<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for RegRep_editors</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/RegRep_editors/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/RegRep_editors/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 11:16:17 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Maximizing Referrals and Introductions: Who Are Your &amp;quot;Connectors&amp;quot;?</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/advisorland/maximizing_referrals_and_introductions_523/#comment-541932300</link><description>&lt;p&gt;We have written on this topic. See January 2012 issue, New Town, "New Strategy" by Anne Field. &lt;a href="http://tinyurl.com/7blvkq2" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://tinyurl.com/7blvkq2"&gt;http://tinyurl.com/7blvkq2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Her article begins thus:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A few years ago, Michael Hardy, an advisor in Buffalo, N.Y., fell in love. Only trouble was, the woman in question lived in New York City — and together they decided he should move down there, too. But what would he do about his practice?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The answer, as it turned out, was surprisingly straightforward. Hardy would move down to the Big Apple, but continue serving his clients up in Buffalo, doing his best to build relationships in his new home base. Hardy had joined his firm, Mollot &amp;amp; Hardy, 10 years earlier, and his partner, who had started the practice about 20 years before that, would continue to run operations from Buffalo.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 11:16:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 5 Ways Financial Advisors Can Engage Women Clients</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/advisorland/5_ways_financial_advisors_can_engage_women_clients_328/#comment-478712403</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Good catch Beth. Thanks! &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:59:25 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Compliance Outsourcing Gains Favor With RIAs</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/newsletters/ria-rising/compliance_outsourcing_gains_favor_with_rias_1216/#comment-388180851</link><description>&lt;p&gt;See today's story. Also there is a firm called National Regulatory Services based in Lakeville, Conn.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:22:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Opinion: In Defense of the Asset-Based Fee Model</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/opinion/opinion_in_defense_of_the_asset_based_fee_model_0927/#comment-322975856</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the comment. We're discussing this topic today on Twitter at 1 p.m. EST. to participate, go to #regreptalks. thanks!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:09:28 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Pros and Cons of the Healthcare Reform Law</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/wealthmanagement/retirementplan/pros_and_cons_healthcare_reform_law_0526/#comment-219324381</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Our healthcare system is hardly a free market. Indeed, government interevention (state and federal) has messed up the pricing mechanism of healthcare and is why healthcare costs beat inflation year in and year out. thanks for your reply, David A. Geracioti, RR editor-in-chief and author of &lt;a href="http://VonAldo.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="VonAldo.com"&gt;VonAldo.com&lt;/a&gt;, an opinionated free-market blog. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:59:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More Changes at Edward Jones, Chief Strategist Alan Skrainka Out</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/advisorland/more_changes_at_edward_jones_skrainka_out_0526/#comment-140477249</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Editor's note: Readers should know that &lt;a href="http://goodnewsforinvestors.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="goodnewsforinvestors.com"&gt;goodnewsforinvestors.com&lt;/a&gt; is Skrainka's own website. As editor-in-chief of Registered Rep., I met Alan when he was still chief strategist at Edward Jones. I liked his research and observations too. His website is worth a look, actually. &lt;br&gt;David Geracioti, editor-in-chief of &lt;a href="http://registeredrep.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="registeredrep.com"&gt;registeredrep.com&lt;/a&gt; and the magazine too. Please feel free to call or email me.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 09:22:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Insurers Raising Premiums, Changing Terms on Long-term Care Policies</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/newsletters/insuranceletter/insurers_raising_premiums_changing_terms_long_term_care/#comment-131776652</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The author of the story regrets his stupid mistakes and has corrected them on the current version online. Thank you --- and the dozen or so others --- who caught the mistakes. -- The Editors &lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:02:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Insurers Raising Premiums, Changing Terms on Long-term Care Policies</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/newsletters/insuranceletter/insurers_raising_premiums_changing_terms_long_term_care/#comment-131776334</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The author of the story regrets his stupid mistakes and has corrected them on the current version online. Thank you --- and the dozen or so others --- who caught the mistakes. -- The Editors&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:01:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Multi-family Offices See Consolidation and Customized Services In 2011</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/wealthmanagement/multi_ffamily_offices_see_consolidation_and_customized_services/#comment-113797137</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Appreciate the compliment (I think), but story really doesn’t say  there are “way too many providers” in multi-family office space. Consolidation being driven more  by  high costs, margin erosion and need for scale. Demand still there for firms that  can provide services well and profitability, but competition is intense. Dodd-Frank legislation should also shake things up, so it should be fun to follow the family office business in 2011.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Charles Paikert&lt;br&gt;Managing Editor&lt;br&gt;Registered Rep./Wealth Management Letter&lt;br&gt;212-204-4254&lt;br&gt;charles.paikert@penton.com&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:02:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Jones Raising Production Expectations</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/advisorland/finance_jones_raising_production/#comment-58306211</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi, this is David Geracioti, editor-in-chief. I spoke to Jim Weddle and apologized. It's a truly stupid picture. We wanted to illustrate the no-nonsense approach of EJ, but blew it with that stupid picture. In the cold light of day, it doesn't work at all. Sorry.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:29:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bank of America Ramps Up Online Brokerage</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/advisorland/bank_of_america_ramps_online_brokerage_0601/#comment-55275761</link><description>&lt;p&gt;What is the strategy behind forcing FAs to give up smaller accounts? Do you still get paid on any of that? Or are payouts reduced as "punishment" for having small accounts? And don't small accounts sometimes grow in to big one? David Geracioti, editor-in-cheif of Registered Rep and &lt;a href="http://RegisteredRep.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="RegisteredRep.com"&gt;RegisteredRep.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:13:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Pros and Cons of Annuities</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/annuities_ins/finance_pros_cons_annuities/#comment-45041845</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, it's old but it still is a fine survey of the subject. At least, judging from the traffic that hits the article. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:37:40 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Sweating the CFP</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/advisorland/marketing_selling/finance_sweating_cfp/#comment-32830173</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is David Geracioti, editor-in-chief of Registered Rep. (print and website). Why are firms "abandoning their support of the CFP designation," as you state above? I thought the b/ds had come to terms with the CFP Board's "loose" statement of conduct (i.e. that you could be dually registered and therefore operate at times under the SEC Actof 1934, i.e. suitability standard, and the Advisers Act of 1940, the fiduciary standard?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Would love to hear the gossip. Thanks, David (david.geracioti@penton.com)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 07:45:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: U5 Hazard</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/advisorland/career/u5_form/#comment-17944984</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Your "permanent record" is available online, at &lt;a href="http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/index.htm" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/index.htm"&gt;http://www.finra.org/Invest...&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:25:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Asset Shuffle: Wirehouses Lose Market Share to Independents</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/newsletters/wealthmanagement/wirehouses_lose_market_share_to_independents_0729/#comment-13837618</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Sir: Thank you for your note. But I fear you may have misread the story. We say (quoting Aite Group research) that LPL, Ameriprise, RBC Wealth Mgt. and Edward Jones TOGETHER, as in combined, added 3,000 FAs in 2008. We state that Ed Jones accounted for about half --- or 1,500 --- of those FAs. We also note in the story that wirehouse firms --- though still dominant --- are losing market share. RIAs, in particular, have been successfull in attracting retail assets. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RegRep_editors</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:31:04 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>