[quote=RecruitingAce]

Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, UBS or Smith Barney???  So many choices...

Many of you have asked me to explain the difference between the different training programs, so I'll do my best to hit the highlights here.  Understand I have recruited for all of them at one time or another and have decided to only focus on recruiting for Smith Barney now for the past two years for reasons that will be apparent after reading this...

Compensation:

Merrill Lynch pays a salary for 2 years and they tend to pay on the higher range between the 4.  However, and this is very important to understand...  What you have there is a monthly forgiveable draw!  It is NOT a salary plus commission position.

Morgan Stanley pays a salary for one year, and no commissions in the first year 

UBS salary is tied into your production for the first 2 years.  If you do not meet your goals, they take a percentage of your salary away.  (this really stinks by the way when you are trying to pay your bills)

Smith Barney compensation is salary for 2.5 years, PLUS commission, PLUS bonuses if you are meeting your goals.  And stock options on top of all that.

So, to compare the four, let's take an arbitrary example.  Let's assume you you are offered a salary of 50K at each company and your production in your first year is 50K.   Here is about what you would make after your first year:

Merrill:  50K because they only allow you to keep commissions (at 50% payouts) if they exceed your salary in any given month.  In this example your commissions would not exceed your salary.  

Morgan Stanley:  same thing.  50K

UBS is better.  You would probably keep around 60k because you are meeting your minimum goals and they are not taking a percentage of your salary away.

Smith Barney:  about 70K conservatively.   50K salary, plus 33.25% commissions on the 50k (16K), plus around 4-6K in cash bonuses for the year.  And another 10-15k in stock options on top of all that in each of your first 3 years.

Culture / Reputation:

Merrill Lynch.  One word.  Stuffy.

Morgan Stanley.  Another word.  Trouble.

UBS.  No real problems there.

Smith Barney.  Exclusive and entrepreneurial.

Difficulty in getting hired:

Merrill:  not overly difficult.

Morgan Stanley:  they're somewhat desperate.

UBS:  Not easy to get hired.

Smith Barney:  Very difficult to get hired.

Overall, although it is a long and tedious process to get in with these companies, you have a better chance at success, honestly, with Smith Barney if you get hired.

And before you all flame me for being biased, I will say this again.  I have had a chance to recruit for all of these firms.  I have CHOSEN to recruit for Smith Barney exclusively!

I hope this helps!

[/quote]

Didn't we tear you a new one the last time you posted this same incorrect, self-serving message? 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=RecruitingAce]

Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, UBS or Smith Barney???  So many choices...

Many of you have asked me to explain the difference between the different training programs, so I'll do my best to hit the highlights here.  Understand I have recruited for all of them at one time or another and have decided to only focus on recruiting for Smith Barney now for the past two years for reasons that will be apparent after reading this...

Compensation:

Merrill Lynch pays a salary for 2 years and they tend to pay on the higher range between the 4.  However, and this is very important to understand...  What you have there is a monthly forgiveable draw!  It is NOT a salary plus commission position.

Morgan Stanley pays a salary for one year, and no commissions in the first year 

UBS salary is tied into your production for the first 2 years.  If you do not meet your goals, they take a percentage of your salary away.  (this really stinks by the way when you are trying to pay your bills)

Smith Barney compensation is salary for 2.5 years, PLUS commission, PLUS bonuses if you are meeting your goals.  And stock options on top of all that.

So, to compare the four, let's take an arbitrary example.  Let's assume you you are offered a salary of 50K at each company and your production in your first year is 50K.   Here is about what you would make after your first year:

Merrill:  50K because they only allow you to keep commissions (at 50% payouts) if they exceed your salary in any given month.  In this example your commissions would not exceed your salary.  

Morgan Stanley:  same thing.  50K

UBS is better.  You would probably keep around 60k because you are meeting your minimum goals and they are not taking a percentage of your salary away.

Smith Barney:  about 70K conservatively.   50K salary, plus 33.25% commissions on the 50k (16K), plus around 4-6K in cash bonuses for the year.  And another 10-15k in stock options on top of all that in each of your first 3 years.

Culture / Reputation:

Merrill Lynch.  One word.  Stuffy.

Morgan Stanley.  Another word.  Trouble.

UBS.  No real problems there.

Smith Barney.  Exclusive and entrepreneurial.

Difficulty in getting hired:

Merrill:  not overly difficult.

Morgan Stanley:  they're somewhat desperate.

UBS:  Not easy to get hired.

Smith Barney:  Very difficult to get hired.

Overall, although it is a long and tedious process to get in with these companies, you have a better chance at success, honestly, with Smith Barney if you get hired.

And before you all flame me for being biased, I will say this again.  I have had a chance to recruit for all of these firms.  I have CHOSEN to recruit for Smith Barney exclusively!

I hope this helps!

[/quote]

Didn't we tear you a new one the last time you posted this same incorrect, self-serving message? 

[/quote]

I didn't realize I was reading a repost, that it had already been commented on--but I echo that.

