UBS to Sell Small Branches?

218 replies [Last post]
ubssb's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-28

Does anyone know what day the cuts will happen? I figured it would have been Friday. Now I think it will either be Monday or Tuesday considering it is the end of the quarter. What do you guys think?

slimpickens's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-20

That seems drastic... a friend who works at UBS doubts they will cut that kind of production.  The stifel thing was overhyped and this sounds the same way.. I don't doubt that people will be cut, just not in mass..

NFA1972's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-11

They will cut salaries (redundant management, support, probalby some CSAs, and all NFAD still on salary, except those on a team.)
 
Also I've been hearing Tier 4 and below producers. All of that has to be done before offices can be consolidated. Offices colsolidated before WMUS is sold off.
 
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
 
 

NOVA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-01-11
IllinoisEagle's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-08

secret knowledge,
 
are you sure of your information?

bluetoon's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-29

 
So this is what I heard on thursday from a BM. Nothing confirmed...just what I heard through the grape vine:
 
1) there is a list already going around as of last week that has FA names on it (both New FA's and Old). I was told that anyone BELOW lvl 2 in production (so level 3 or lower) was on the list. A BM could petition for exceptions to SOME of those people on the list. As of now, that same BM said he petitioned for a couple and all were rejected. Secretknowledge said it was 5th quintile and below. I hope it's this and not level 3 and below as what I heard.
 
2) UBS has like $300 million they need to cut from US branches before they move on to whatever. So, they are cutting any FA no matter what LOS that was below a certain level. The BM said it would be a blood bathe across the board and people would be shocked by the numbers.
 
3) He said we have about 2 to 3 weeks....but with everything coming out, maybe sooner.
 
4) UBS has said in internal emails they don't want to cater to clients with less than 1 million.
 
5) UBS has said any FA below $400,000 a year in production really isn't profitable for them. Hard to believe.
 
 
Anyone else heard anything?

badmove?'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-10

WHAT PRODUCTION IS LEVEL 3?
ie @ WHAT LEVEL OF PRODUCTION DO CUTS COME?

nestegg's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-14

I bet the 55 Branches that are now SF branches are very happy if this is true...maybe the rest of you in small branches can petition to be sold

burtonfinancial1's picture
Joined: 2008-09-30

bluetoon wrote:
 
So this is what I heard on thursday from a BM. Nothing confirmed...just what I heard through the grape vine:
 
1) there is a list already going around as of last week that has FA names on it (both New FA's and Old). I was told that anyone BELOW lvl 2 in production (so level 3 or lower) was on the list. A BM could petition for exceptions to SOME of those people on the list. As of now, that same BM said he petitioned for a couple and all were rejected. Secretknowledge said it was 5th quintile and below. I hope it's this and not level 3 and below as what I heard.
 
2) UBS has like $300 million they need to cut from US branches before they move on to whatever. So, they are cutting any FA no matter what LOS that was below a certain level. The BM said it would be a blood bathe across the board and people would be shocked by the numbers.
 
3) He said we have about 2 to 3 weeks....but with everything coming out, maybe sooner.
 
4) UBS has said in internal emails they don't want to cater to clients with less than 1 million.
 
5) UBS has said any FA below $400,000 a year in production really isn't profitable for them. Hard to believe.
 
 
Anyone else heard anything?Anyone talking to recruiters who recruit for UBS lately?  I have been told they're slowing down and pulling deals in dramatically, and may even stop for a time.  Anyone hearing similar??  I was hoping to pull the 165% up front rip cord if all else fails!!! 

NFA1972's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-11

>>  Anyone talking to recruiters who recruit for UBS lately?  I have been told they're slowing down and pulling deals in dramatically, and may even stop for a time.  Anyone hearing similar??  I was hoping to pull the 165% up front rip cord if all else fails!!!  <<
 
That ship has sailed my friend!

burtonfinancial1's picture
Joined: 2008-09-30

NFA1972 wrote:>>  Anyone talking to recruiters who recruit for UBS lately?  I have been told they're slowing down and pulling deals in dramatically, and may even stop for a time.  Anyone hearing similar??  I was hoping to pull the 165% up front rip cord if all else fails!!!  <<
 
That ship has sailed my friend!EXACTLY!  That's what I'm hearing.  I know of some guys nearly 2 months into the 'process' who are being put on ice. Quintile 1 team!   They were bragging about their 'big' deal.. word is that deal is going going and maybe gone at least for the time being.

nestegg's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-14

See guys....this is why WS strung everyone along so long...before saying no retention...all those FA's that didnt move are stuck now...Danny is smarter than most give him credit for.

bluetoon's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-29

April 17th - the day the UBS World Stood still

bondo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-04-15

bluetoon wrote:April 17th - the day the UBS World Stood still
 
So, not tomorrow but three Fridays from now instead?

ubssb's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-28

I think it is sooner than April 17th. I have a friend in an office that already has boxes in the cage area that are ready to put the unfortunate brokers personal things in.

