Displaying items by tag: broker protocol

(New York)

Since the end of the Broker Protocol, it seems that many firms have shied away from recruiting. Especially at the senior level, but even at the junior level, firms have not been investing as much in recruiting. But that may be starting to change, as recent reports of increased recruiting activity have emerged, such as word today that Edward Jones is ramping it up. Edward Jones says it aims to hire 250 senior advisors from other firms this year. Additionally, there is some news out that Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch may be working on a so-called Broker Protocol 2.0.

FINSUM: This seems an encouraging sign on the recruiting front after a rough year. FYI Edward Jones is not part of the Broker Protocol.

(New York)

Not only is the broker protocol collapsing underneath the feet of advisors, but a new court ruling has just set a precedent which will likely make it harder for advisors to switch firms. A recent ruling by the Georgia Court of Appeals says that advisors who have agreed in a contract to give advance notice of departure, but then do not, are not covered by the Broker Protocol. The case stemmed from a smaller firm, Aprio Wealth Management, making a claim against a group of advisors who moved to Morgan Stanley. “We’re really pleased with the court-of-appeals ruling on this case … We think it’s a very meaningful decision for small and midsize firms, especially for registered investment advisers that can feel confident they’ll be protected from poaching like happened to us”.

FINSUM: The bottom line of this story seems to be that one needs to make sure to give appropriate notice. However, that is not always be easy as there might be extenuating circumstances.

(New York)

The life of an advisor at a wirehouse is certainly changing. In the new broker-protocol-collapsed world, things have become different. At UBS, the changes are very clear—advisors are being paid more, but it is harder to leave. The average broker for UBS earned about $471,000 in 2017 (skewed by big earners), up 13% over 2016. However, at the same time, the firm dropped out of the broker protocol, making it harder for advisors to breakaway. UBS spent 7% less on new broker recruiting last year.

FINSUM: A 13% pay bump is a pretty strong number, but it could likely be much higher if one were to go out on their own.

(New York)

Morgan Stanley advisors look out, it appears the firm is sending a warning out to its wealth management force. According to Wealth Management, “Morgan Stanley in February filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against a breakaway team in Farmington Hills, Mich. It was recently withdrawn. A lawyer for the breakaway team suggests that Morgan Stanley lawyers deliberately used the court filing, and prolonged the case, to make the conflict public and deter other breakaways”. One lawyer commenting on the moves says that Morgan Stanley is likely doing it to intimidate their current advisors into not jumping ship.

FINSUM: The end of the broker protocol made what was a tenuous environment into an all-out battlefield. This definitely seems like an intimidation tactic.

(Washington)

The battle over client is heating up again. On one side stands the broker, and on the other, the firm. Who owns the client relationship? Both say they do. Some may have been wondering where FINRA stands on the issue. However, the regulator has just taken the easy way out, saying it has no stance on the question. FINRA says it is not involved in the broker protocol and takes no sides on the topic, though it does have arbitration rules to handle disputes. Brokers want a FINRA rule, or at least process on the issue, with one attorney saying “Finra needs to convene an industry conference to finally be able to decide on what’s a workable definition of who owns the customer … There’s got to be a better way of doing this than TROs and arbitration”.

FINSUM: The broker protocol seems likely to completely dissolve this year. Hopefully something workable will take its place, because the legal alternatives are not great for anyone (other than lawyers!).