I find it hilarious how upset all the major brokers are at there firms...however...everybody just rants and raves. Its all about me and the money they can get. How about the clients.....
Has Mike Rice et all...Pru management really ran this company into the ground...How be specific...
Give out some facts...How has it hurt the client....or the brokers.
Who knows you might get mgmt's attention....and if your points are valid you may do the investment world a favor...otherwise you are a clown...and management did make some horrible mistakes...letting you manage peoples money...then again these guys might be idiots...but spell it out, be specific and grow up.
Hopefully your now offended enough to tell your story (or do you even have a story)....
I'm not sure....sounds like sour grapes...otherwise be specific.
It certainly does. It is one thing to pile account fees on the client, having nothing to do with the markets. But it is another to actually steal a portion of actual market yields the client is earning. What would they do next, steal 10% of a clients semi-annual bond coupons, or 20% of their dividends? Rice, Umstead and Co. were actually really proud of this one and bragged how it would raise something like $30 or $40 million, don't remember the exact number, but absolutely no thought to fairness to the client--wasn't even an issue. It is shocking that the financial press didn't get a hold of this one and expose this management team for what they are--cynically anti-client and cynically anti-broker.
The real rub on the new money market is that the client will pay taxes on the diffence in yield as phantom income. I heard our FA council is up in arms about this issue. Lets wait and see what happens. But it may be the first real test for WB management . Lets see how client centered the new folks at Wb are.
This smells like one of Rice's sleazy deals. If it goes through, it really stinks to high heaven.
If anyone believes in contrarian signals...
banks are now spining or thinking of spining the retail arms off...they were so eager to buy them in 99 and 2000 (at the peaking of the bull market)...
perhaps they are selling at the bottom and we are set for a turn???
RY is not happy with Dain, but Dain is happy with RY. Without RY, Dain boys and girls would have been starving last year. Yes, RY is looking to buy a bank this year. I have friends at an old employer (ALcan) that are pretty cozy with RY types and you are right, they are not happy with Dain Rauscher's contributions to the bottom line at all.
RY types have told Dain types to "step it up and clean it up" this year "or else."
You want specific, how about the tale of the Client Satsifaction Survey and the NCC. Once upon a time there was a client satisfaction survey that didn't go particularily well. It seems that the people with the least amount of money with us overall liked us the least (imagine that). So instead of finding ways to work with and improve our standing with these people and forgetting that many large asset clients began as smaller accounts (that was totally discounted as myth)I guess we figured we could kill two birds with one NCC stone. If we banish those too small to count (forget that we're in a bear market) we can get rid of the folks that like us the least and raise the next client satisfation survey by double digits. We really wouldn't have increased the number of clients who say they like us, only exiled those that don't to Phoenix. And won't that make management look really fab.
From a previous post that asked the same question
In 2000 Jamie Price embarked on a recruiting campaign that forced the "price" of brokers up to 150% of the previous years gross. At one point over 70% of these brokers could not muster 50% of that number. Jamie pushed up the price by offering 150% to Dean witter brokers because they were hitting the firm very hard. once the word got out that the deals were at this level no one would come to psi for much less. This over hanging debt from these deals accounts for much of the losses at psi. The strategies such as expensive client polling, 4 question "financial plans", in branch "client navigator positions", expensive technology spending, and finally a ridiculous, :financial Checkup" program that went largly ignored by clients and brokers. Mercifully Jamie slinked out the door. Unfortunately he left behind the shattered remnants of a once very good firm. He doubled the pain by leaving it in the hands of inexperienced neophytes whose only real skill seems to be self promotion and self adulation. Shame that this happened but something should have been done four years ago when it became clear that jamie was in over his head
Also going forward these are the seeds that they sowed ;
There are very likely to be huge retention problems going forward with all the FA'
1. Wachovia FA's come from regional firms and are not excited about the prospect of working at a large firm, particulalry one run by Pru people.No doubt Rice will keep his freak show in place to manage the retail system Many will leave for a regional firm, Legg, Advest. Janey etc
2. The PSI FA's HATE Rice , Umstead, Carroll etc. These are the idiots that ran the firm into the ground and then gave it away . psi fa's will be looking also. No matter what the gross someone will hire them. Bigger guys will go to UBS, SSB and smaller will also find a nice home at a regional.
3. The simplistic red dot - green dot system of personnel management has caused some big problems. When the opinion surveys come back that 84% of the firm think senior management cannot be trusted they ignored it. If someone speaks up they are a red dot. This is how they managed to think they were actually doing a good job, they surrounded themselves with Green dots (people who tell them how great they are)
4. The world has changed for a lot of people this past week. Lives will be disrupted and careers changed, but getting away from PRU will in the end be a blessing. This is a firm that has been on fumes for 2 years. Ryan never made an attempt to bring in quality management when wick left. He put a part time ceo who thought brokers were scum in to watch over the firms sale. He left Price, rice et al spin out one stupid idea after another. It must have been a laugh riot at the competition as these guys came out with blueprint, checkup on and on and on. Now rice sold wb a line of
what is really amazing about this message board is the fact that this the only forum for honest dialog at the firm. I have seen alot of message boards but none have th evolume of this one. it is also interesting that the opinions are all virtually the same regarding management. It is a sad testament to PSI to be sure.
