The brokers at Merrill Lynch seem to be short on personal affluence. I went in and wanted to open accounts. They didn’t even offer coffee. I was unimpressed with the middle of the road portfolio that they proposed before they even were aware of my needs.
I went with Morgan Stanley because they were not short on personal affluence. They looked like they were prospering in their job. They were very attentive to my philosophy and my financial needs.
If I had to choose I would pick Morgan Stanley because it is apparent that the brokers do better personally and I don’t believe or trust a Financial Adviser who appears to have not profited by his own advice. References :
Neither. Merrill doesnt seem to have very good control of their brokers. And they seem to have a lot of violations. I knew someone who worked for Merrill, and he ended up in Club Fed. And if you believe Frank Partnoy in his book F.I.A.S.C.O. I wouldnt trust Stanley either. Nor would I judge a broker on how affluent he looks. That could mean he’s just making great commissions off his clients, who may not be doing so well. References : http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid={4A48B6AD-E34D-4F9A-959E-9B4832871EB8}&dist=rss
I don’t think there is a lot of difference overall between them – they are both bulge bracket investment banks that compete against each other for clientele, deals and personnel. Meaning that people will switch from one to the other for the right amount of money.
The culture in these high finance houses is fast moving and aggressive, and attracts people who fit that mold. References : Have classmates who worked for these companies
July 10th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Investment companies are all the same…
References :
July 10th, 2010 at 9:12 am
The brokers at Merrill Lynch seem to be short on personal affluence. I went in and wanted to open accounts. They didn’t even offer coffee. I was unimpressed with the middle of the road portfolio that they proposed before they even were aware of my needs.
I went with Morgan Stanley because they were not short on personal affluence. They looked like they were prospering in their job. They were very attentive to my philosophy and my financial needs.
If I had to choose I would pick Morgan Stanley because it is apparent that the brokers do better personally and I don’t believe or trust a Financial Adviser who appears to have not profited by his own advice.
References :
July 10th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Neither. Merrill doesnt seem to have very good control of their brokers. And they seem to have a lot of violations. I knew someone who worked for Merrill, and he ended up in Club Fed. And if you believe Frank Partnoy in his book F.I.A.S.C.O. I wouldnt trust Stanley either. Nor would I judge a broker on how affluent he looks. That could mean he’s just making great commissions off his clients, who may not be doing so well.
References :
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid={4A48B6AD-E34D-4F9A-959E-9B4832871EB8}&dist=rss
July 10th, 2010 at 10:06 am
I don’t think there is a lot of difference overall between them – they are both bulge bracket investment banks that compete against each other for clientele, deals and personnel. Meaning that people will switch from one to the other for the right amount of money.
The culture in these high finance houses is fast moving and aggressive, and attracts people who fit that mold.
References :
Have classmates who worked for these companies