Originally posted by @Charles Worth:
@Rio Peterson
Just thought I would chime in and I assume you know this but if you are looking to leave your job you would not have a securities license. You can only hold a license if you are employed with a regulated BD as far as I know (by license I assume you mean registered person). Something that happened in your past like a bankrupcy or other issues would need to be disclosed if you wanted a license again but with a certain timeframe of not working you will not have a license.
Also, I would point out that, at least in my opinion, it could just be like cold calling brokers. They always tell you that you will be a millionaire bla bla bla. One in X number actully are and the rest flame out. Its worth it for the guy speaking to you because you are going to make money for them. Its not like he offered you 50/50 split for doing nothing. You are doing the work as I understand it and getting rewards and not even in cash but in deal credit right? In almost all deals the money gets paid back first, so you only get paid if the deal does really well. Yes you can make a ton of money, you can also make 0. Its very risky. Like commission sales poeple its just high risk high reward. Least that is how I look at it. I think the assumption that many have that all RE makes money and lots of it so everyone gets rich is nuts. That is the real issue and why not everyone, in fact very few, would probably jump at the offer as I read it.
He could also just be a predator hard to know without being there.
Yes, if I leave my BD, the licenses will be inactive and I have 2 years to find another BD before I would have to re-test for all of the licenses. I just got all my licenses, so I'm not willing to give those up that easily.
The profit part is what I thought was a little strange, but I could be wrong. I know that all who invested gets paid if the deal does well, but it got complicated because I don't have money to contribute. Rather, I would be used to manage the flip. The setup this guy did was that as he was pooling together from other investors, he would include in the total pool an amount equal to my current salary/benefits/bonus/etc to pay me (as a way to convince me to leave my job). In addition to this guaranteed profit, I would get a % of whatever profit is left over.
I don't know too much about partnership payment structures, but when I imagined being on the receiving end as the contributing investor, it didn't sit right with me that we're guaranteeing a set profit to one person whereas everyone else isn't. Doesn't seem fair. I understand if everyone will get a set % of the profit (and the person managing the flip would get a higher %), but he wanted to give me a set $ AND a set %. Is this a normal practice?