DAN JAMIESON : Editor, Registered Representative magazine

Retail stock brokers were happier in 1992 than the year before, numbered more women among their ranks and believed their firms are operating more ethically than in the past. That is according to Registered Representative, an Irvine-based magazine for the stock brokerage industry with a national circulation of 81,000. Editor Dan Jamieson, whose first job out of college was cold-calling potential investors for a stock broker, discussed the magazine’s annual broker surveys with Times staff writer Anne Michaud.

*

How did Registered Representative get started?

Our publisher, Tolman Geffs, started it back in 1976. At the time he had an advertising business, his own agency. He had an account with some company that wanted to promote its stock to stockbrokers. So, he went out and tried to find a publication that reached stockbrokers and there wasn’t one.

So, being a classic entrepreneur, he started the magazine. He went to a cocktail reception for Barron’s and passed out rate cards, and he was in business.

We started out quarterly, then went bimonthly, then finally monthly. That was about when Money magazine was getting going, too. It was the start of the financial press in the personal finance area.

Why do you call it Registered Representative?

That’s the legal name for a stockbroker. That’s what the National Assn. of Securities Dealers calls a person who is registered to sell securities. I guess Tolman just picked that name out and it stuck. It’s kind of a clumsy title, but it stuck.

You do a couple of annual surveys. In your most recent, a survey of brokers, what were the big surprises for you?

There aren’t any real surprises in there. We knew it was going to be a record year.

How?

By talking to them and knowing the level of trading activity. Most of the big brokerage firms are publicly traded, so we see their revenue and profits every quarter. And the securities industry association sometimes puts out preliminary data. It was all looking phenomenally positive.

The reason for that--if there’s one reason--is the low interest rate environment at the banks. The banks don’t want money, they don’t want to make loans. They’re putting money into Treasury securities instead of making loans.

With 3% CDs (certificates of deposit), people are screaming. People are looking to live off that income. So, that’s really been the driving force (behind the interest in stock investments).

Is that why your brokers survey shows increased job satisfaction?

Yes. That had to do with hiring, too. Firms had to hire. A couple of years back, Shearson closed down their training program and put their hiring plans on hold. Now, all of a sudden, they’re hiring again.

In ’89 or ‘90, it was very difficult to become a broker. Now, it’s still difficult, but times are better.

Your survey also shows a dip, then a rise in the proportion of women working as brokers (from 12.7% in 1990 to 10.1% in 1991 to

11.3% in 1992).

Yes, it looks like there might be a bit of a turnaround there. I hate to say that based on one year’s numbers. But I think people like dealing with women brokers.

It’s not a very easy business for them because there’s a lot of camaraderie, a lot of joking around, practical jokes. And, in some cases, I don’t think women are taken seriously by management, even though they’re doing very well with their clients.

The clients, if they had to choose, might even choose a woman. And the ones who stick around in the business do phenomenally well. It’s the problem of the first few years when a broker has to stick with the business and build that clientele. There are barriers there if you’re a woman or a minority.

Is that changing at all?

Most of the firms are better. You’re seeing better regional management coming in, who know better, who are at least aware that you’ve got to give everyone an equal chance.

Do you make predictions?

Well, I would throw out a guess. The markets performed so well in ‘91, and 1992 was still a good revenue year. The pendulum’s got to swing the other way.

But, as a whole, the decade of the ‘90s for the securities business looks very attractive. The demographics certainly look good with the baby boom generation entering their peak earnings years and looking to inherit trillions of dollars from their thrifty parents. It could be unbelievable if the full-service brokerage business captures those dollars.

But there’ll be a lot of competitive changes, more competition for our segment, which is the full-service traditional stockbroker. More competition from the banks, banks’ brokers selling investments, discount brokers. A lot of the younger investors--in their 40s and 50s--tend to use discount brokers more.

The pie will certainly be bigger, but the full-service segment’s share may shrink.

You have also published a survey asking brokers to rate their employers for the second consecutive year. That must be well read.

It is. I get a lot of comments from the brokerage firms’ managers. Some of them are very serious about soliciting comments, they want to get our impression of the responses. In some cases they want the names of the brokers we talked to. (Laughs.) So, I know it’s being read by management.

We interview 50 brokers (at each firm). It’s interesting to note that the highest satisfaction comes from the two St. Louis-based firms, E.D. Jones and A.G. Edwards. The brokers seem to feel they get better service (from their management), better contact with management, more support at those firms than at the New York-based houses.

I don’t know about Jones, but Edwards is consistently more profitable than the New York-based firms.

On the magazine’s survey of broker job satisfaction. . .

“A few years ago, it was terrible. Today, overall, they’re a happy bunch, unless it’s a bear market.”

On unethical brokers. . .

“In the past, the attitude used to be, ‘The guy’s doing big numbers, let it slide.’ In the past two years, for the first time that I recall, senior level managers are talking about ethics and compliance as being their first priority.”

On losing clients’ money. . .

“I really believe that 95% or 98% of brokers are out there trying to do the very best job they can for the customer. Some of them aren’t too bright, and everyone makes mistakes, and they may lose people some money.”

On poorly performing financial products. . .

“Every firm has had a problem with the limited partnerships that were sold in the early- to mid-’80s. They just didn’t produce.”