Speakup, you only need to talk to an employee candidly, without reprisal and you will see what a mess this is (I am assuming you are in senior management at psi or a reporter)
As a former long term PSI employee (actually back to the Bache days), it pains me to read about how the firm has spiraled down. That's why I got out last year. Saw the writing on the wall. I agree with others on this board that PSI ceased to exist as a viable place to work with the departure of Wick Simmons. Bringing in a long side guy to run the firm (JS) was a big mistake. Running a broker dealer is totally different from running Pru Investments. The talent drain over the last two years has been devastating. Even in operations- there are few people left who know how to do anything if the 'system' is down. I saw a lot of seasoned pros leave before I did. PSI is paying the price.
I think you're misreading the frustration of Pru Brokers. Most who are with the firm either went through or started about the time of the Limited Partner fiasco. Most retail investors see the "serpent on the rock" and assume it was a Pru specific issue. The truth is that Merrill and Painwebber sold far more limited partnerships than did Pru. The major difference was in how the restitution was dealt with. Merrill and Painewebber chose to quitely deal with clients in arbitration. Pru's upper management decided to ignore clients.
Then a few years ago Pru Brokers had to deal with the embarassment of Pru insurance agents churning insurance policies.
All during this period of time, Pru's peer's at Smith Barney, Painewebber and Merrill Lynch ALL have various stock option and deferred compensation programs that put Pru's peers far ahead financially. Still many high quality people stayed with Pru ALL through these trials.
Management has consistently been a laggard with rewarding its employees. I find it deeply insincere of clients who feel they deserve to be rewarded in there feild of work and expect to be compensated in accordance with what is industry standard and yet, the broker isnt supposed to have the same benefit as YOU? Isnt that being very hypocritical?
I have been with Prudental for several years and went through all of the above mentioned challenges.
The unending series of poor decisions by Upper management started when Wick Simmons left Pru. Art Ryan and his group have never made any serious attempts to put top flight management people in place at PSI. Jamie Price had no where near the level of experience to run a firm the size of PSI. Mike Rice has never even been a branch manager and now, he is going to run the entire private client group of the 3rd larges firm on wall street? What kind of stupidity is that? While we are at it why dont we take an FA in training and put him in charge of the New York or Manhatten office?
How about putting a guy in charge with ZERO experience. Heck, Im as qualified to be the head of private client group by the standards established!
Specific enough for you?
So far you are the only one I can respect on this board....if posters want to impact stockholders or mgmt or fellow lurkers... they should be specific...most of these clowns just rant and rave and talk about 75% payouts....me me me. Your post is a start in the right direction...at some point your disatisfaction may be taken seriously...but you have to admit most of these guys are clowns.....then again maybe mgmt is as bad as some say and the rock will sink(pun intended)....but be specific.
To the others....
What Mgmt decisions should have been done differently? Why? How did this impact the client or the brokers. Was it mgmt or your lack of due-dilligence. How did mgmt hurt your ability to be a good broker or are you just a loser..whining like most of the others. Thinking about himself,crying over some master share benefit while your clients are getting killed. Trapped by your own mistakes, the economy and your weak persona. Is this personal...am I talking to you....( or should I be talking to Mgmt)....be specific.
Very well said. But it has all been said before, and you are leaving out many dozens of sad episodes, and the dreaded initiatives, such as NCC, a loser which took clients and assets away from brokers--in a bear market--and lost millions. And then there was the Client Satisfaction Survey, which for the cost of millions over a number of years told senior managment sommething startling: that satisfied clients give brokers more assets, do more business, and give more referrals. Now THERE is a revelation! And the piling on of additional fees to clients, also in a bear market, to help pay for the firm's numerous recruiting blunders. And how about reducing money fund yields to clients, defying the markets and sticking it to folks who think staying in cash might be a good idea, which also was designed to help pay for recruiting blunders, as well as pay for the fat bonuses given to senior management brought in (or BOUGHT in) from other firms? THAT's taking care of your clients!
That specific enough?
Read the last 500 posts on this board. There is very little ranting and raving. There are instead some very insightful comments. I am sure that those who read this board are aware that they have outside options, and some will exercise them. Some will not. All have the right to speak in this forum, unlike those who who are employed at Pru, who do not have that freedom. There are literally dozens and dozens of "specifics" on this board, you just have to take the time to read them.
You're asking for a long and sad story. One episode: WB is now looking at PS business units. The first question the WB manager asked was about the bottom line of a unit. No PS exec has asked that question in the past four years. May not hurt a broker or client, but sure helps guarantee that PS didn't survive as a going business.