Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

WFA is dishing out HUGE upfront money (as high as 325% of trailing 12) to hire talent and they have landed some big teams and still are out recruiting heavily. I believe you are safe. It wouldn’t make sense for them to pay that kind of money, lock an FA into a 7-10 year contract only to turn around and replace existing top producers with $60k a year brokers. You are making a lot of money for the firm if your take is $450k. It just wouldn’t make sense to replace you.

@3xrp I'm the OP and make 450-500. The real question was asked...are they going to replace us with 60k "advisors"... I have loads of free time on a daily basis; once I've spoken to relevant clients and proposed plans to prospects I do other impactful stuff... Won't get into details, but I "work" around the clock promoting myself as a subject matter expert to potential clients.

I worry about my future like anyone else, hence the thread. We are only as good as our last month's revenue. For the guys criticizing me; do you really think an unintelligent person can make 450k consistently, year after year? I'm loyal to the company insofar as they are loyal to me. That might be naive, but it has served me well for YEARS.

As aid above. There are many at Wells who make >400K and more. I have been told that many spend their time on social issues. It is amazing. As one executive said a few years back shareholders don't matter any more.

As a shareholder I say cuts need to be deep and to the bone.

I have worked for WFA (came from the Wachovia side) for 12 years. I’m a CA in a branch office. FA’s do not get laid off so not sure what the OP is talking about. What has happened in the past, if an FA’s production is less than a certain amount (say less than $250k gross), they were asked to resign and make a soft exit. This happened with many large wire houses in 2007. If OP is actually an FA managing large portfolios and a high-income earner, he/she would not be on this board asking questions about getting laid off. Makes NO sense. What FA’s ARE worried about is how massive layoffs of local staff (CA’s and HUB personnel) and home office employees will affect their ability to service their clients and getting their payouts cut. No decent producing FA is worried about losing their job. So, what’s the real question, OP? Good producing FA’s are too busy to troll this site and ask questions.

There are a lot of people that make 400k+ that don't play into office politics or realize how layoffs really work. They only care about clients and family/friends and nothing else. The institution simply provides a platform for FA to support his/her clients. They can do this at WFA, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, UBS, etc.

FA's that produce are usually kept around and the comp is structured in a way that cost them dearly if they leave. FA's that don't produce or are marginal don't cost much to keep around other than health benefits and 401k match. WFA doesn't even give them PTO, although they can be trading equities on behalf of clients at the beach all day and no one would care as long as revenue was being generated.

The original poster is honest and seems to have the ring of truth in his statements. Unfortunately for all of us I doubt that he is kidding us with his stunning credentials coupled with his absolutely limited intelligence. I see EVERYTHING that is wrong with WFG in his post.

God help WFG if this guy is real.

@1hrn. Thank you. Your reply is legally correct. I should have led with the legal view then specified the client’s view. A client should never be caught in the middle of a legal fight between a departing FA and their wealth management firm. Wells Fargo touts a Clients First philosophy with one hand and then tries to block their clients’ freedom of choice with the other. I do not respect any legal maneuvers on the firm’s part which put the firm’s financial interests before their clients’ needs. It’s outrageous that Wells (or any financial firm) would make it difficult for a client to track down a broker with whom they have built a trusting relationship.

I have a high net worth friend who had 2 accounts at a wire house. Her account was managed by a team of FAs. One of the FAs left for a regional firm and the other FA stayed at the wire house. Her first decision was to move her brokerage account to the FA who left, but keep her Trust with the original firm for convenience. The Trust was the much larger account. She said that the desperate blocking/begging/hard sell on the part of the wire house left her with such a bad impression that she ultimately moved both accounts to the FA who left.

@1jmg+16WsCuR9 - actually, it is. Until 2004, clients were considered 'trade secrets' and taking them with you to a competitor typically resulted in a civil action. The Broker Protocol was developed to provide advisors with the ability to take clients with them without being on the end of a lawsuit. However, the Broker Protocol is not a legal requirement. It's up to the firm to determine how the relationship is viewed. Similar to law firms, if a lawyer wants to branch out on his/her own or join another firm, open cases belong to the firm, but can be negotiated (through apportionment agreements). While it's true the client gets the final choice in who manages their capital, if an advisor is not covered by the Protocol and actively engages in soliciting the client to move to the new firm with the advisor, it is actionable.

Uhhh... it’s not “taking clients”. Clients are free agents and are not owned by the bank. Another area where Wells Fargo (and other firms) get it wrong and take advantage of their clients for their own gain. I certainly would listen to the replacement FAs investment philosophy and experience, but it’s my money and I don’t want to be placed with the next random Joe in line. I spoke to several FAs before picking who I was going to trust with my assets. And he is not a Managed Money guy.

An overly simple analogy is: Some people go to Great Clips and don’t care who cuts their hair. Others might start at Great Clips, but find a stylist they build trust with and then follow that stylist wherever they go.

One of WF's f-ups was letting FAs take their clients when they leave. Most places require a cooling period.

OP Are you an FA? I’m trying to think of what other job at WFA manages a portfolio of clients for commissions only. Just curious. Most clients will follow a good FA to a new firm. Most firms will pay upfront money to good FAs. Bigger topic but WFC tries (unsuccessfully) to claim ownership of clients. However in most cases a client’s loyalty is to their FA not Wells Fargo.

Are you for real? If you are pondering that WFA may decide to replace you with 3 Juniors, that leads me to believe you are making $150k plus . If you think three junior FAs can hit the pavement running to retain and grow the business further, I have to question if you are not over compensated. You are 100% commission and you are worrying about your job being replaced? Maybe you are overpaid and should start looking elsewhere.

I wouldn't overestimate your value to WF in terms of the bank's clients that you help. The risk and disruption that these clients would face by suddenly leaving WF to follow...you(?)...around isn't going to happen. They know they'll likely do fine with your replacement.

Also, you're assuming that the layoffs are a very thoughtful process. They're not. It's all about appearing fair and legal. You and the bank's clients that you help won't come into it.

Finally, you said it yourself, people making far less than you can provide the same (or close enough) value to both the bank and its customers/clients. As a business decision, you should be let go. It's nothing personal of course.

The main leverage you have is the book of clients you have that will potentially leave with you. All other sales positions that require on Wells relationships are more at risk.

I would love nothing more than WFA, or WIM for that matter, to spin off and remove the stigma of working at WF.

agreed if you have a option to leave then take it.. the bank does not care if you make them $1 or $1 million.... the person above is correct there is talk of selling WIM off because it is not profitable. Trust me the bank does not have the same we are in this together mentality and will cut you even if they did have three junior people who were cheaper or not..

One more comment, I don’t know that assets under management are actually assets on the balance sheet, so whether it makes any difference is up for grabs.

I don’t work in Sales, but I will point out that if the bank doesn’t get the asset cap removed with the latest plan being sent to the a Federal Reserve, the loss of assets is actually probably a good thing from a balance sheet management perspective. It’s also been true for a quite a long time that WIM is the least profitable business at the bank, due to very high expenses. You can look at any quarterly report to see this, but a lot of people in WIM think they make a lot of money for the bank, but it’s barely anything on a net basis.

Have you ever heard of SEI Wealth Platform? The bank spent $170 million-ish and then canceled the project. Rumors were that parts of WIM were going to be sold. If you have an option to leave, you should take it.