Raising the minimum wage and incorporating a system for automatic adjustment over time is key to reversing this erosion of low-wage workers’ earnings, and would help combat growth of income inequality.įollowing the president’s expression of support for a $9.00 minimum wage, Sen. This erosion has contributed to the growth of income inequality, leaving the economy less vibrant than if incomes were distributed more evenly. workers, particularly low-wage workers, have eroded not just in recent years, but over several decades (Mishel 2013 McNichol et al. All Rights Reserved.For newer research on the impacts of increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10, see Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost, released December 19, 2013.īy highlighting the need to increase the federal minimum wage in his State of the Union address, President Obama breathed new life into a critically important issue. They just want to make sure their adviser isn't going anywhere."Ĭopyright ©2023 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. "I've spoken to people today who can't remember who owns Wachovia, or what happened to Washington Mutual. "To them, there have been so many of these 's just another bank deal," one broker said. (Morgan Stanley is paying Citigroup $2.5 billion to make up for the difference.) And while Morgan Stanley can ladder up its stake to 100% in five years Citigroup's 49% stake can only get smaller.As for clients, they seem largely unconcerned.
Under terms of the deal, Morgan Stanley gets majority ownership of the joint venture-51%-though Morgan Stanley is contributing only 30% of the combined revenue and profit. "I never could find the guy at Citi to talk to."Citigroup, for its own part, hardly seems eager to manage Smith Barney any longer. "One of my clients wanted to refinance his mortgage," groused one broker.
COOPER NETWORK SMITH BARNEY HOW TO
While there was pressure from Citigroup to sell other products, several brokers said there was very little guidance on how to do so. What could be worse than where we are now? Our stock is at five bucks." At the root of it all is the idea that Citigroup never really integrated Smith Barney into the rest of the bank, that Smith Barney has been a discrete fief, with its own loyalties and, most significantly, its own culture. It's just another layer of management we don't have or need. We had to kick money upstairs to them all the time, to the ivory tower, and now we're kicking it to ourselves. I've been through a lot of mergers and acquisitions and I know my job depends on me getting on the phone and calling people, not what some manager can do for me. They wanted us to sell mortgages and lending and all these other products-we're specialized. There was no benefit to being with Citi itself.
The 'Citi' on your business card is an issue.""I've worked here since 1986," complained another broker. "The advisers at Smith Barney love it here and feel a bond with Smith Barney. Getty ImagesInstead, "We're excited about getting the Smith Barney name away from Citi," one broker said of the mood in his office of about 100 advisers. We expected them to voice worries about the coming joint venture with Morgan Stanley-about their jobs, their futures and their clients. Deal Journal has been speaking with Smith Barney brokers. It looks like there will be little love lost between Smith Barney brokers and their old parent, Citigroup.
0 kommentar(er)
