Recoupment of trainee fees impairs industry's growth

Brokerage firms that pursue reimbursement of training costs from employees who leave are out of step with today's workforce

Mar 30, 2014 @ 12:01 am

It's time Wall Street's biggest brokerage firms reconsider their long-standing practice of trying to recoup training costs of ex-employees who jump ship before they complete their training. The imposition of so-called trainee fees, which has been a common industry practice at such firms as Wells Fargo, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Edward Jones for decades, is out of step with the realities of today's increasingly mobile workforce.

For better or worse, employees are less loyal to employers than they were 20 years ago. That's especially true of Millennials, who are likely to have worked for three or four different companies before they're 35.

At best, these fees cast the brokerage industry as petty and punitive. At worst, they hamper brokerage firms' ability to recruit fresh talent — something most can ill afford at a time when advisers' ranks are shrinking.


As reported last week in InvestmentNews, the ability of brokerage firms to recover training costs from ex-employees could be in jeopardy if a recent lawsuit on behalf of a former Wells Fargo & Co. trainee, Erika Williams, is successful.

In that case, Wells Fargo is seeking more than $50,000 from a trainee who resigned under duress last June — just a year into the five-year training program. In her lawsuit, which seeks class action certification, Ms. Williams alleges that if she has to pay back the cost of training, Wells Fargo will have violated the federal minimum-wage law since she was paid an annual salary of $45,000 — about $5,000 less than the training costs.

Disputes involving trainee fees are becoming more prevalent — no doubt due to the fact that many brokerage firms are rebuilding their training programs after tearing them down in the wake of the 2008-09 recession.

Between 2009 and 2011, only six arbitration awards involved claims for the recovery of training costs, according to an analysis by Securities Arbitration Commentator Inc., a securities award research firm. That jumped to 15 in 2012, and another seven cases went to arbitration in 2013.

It remains to be seen whether Ms. Williams is successful in using the Fair Labor Standards Act. If she is, the ability of brokerage firms to recoup training costs will no doubt be significantly curtailed.

No matter what the outcome of the lawsuit, however, the brokerage industry must put an end to the practice of charging trainee fees to ex-employees.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of trainee fee disputes are settled before making their way to arbitration. That's because brokerage firms, which more often than not lose such challenges, are happy to settle — often at rates as low as 5% of the costs.

For the little amount of money that is actually recovered, trainee fees actually do more harm than good. Indeed, asking new recruits to agree to pay back tens of thousands of dollars in training costs if they leave their program is like asking someone to sign a prenuptial agreement before the first date.


To be sure, brokerage firms invest a lot of time and money in training. They do not want to see their newly minted brokers walk across the street to the competition. And there may be circumstances in which new recruits enter training programs in bad faith — knowing, for example, that they will continue searching for a new job while also being trained to become a broker. In those cases, it might be fair for brokerage firms to seek some form of reimbursement.

But for the most part, going after training fees is more trouble than it's worth. Instead, firms should focus their efforts on recruiting serious and well-qualified prospects. Then they should bolster their efforts to retain the best and brightest among them.

There will always be intense competition for top talent. Firms that create environments in which employees want to work — as opposed to have to work — will thrive and prosper in the face of that competition.


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Upcoming Event

May 02


Women Adviser Summit

The InvestmentNews Women Adviser Summit, a one-day workshop now held in four cities due to popular demand, is uniquely designed for the sophisticated female adviser who wants to take her personal and professional self to the next level.... Learn more

Featured video


Top questions surrounding future of DOL fiduciary rule

Reporter Greg Iacurci and managing editor Christina Nelson discuss the biggest uncertainties springing from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to vacate the regulation.

Latest news & opinion

What the next market downturn means for small RIAs

Firms that have enjoyed AUM growth because of the runup in stocks may find it hard to adjust to declining revenues if the market suffers a major correction.

DOL fiduciary rule likely to live on despite appeals court loss

Future developments will hinge on whether the Labor Department continues the fight to remake the regulation its own way.

DOL fiduciary rule: Industry reacts to Fifth Circuit ruling

Groups on both sides of the fiduciary debate had plenty to say.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacates DOL fiduciary rule

In split decision, judges say agency exceeded authority.

UBS, after dumping the broker protocol, continues to see brokers come and go

The wirehouse has seen 14 individuals or teams leave and five join for a net loss of $2.4 billion in AUM


Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print