I worked briefly for a company who changed thier policy on hiring reps without a book within 3 months of my hire. They said that we would all to be laid off. I just found out today that they have “poor performance” on my u4 as my reason for being laid off. This is not true and is affecting some other areas of my life (getting on with a new broker dealer). I have written proof that it was to be a lay off and had nothing to do with performance, and everything do do with the company policy change, and my perfomance based on the original contract and my being a new rep was fine. How can this be corrected on a U4? Anyone have any experience? How can these firms report something like that? I thought that creating a situation that disparages characters and keeps individuals from earning a living was illegal? Any tips, and thanks.
Go ask your previous employer to ammend the U-5.
If you have "written" proof that it was a simple lay off why not present that proof as part of your application process?
What you do not need is a lawyer--there is no reason to pay somebody to do something as simple as asking to have a form ammended.
As I've said elsewhere managers are innundated with "education" about the U-5 and how important it is to make sure it's correct.
If you pick up the phone and call your previous boss and tell them that your U-5 is not really reflective of why you are no longer there your manager will change it.
They're people too--and they know that they would want their own U-5 to be as positive as possible.
Are you really Bill Singer, using another ID to invent a problem that Bill Singer can recommend that you need to contact Bill Singer?
What NASD district are you in?
At this moment 10, but tomorrow I expect to be in 7. Is it important for me to keep track of this? Will I be stopped and asked to present my papers, and they had best be in order?
I was directing that to the kid with the messed up U-5.
Am sure your U-4 is in order so proceed about the country without fear of regulatory sanctions!
I also have my "Letter of Introduction" signed by Harvey Pitt.
It gets me 5% off at National Rent A Car and 10% off at Shoneys nationwide.
Mine's signed by Arthur Levitt. I get discounts on NetJet.
Life is "Beary" good indeed!
A Levitt will always trump a Pitt.
Get a good recruiter involved (there are several on this board, myself included).
Managers seem more likely to listen to ‘stories’ when packaged by a recruiter they know and trust. It’s not that they don’t believe you, it’s just that recruiters are somewhat objective third parties that can verify the story. The managers who use my firm know that I won’t waste their time.
And whatever you decide to do, let us know how it works out. Okay?
Donaldson didn't like me. Cox tolerates me. Levitt still loves me and I love him (in a platonic sort of way).
Pitt wasn't my type. I like mine clean shaven and fit (as in not fat).
Jeff, thanks for offering to help this kid. You, too, Bill.
Do you suppose either Jeff or Bill prowl these parts seeking to do good deeds for free?
I repeat, there is not need to pay somebody to help you do something as simple as getting a misleading U-5 changed.
Personally I do not think an attorney who threatens to sue to get something changed is doing the industry a favor.
If you were fired for screwing off I suppose a Bill Singer type could threaten to drag the issue through the system, costing the B/D lots of money--so the B/D just rolls over and changes the U-5.
I do not see that as having done a good deed for the industry or a potential employer who is relying on a U-5 that was changed from being truthful to being untruthful because of the threat of a lawyer.
Why do you suppose this forum allows blatant advertising free of charge?
I wonder if the advertisers in the magazine would like to know that others are advertising for free on these forums?
I sometimes help honest/ethical brokers and/or clients gratis (that means totally for FREE).
Hopefully the kid with the messed up U-5 can get his former broker-dealer to amend it without getting a third party involved.
Bill does pro bono once in a while for kids like that. I don't know Jeff well enough to know if he does or not. A kid with no book can't be peddled to any wirehouse for a headhunter's fee, that I do know.
I believe it's an ethical problem to attempt to change a U-5.
The point of a U-5 is to accurately reflect the opinion of the manager who is signing it.
If the manager signs it, "Terminated due to poor production" the trust should be in the manager rather than the producer who is feeling insulted by the statement.
Does it make sense that the manager doesn't really know why the manager is terminating that individual?
Why should that manager come under legal assault for having spoken his or her mind in the carrying out of their duties?
I think it's best for disputes like this to be settled between the broker and the manager, ADULT to ADULT.
IF the kid was only there 3 months and hired in with no book and IF the kid was terminated due to headcount reductions I don't think it's fair to use "poor production" as a reason. It's pretty hard to build a decent book in 3 months at any firm.
Again, we've only heard the kid's side of the story. I don't know who the manager is or which wirehouse the kid was let go from.
Bill does pro bono once in a while for kids like that. I don’t know Jeff well enough to know if he does or not. A kid with no book can’t be peddled to any wirehouse for a headhunter’s fee, that I do know.
Full disclosure: Some of my clients pay a small fee for experienced brokers without a book. This is, however, a fraction of the fees we charge for revenue deals, sales managers or branch managers. We handle “no-book” brokers because the cash flow is nice and because it keeps us in contact with all of our branch managers on a regular basis. We’ve also gotten some very large referrals from our “Transition” practice.
Most of the candidates that I help through this board do not have NASD licensure, and are therefore not ‘billable’ candidates.
Actually, I was thinking about getting the guy a job now, rather than after a very long arbitration process. I'm willing to invest the time to verify his story. After that, I can probably find a local BOM willing to go to bat with compliance.
I can't guarantee anybody a job (or even an interview), but I'm willing to help him with his situation. What are you willing to do to help this kid?
This entire industry revolves on networking. Why should things be any different for recruiters?
KnowsWallStreet: There has been some recent discussion as to whether or not you are a reincarnation of another poster named NASD Newbie.
If you're new, then please use the search function. You'll see that I give cogent and relevant advice to all sorts of people without expectation of compensation. That includes lots of 'pro-bono' work.
I have also gotten a few lucrative leads through networking on this board, but nobody in this business should be ashamed of making a profit.
Personally, I don't think you're Newbie. NASD Newbie knows me too well to question my motives. He would also have less faith in the word of a BOM.
Finally, Newbie has better grammar and punctuation. You're not Newbie. You're just new.
The reason I am being so nice right now (altruistic) is because Yom Kippur's right around the corner and my "naughty girl" list is long again. I figure I can cross a few of those "naughty girl" items off that list if I am especially altruistic right now.
I know a rookie (2.5 years) kid who got the MS boot a few months ago. Not sure what his manager put on his U-5. The kid's working at a small private equity shop right now. He was canned for not being in the top 25% of 2 to 5 year in the biz rookies, I think. Not sure what the cut-off was on production but he was a little under and is now gone. He's glad not to be in the wirehouse biz anymore, too.
Thanks for the helpful information, all of you have given me tremendous relief. I would ask the former manager, except he is no longer at the firm, and the person who put through the wrong info on my U5 will not help. Does anyone know if I should approach the company itself?
To correct wrong or misleading information is not unethical, its the right thing to do, every check your credit report? Credit card companies have opinions to, but it does not make it a correct relfection on credit history as we all know. Just because someone is in management, does not make them right.