I found this post to be so appalling that I had to bring it to the attention of readers of this blog.
Barry provides a great description of how a couple of honest brokers hurt themselves by taking great care of their customers. The motto for them is: No good deed goes unpunished.
Another blemish for an industry that doesn't have room for additional blemishes.
Addendum: 2/3/2009 7:40 PM
GMG comments: That's pathetic and very short-sighted. I'm pretty young, so can you tell me, has it always been like this in finance?
There was a time in America (and I assume elsewhere) when people had pride in their work. A time when guarantees and promises meant something. A time when people understood the meaning of having a fiduciary responsibility to the client. I don't understand how or when that disappeared, but it's a rarity these days. And Barry's post illustrates a fine example of people with integrity doing a good job. And they are the ones who were punished. It's very sad.
Over the past few years, risk takers were given greater and greater incentives to seek huge rewards. Among those with huge incentives where company CEOs. To earn those gigantic rewards, it's necessary to take huge risk. It's not so easy to have the integrity to keep risk under control, when the personal gains are so large (enough money to last a lifetime). Who can blame them for taking that risk – especially when they had nothing personally to lose (except perhaps a job)? Not everyone has the integrity to resist. And last year, those risk takers lost vast sums.
Consider the mortgage brokers who made high commissions by selling loans to people they knew would default. They knew their clients would never be able to make payments – yet they sold the mortgages anyway.
There are plenty of people who make a sale just to get their commissions, knowing that the customer is often shafted. Apparently this is common in today's brokerage world.
Integrity used to mean something to people. I don't know how we became a nation of people who care only for themselves and their cronies. Perhaps integrity can return to this land. I hope so.
Here' the post to which referred in te opening line. It's despicable.
Its fairly well known in the traditional retail investment world that the client and the advisor often have opposing, and sometimes contradictory, interests.
I sometimes forget just how much so in my little world of boutique asset management (We charge about ~1%). A conversation with a couple of brokers from a large firm that I can’t name (hint: Rhymes with Schmerrill) reminded my just how misaligned the incentive system is, and how screwed up it must be to work at a huge, publicly traded, mega asset management firm.
To wit: These two gents run a few $100 million dollars in managed accounts. They are mostly stock jockeys, but they have a smattering of bonds as well. Their assets are spread out amongst stocks they selected, in house managers, and other mangers on their firm’s platform. Typically, the clients are charged 1.0-1.25% on their assets. Various products (I hate that word) will pay the broker more or less depending upon the fund manager’s arrangements with the house.
As is typical of brokers with this size asset base and seniority, their payout was about ~43%.
Let’s do some quick math before we get to the heart of the conflict: On $300 million in assets, let’s call it $3.3 million dollars in gross revenue to the firm. That’s about $1.4 million to them, from which they pay a few sales assistants, T&E, etc. Thus, they each should be making about half million dollars annually before Uncle Sam takes his.
Here’s where things get interesting: Early in 2008, they moved aggressively into cash. (Obviously they are TBP readers). For most of the year, they run about 20% bonds, plus 5% percent stocks (some client would not sell). All told, about 75% of their asset base is in money market funds, which pays out essentially nothing to the broker — but preserves the clients investments. Late in the year, they put a toe back in the water.
Overall, the clients do very well. In a year where the markets are practically cut in half, their clients lose about 10%. The investors are ecstatic, and while the two brokers annual compensation was schmeissed — they went from over $3 million gross to under $1 million — they have happy, referral making clients to rebuild their business upon. Its a short term income hit that should generate gains over the long term. And, they got there by doing the right thing.
Now, that drop in income alone raises conflict issues. I tell clients who ask why they are paying 1% to sit in Cash that they are not — they are paying 1% to not be losing 45% in equities, and to have us tell them when to go back into stocks. We think that’s worth 1%, and if you disagree, well talk to your friends who have seen their investments destroyed.
Here’s where things get completely misaligned. When 2009 rolls around, their manager calls them into his office, and says: “Bad news, boys. Your revenues dropped so much last year you are in the Penalty Box. As per your contract, your payout for this year is 30%.”
Let me make sure I understand this: We did the right thing by our clients, and although we took a big short term revenue hit, we hope it pays off over the long run. And the firm response is to drop our payout even further? So the entire system is set up to discourage doing the right thing by the client?
(Hence, why they are talking with us).
We’ve previously discussed the misaligned compensation system of bankers and the short term incentives that led to the entire credit crisis. But did you have any idea that the entire industry was so utterly conflicted?
I find this utterly ridiculous. No wonder we get so many inquiries from (soon-to-be-former) clients of the big houses:They have been cut in half, but at least the firm got its 1% and the broker’s payout remains at 43%.
And that’s all that matters in the end, right?