nine years’ experience, more than half were in the bottom fifth and none were in the top fifth, the complaint contends. While acknowledging the need to improve, McCann and other Merrill officials insist that the firm’s diversity record exceeds the industry norm. Blacks now account for 2.3 percent -about one in 45 - of the firm’s brokers and broker-trainees, McCann said. “Am I happy with 2.3 percent of my FAs being African-Americans?” he said. “No.” McCann also conceded that “there is an over-representation of African- American FAs in the lower quintiles” of production. But he added that the firm had some highly successful black financial advisers who do not share the plaintiffs’ complaints. Asked to make one of them available to comment for this article, Merrill officials declined.