Are the broker recruiting wars over?

Posted on January 26, 2010 by Rob Radcliff

From late 2008 through 2009 financial advisors were on the move.  Thousands of brokers left their positions with firms like Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo and UBS.  Many transitioned to new brokerage houses enticed by lucrative signing bonuses and compensation packages.  Others were simply unsure of ever changing policies and compensation systems that resulted from industry consolidation such as the Merrill/BofA merger.

 

There were non-compete/non-solicitation lawsuits many of which were discussed here.  With the protocol in place, many FAs can transition to new jobs without the fear of a lawsuit.  Nevertheless, moving your business to a new employer is work.  Some clients are loyal to the institution, others simply don't want to move, and the former employer will put a full press on to keep the departing brokers' business once they announce their intentions to leave.

According to a recent Reuters' article , the recruiting seen over the last year will calm down in 2010:

Veteran recruiter Michael King, of Michael King Associates, said movement will slow because so many brokers are now tied to their firms, either with retention plans or because they accepted recruiting packages with long-term commitments.

"The big wave was last year, from the end of '08 through the first half '09. A lot of the people who wanted to move, moved," King said. "And many of the people who have not moved are already under contract."

Companies will still offer lucrative incentives to move, but the pool available to transfer appears to have dried up for now.  Of course, the pool will repopulate after the deals inked in 2009 expire and some brokers look for the best new deal. 
 

 

Tags: , , ,

Non-Solicitation TRO Denied in Broker Case

Posted on June 19, 2009 by Rob Radcliff
 

Judge William C. Griesbach, of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, recently denied a request for a temporary restraining order filed by Smith Barney against several departing brokers and their new employer, Robert W. Baird & Co.  Smith Barney sought a TRO in conjunction with Rule 13804 of the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure, meaning entry of a TRO by the district court would have triggered an arbitration within 15 days. 

 

The non-solicitation provision provided that the departing brokers would not:

solicit by mail, by phone, by personal meeting or by any other means, either directly or indirectly, any Account whom I served or whose name became known to me during my employment at Smith Barney in any office and in any capacity.  My agreement "not to solicit" means that I will not "during my employment and for a period of one year thereafter, initiate any contact or communication, of any kind whatsoever, for the purpose of inviting, encouraging or requesting any Account:

a) to transfer from Smith Barney to me or to my new employer, or b) to open a new account with me or with my new employer, or c) to otherwise discontinue its patronage and business relationship with Smith Barney

The Court ruled that the provision was overly broad and invalid under Wisconsin law because, among other things,  "it would prevent the financial advisor from contacting even individuals with whom he'd had no prior contact". 

Smith Barney stated it was considering its options following the ruling.

 

Tags: , , , , ,