Lew Ashby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-13

May seem like a stupid question, but here goes....Would a Pacesetter (club level) producer doing less than $400K/yr need to be worried?  I have a friend (no, really) who has a short LOS, but has been kicking arse for her first 3 years.  To hear that she is not profitable at UBS is disturbing.  How in the world can that be so?  Would UBS actually let that person go?

Here's another question-- Let's say a guy who has built a great business at UBS gets a pink slip due to no fault of his own, but due to some new minimum production level not being met.  How hard of a fight will UBS put up if this person were to try to move his clients (post termination) to another firm (indie, bank, or regional)?
 
And here's one more....If one is 4 years into a 7 year forgivable loan period, and he is terminated due to the bogey not being met, how would that play out?
 
 LA

Delmarva's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-21

I have a question and please forgive me for intruding in the UBS forum but, "Has anyone heard of layoffs at the new Morgan Stanley Smith Barney?" I have been told a significant number of FAs (about 900) will be in the 20% payout. Also, does anyone have a comment about RBC or Commonwealth? Your insight would be appreciated. Thank you.

NOVA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-01-11

There's no way this thing will get dragged out till April 17th.  Today or tomorrow.  I don't know anything from the inside, but you can't keep a "list of names" secret for longer than 3 hours and there is no reason to wait three weeks.

Omar's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-19

I would be surprised if any FAs that are on full commission get canned.   What the big firms usually do (like mine) is just cut your payouts and/or nickel and dime you until you quit. That way your U4 does not have a termination on it and the company can go after YOUR clients.

If we are in a new world where layoffs are going to happen to FAs, and you get a pink slip, it's probably for the best.

Lew, to answer your question, I would think that if you get a pink slip your do not have to pay back the loan (hence forgivable) and you could go after your book without any problem.

NOVA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-01-11

iceco1d wrote:Can someone please help me get my brain around this?
 
WTF is it with all of these firms talking about putting FA's in the "penalty box" and 'not retaining lower producing FAs" and "blood bath layoffs of FAs" --- are these firms driven by bean counter morons?
 
I look at my firm; strictly retail brokerage.  Our net capital is like 400 times the min. requirement.  We make money from a corporate standpoint (and believe me, I think management is far from brilliant).  We do sh*t at my firm that the rest of you would scoff at (average account size is small, number of clients per broker is high, products selection is far more limited than a wire, etc. etc. etc.), and we are highly profitable.  Not profitable @ 300K in production?  Are you f'ing kidding me?
 
I hate to tell you, but someone is blowing smoke up your arse if they tell you a retail brokerage can't make money on you when you are producing 300k (AFTER haircuts), and they are paying you out at 35 - 50%.  Jesus.  Plus all the nickle & dime fees clients pay!
 
I would think, in a retail brokerage operation, the FA is the LAST job I would cut, or risk having people leave.  My god!  You don't produce, you don't get paid.  What other employees does UBS/Wach/etc. have that are like that?!
 
I just don't understand the mentality. 
 
What if Stifel adds a shatload more brokers?  Then hire some more $35K a year HR pikers, and a few more $40k a year computer geeks and increase back office capacity.  My god. 
 
It's pathetic to watch basically THE ONLY DIVISION in financial services to be PROFITABLE for the past 2 years get axed! 
 
Does firing a few thousand FAs make you executive twits feel better about your cash hemorraging i-banks?  Someone enlighten me.  /end rant.
 
I lied.  It's not end rant.  Look at every company in the god damn S&P 500.  See what their revenue per employee is.  Then tell me that a company that makes toilet paper can be successful @ way less than $100K per employee, while a retail brokerage can't make money @ over $300K per employee.
 
Now /end rant.  I promise.  Maybe.  For now at least.
 
This is how you lose money ofn a $400K guy:
 
You pay $2million for a $1.4million producer who brings about $300K profit to the firm each year.  For the first 6.7 years you pay down his/her upfront check.  For the next 1.3 years you enjoy the fruits of your business strategy, and the final year you wonder why your golden child is taking long lunches with branch managers from the next firm to pay $2million.
 