Nobody ever put Wachovia Securities in the same category as the merrills and morgan! I don't understand that because Wachovia has been the  third largest brokerage house since 2004. I know we tend to keep our company a little low key , yet I dont understand why they are never mentioned. Just to throw this out there i am refering to the wirehouse channel (PCG) not the bank channel.

[quote=keith121883]

Nobody ever put Wachovia Securities in the same category as the merrills and morgan! I don't understand that because Wachovia has been the  third largest brokerage house since 2004. I know we tend to keep our company a little low key , yet I dont understand why they are never mentioned. Just to throw this out there i am refering to the wirehouse channel (PCG) not the bank channel.

[/quote]

It should be, it is a fantastic firm with an excellent management team.

The term "wirehouse" is used to describe firms that have lots of branch offices, connected to each other via a "wire" which in the old days was a teletype.

They are considered national wirehouses if they have offices in almost all of the states--certainly places where there are concentrations of people.

The list of national wirehouses in this country should include the following--in alphabetical order:

AG Edwards
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley
UBS
Smith Barney
Wachovia

There are some outstanding regionals:

DA Davidson in and around Montana
Hilliard Lyons in and around Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio
Janny Montgomery Scott out of Philadelphia
Morgan Keegan out of Memphis
RBC Dain in the midwest
Raymond James particularly in the Southeast
Robert W Baird out of Milwaukee which is a division of Northwestern Mutual Life
Stifel Nicolaus in and around Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Illionois
Southwest Securities in and around Texas

There are also some very respectable firms with a branch network, but not a large one.

Deutsche Bank-Alex Brown out of Baltimore
Ferris Baker Watts out of Washington, DC
First Southwest out of Dallas
Friedman Billings Ramsey out of the Washington DC area

There are boutique firms such as Goldman and Lehman which offer employment opportunities in major cities--but if you don't have an exceptional pedigree you're going to find them unreceptive.

If you're looking for a career opportunity in this industry go to your local library and find what is known as "The Red Book."

It's actually "Standard and Poors Security Dealers of North America" and will be in the reference section of the library.  It's about 600 pages of information about all members of the NASD alphabetized by state and city.  If you're in Chicagoland or the NYC area don't forget to look for all the suburbs.

There are a lot of branch offices listed, address, phone, manager and so forth.  Warning--DO NOT ASSUME THE MANAGER IS WHO IS LISTED SO DON'T WRITE A LETTER TO THEM WITHOUT FIRST CALLING THE BRANCH.  "Hi, is Roger Jones the current manager at your office?" is all you need to ask.

What you will not find is branch offices for the insurance based B/D community nor the branches for the various independent B/Ds that are out there.

They can be found on the Internet.

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=keith121883]

[/quote]

The list of national wirehouses in this country should include the following--in alphabetical order:

AG Edwards
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley
UBS
Smith Barney
Wachovia
[/quote]

I couldn't resist...  

[quote=BankFC][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=keith121883]

[/quote]

The list of national wirehouses in this country should include the following--in alphabetical order:

AG Edwards
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley
UBS
Smith Barney
Wachovia
[/quote]

I couldn't resist...  

[/quote]

UBS is actually PaineWebber, so the alphabetical order is accurate.

Newbie,

Only you would make such a dumb comment.  Your wife must hate you.

[quote=bankrep1]

Newbie,

Only you would make such a dumb comment.  Your wife must hate you.

[/quote]

Nah, she has even more trouble remembering that PaineWebber is now called UBS.

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=bankrep1]

Newbie,

Only you would make such a dumb comment.  Your wife must hate you.

[/quote]

Nah, she has even more trouble remembering that PaineWebber is now called UBS.

Interesting that NASD Newbie didn’t mention Edward Jones on his list of firms.  Why not?

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=NASD Newbie][quote=bankrep1]

Newbie,

Only you would make such a dumb comment.  Your wife must hate you.

[/quote]

Nah, she has even more trouble remembering that PaineWebber is now called UBS.

 

[/quote]

I still can't believe the Swiss dumjped the brand name and wrote off billions in good will....idiots....
[/quote]

Joe with all do respect.  That is like Merrill going to Europe and buying a major B/D let's call it XYZ and thinking about keeping the name XYZ, it's almost an insult to anyone who works at the home office of Merrill regardless of the good will.

[quote=Dudley Dawson]Interesting that NASD Newbie didn't mention Edward Jones on his list of firms.  Why not?[/quote]

Because I consider them to be more of an independent broker/dealer than a national or regional wirehouse.

I didn't list LPL, RJFS or any of the several dozen others that are out there competing in the "indy" world.

That said I have great--as in GREAT--respect for those who run EDJ. I spent a lot of time with John Bachman over the years and have always found the idea behind EDJ to be a fascinating study in self motivation and entreprenurialism (sp?).

I know quite a bit about LPL having also worked with Todd on NASD matters.

I know RJFS because I was part of an original committee formed by the NASD to offer advice to banks and thrifts seeking to establish securiites sales efforts.  RJFS has become a major player in their arena.