So, what's wrong with this?  It can't be the strategy, it can't be the recruit, it MUST be the $400K guy.

ubssb's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-28

Does anyone know what day this will all go down? Severance packages???? Anybody have any info???

slimpickens's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-20

SuperRecruiter wrote: Chris Varick wrote:SuperRecruiter wrote:In time, the answers shall be revealed...
 
So you have no info and want to seem like you do. Great thanksJust wait untill monday, man!
 
Callin you out.. it seems you know nothing..

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

iceco1d wrote:Can someone please help me get my brain around this?
 
WTF is it with all of these firms talking about putting FA's in the "penalty box" and 'not retaining lower producing FAs" and "blood bath layoffs of FAs" --- are these firms driven by bean counter morons?
 
I look at my firm; strictly retail brokerage.  Our net capital is like 400 times the min. requirement.  We make money from a corporate standpoint (and believe me, I think management is far from brilliant).  We do sh*t at my firm that the rest of you would scoff at (average account size is small, number of clients per broker is high, products selection is far more limited than a wire, etc. etc. etc.), and we are highly profitable.  Not profitable @ 300K in production?  Are you f'ing kidding me?
 
I hate to tell you, but someone is blowing smoke up your arse if they tell you a retail brokerage can't make money on you when you are producing 300k (AFTER haircuts), and they are paying you out at 35 - 50%.  Jesus.  Plus all the nickle & dime fees clients pay!
 
I would think, in a retail brokerage operation, the FA is the LAST job I would cut, or risk having people leave.  My god!  You don't produce, you don't get paid.  What other employees does UBS/Wach/etc. have that are like that?!
 
I just don't understand the mentality. 
 
What if Stifel adds a shatload more brokers?  Then hire some more $35K a year HR pikers, and a few more $40k a year computer geeks and increase back office capacity.  My god. 
 
It's pathetic to watch basically THE ONLY DIVISION in financial services to be PROFITABLE for the past 2 years get axed! 
 
Does firing a few thousand FAs make you executive twits feel better about your cash hemorraging i-banks?  Someone enlighten me.  /end rant.
 
I lied.  It's not end rant.  Look at every company in the god damn S&P 500.  See what their revenue per employee is.  Then tell me that a company that makes toilet paper can be successful @ way less than $100K per employee, while a retail brokerage can't make money @ over $300K per employee.
 
Now /end rant.  I promise.  Maybe.  For now at least.
 
ICE, IMHO the issue is not that those producers are not profitable (since it is all incremental revenue), it's more that many of them are trying to downsize their overhead structure and become more streamlined.  They want to serve one type of client real well - the wealthy kind.  So they don't want to employ thousands of extra home-office and regional people just to service all these little accounts.  By reducing lower-producing FA's (who theoretically with long LOS have lower avg acount sizes), you are also reducing the overhead-per-FA, as well as the expense ratio for the same.  It actually takes more to service the small producers than the big producers, because the big producers generally have teams (that they pay for) that service the clients.  The little solo guys doing 300K by themselves rely on others for support.  This is the other little secret wirehouse firms have as to why teams or so great to have.  THEY pay for the support staff, not the firm.  Obviously, you need home-office staff to process transactions, do compliance, registration, marketing, etc.  But why not do it across fewer FA's and fewer accounts?  And how many clients with 50K in an allocation fund need corporate cash management services, or will buy IPO's, or run institutional firms that need services, or have wealthy friends and co-workers?  There are a lot of self-fulfilling advantages to serving wealthy clients beyond just larger account balances. 
 
It also makes selling a firm more attractive.

stampede's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-06

B24 wrote:iceco1d wrote:Can someone please help me get my brain around this?
 
WTF is it with all of these firms talking about putting FA's in the "penalty box" and 'not retaining lower producing FAs" and "blood bath layoffs of FAs" --- are these firms driven by bean counter morons?
 
I look at my firm; strictly retail brokerage.  Our net capital is like 400 times the min. requirement.  We make money from a corporate standpoint (and believe me, I think management is far from brilliant).  We do sh*t at my firm that the rest of you would scoff at (average account size is small, number of clients per broker is high, products selection is far more limited than a wire, etc. etc. etc.), and we are highly profitable.  Not profitable @ 300K in production?  Are you f'ing kidding me?
 
I hate to tell you, but someone is blowing smoke up your arse if they tell you a retail brokerage can't make money on you when you are producing 300k (AFTER haircuts), and they are paying you out at 35 - 50%.  Jesus.  Plus all the nickle & dime fees clients pay!
 
I would think, in a retail brokerage operation, the FA is the LAST job I would cut, or risk having people leave.  My god!  You don't produce, you don't get paid.  What other employees does UBS/Wach/etc. have that are like that?!
 