I am an exceptionally well informed and experienced veteran of the Wall Street wars.  My shoulders are broad, and my intellect is keen, so I could not care less about the sneering.

[quote=bankrep1]

Joe with all do respect.  That is like Merrill going to Europe and buying a major B/D let's call it XYZ and thinking about keeping the name XYZ, it's almost an insult to anyone who works at the home office of Merrill regardless of the good will.

[/quote]

The phrase is "due respect" not "do respect."

And you're completely wrong.  PaineWebber was a premier name in Wall Street that was never sullied.

UBS was foolish to discontinue their franchise.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=Dudley Dawson]Interesting that NASD Newbie didn't mention Edward Jones on his list of firms.  Why not?[/quote]

Because I consider them to be more of an independent broker/dealer than a national or regional wirehouse.

I didn't list LPL, RJFS or any of the several dozen others that are out there competing in the "indy" world.

That said I have great--as in GREAT--respect for those who run EDJ. I spent a lot of time with John Bachman over the years and have always found the idea behind EDJ to be a fascinating study in self motivation and entreprenurialism (sp?).

I know quite a bit about LPL having also worked with Todd on NASD matters.

I know RJFS because I was part of an original committee formed by the NASD to offer advice to banks and thrifts seeking to establish securiites sales efforts.  RJFS has become a major player in their arena.

I am an exceptionally well informed and experienced veteran of the Wall Street wars.  My shoulders are broad, and my intellect is keen, so I could not care less about the sneering.

[/quote]

And I'm a long range toro-fecundian.  I can smell bullsh*t from miles away.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=Dudley Dawson]Interesting that NASD Newbie didn't mention Edward Jones on his list of firms.  Why not?[/quote]

Because I consider them to be more of an independent broker/dealer than a national or regional wirehouse.

I didn't list LPL, RJFS or any of the several dozen others that are out there competing in the "indy" world.

That said I have great--as in GREAT--respect for those who run EDJ. I spent a lot of time with John Bachman over the years and have always found the idea behind EDJ to be a fascinating study in self motivation and entreprenurialism (sp?).

I know quite a bit about LPL having also worked with Todd on NASD matters.

I know RJFS because I was part of an original committee formed by the NASD to offer advice to banks and thrifts seeking to establish securiites sales efforts.  RJFS has become a major player in their arena.

I am an exceptionally well informed and experienced veteran of the Wall Street wars.  My shoulders are broad, and my intellect is keen, so I could not care less about the sneering.

[/quote]

LOL!!!  You are pathetic...

One of the things in life I have found to be very true is the harder a dog tries to bark, the smaller he is.  Truly influential, accomplished people do not need to blow their own horn.  They have no need or desire to build themselves up.

NASD is obviously not that. 

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=BankFC][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=keith121883]

[/quote]

The list of national wirehouses in this country should include the following--in alphabetical order:

AG Edwards
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley
UBS
Smith Barney
Wachovia
[/quote]

I couldn't resist...  

[/quote]

UBS is actually PaineWebber, so the alphabetical order is accurate.

[/quote]

No, actually, even if you go by that ridiculous logic, you are still out of order...Morgan Stanley should be considered Dean Witter, and D is before M (Merrill) in the alphabet.

Stupidity on your part either way you want to slice it.

[quote=BankFC][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=BankFC][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=keith121883]

[/quote]

The list of national wirehouses in this country should include the following--in alphabetical order:

AG Edwards
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley
UBS
Smith Barney
Wachovia
[/quote]

I couldn't resist...  

[/quote]

UBS is actually PaineWebber, so the alphabetical order is accurate.

[/quote]

No, actually, even if you go by that ridiculous logic, you are still out of order...Morgan Stanley should be considered Dean Witter, and D is before M (Merrill) in the alphabet.

Stupidity on your part either way you want to slice it.

[/quote]

Nope, Morgan Stanley has a longer history.  Dean Witter is relatively new compared to Morgan Stanley.

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=BankFC][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=BankFC][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=keith121883]

[/quote]

The list of national wirehouses in this country should include the following--in alphabetical order:

AG Edwards
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley
UBS
Smith Barney
Wachovia
[/quote]

I couldn't resist...  

[/quote]

UBS is actually PaineWebber, so the alphabetical order is accurate.

[/quote]

No, actually, even if you go by that ridiculous logic, you are still out of order...Morgan Stanley should be considered Dean Witter, and D is before M (Merrill) in the alphabet.

Stupidity on your part either way you want to slice it.

[/quote]

Nope, Morgan Stanley has a longer history.  Dean Witter is relatively new compared to Morgan Stanley.

[/quote]

I LOVE IT!  You are even further showing your stupidity rather than just admitting you made A VERY ELEMENTARY MISTAKE (knowing your ABC's)!  If you are now going to go on longer history...THEN YOU SHOULD USE UBS (founded 1860) RATHER THAN PAINEWEBBER (founded 1880).

Pick either way...either way they are out of order.

Again, either way, you made a simple mistake.  Mistakes happen, as we are humans.  I just enjoy watching you squirm, since you think you are incapable of error but obviously made one.