I just don't understand the mentality. 
 
What if Stifel adds a shatload more brokers?  Then hire some more $35K a year HR pikers, and a few more $40k a year computer geeks and increase back office capacity.  My god. 
 
It's pathetic to watch basically THE ONLY DIVISION in financial services to be PROFITABLE for the past 2 years get axed! 
 
Does firing a few thousand FAs make you executive twits feel better about your cash hemorraging i-banks?  Someone enlighten me.  /end rant.
 
I lied.  It's not end rant.  Look at every company in the god damn S&P 500.  See what their revenue per employee is.  Then tell me that a company that makes toilet paper can be successful @ way less than $100K per employee, while a retail brokerage can't make money @ over $300K per employee.
 
Now /end rant.  I promise.  Maybe.  For now at least.
 
ICE, IMHO the issue is not that those producers are not profitable (since it is all incremental revenue), it's more that many of them are trying to downsize their overhead structure and become more streamlined.  They want to serve one type of client real well - the wealthy kind.  So they don't want to employ thousands of extra home-office and regional people just to service all these little accounts.  By reducing lower-producing FA's (who theoretically with long LOS have lower avg acount sizes), you are also reducing the overhead-per-FA, as well as the expense ratio for the same.  It actually takes more to service the small producers than the big producers, because the big producers generally have teams (that they pay for) that service the clients.  The little solo guys doing 300K by themselves rely on others for support.  This is the other little secret wirehouse firms have as to why teams or so great to have.  THEY pay for the support staff, not the firm.  Obviously, you need home-office staff to process transactions, do compliance, registration, marketing, etc.  But why not do it across fewer FA's and fewer accounts?  And how many clients with 50K in an allocation fund need corporate cash management services, or will buy IPO's, or run institutional firms that need services, or have wealthy friends and co-workers?  There are a lot of self-fulfilling advantages to serving wealthy clients beyond just larger account balances. 
 
It also makes selling a firm more attractive.
 
What a bullsh*t answer.  These mopes have a business model that doesn't work and it won't.  The first post above spells it out very well. 

Conrad Dobler's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-11

stampede wrote:B24 wrote:iceco1d wrote:Can someone please help me get my brain around this?
 
WTF is it with all of these firms talking about putting FA's in the "penalty box" and 'not retaining lower producing FAs" and "blood bath layoffs of FAs" --- are these firms driven by bean counter morons?
 
I look at my firm; strictly retail brokerage.  Our net capital is like 400 times the min. requirement.  We make money from a corporate standpoint (and believe me, I think management is far from brilliant).  We do sh*t at my firm that the rest of you would scoff at (average account size is small, number of clients per broker is high, products selection is far more limited than a wire, etc. etc. etc.), and we are highly profitable.  Not profitable @ 300K in production?  Are you f'ing kidding me?
 
I hate to tell you, but someone is blowing smoke up your arse if they tell you a retail brokerage can't make money on you when you are producing 300k (AFTER haircuts), and they are paying you out at 35 - 50%.  Jesus.  Plus all the nickle & dime fees clients pay!
 
I would think, in a retail brokerage operation, the FA is the LAST job I would cut, or risk having people leave.  My god!  You don't produce, you don't get paid.  What other employees does UBS/Wach/etc. have that are like that?!
 
I just don't understand the mentality. 
 
What if Stifel adds a shatload more brokers?  Then hire some more $35K a year HR pikers, and a few more $40k a year computer geeks and increase back office capacity.  My god. 
 
It's pathetic to watch basically THE ONLY DIVISION in financial services to be PROFITABLE for the past 2 years get axed! 
 
Does firing a few thousand FAs make you executive twits feel better about your cash hemorraging i-banks?  Someone enlighten me.  /end rant.
 
I lied.  It's not end rant.  Look at every company in the god damn S&P 500.  See what their revenue per employee is.  Then tell me that a company that makes toilet paper can be successful @ way less than $100K per employee, while a retail brokerage can't make money @ over $300K per employee.
 
Now /end rant.  I promise.  Maybe.  For now at least.
 
ICE, IMHO the issue is not that those producers are not profitable (since it is all incremental revenue), it's more that many of them are trying to downsize their overhead structure and become more streamlined.  They want to serve one type of client real well - the wealthy kind.  So they don't want to employ thousands of extra home-office and regional people just to service all these little accounts.  By reducing lower-producing FA's (who theoretically with long LOS have lower avg acount sizes), you are also reducing the overhead-per-FA, as well as the expense ratio for the same.  It actually takes more to service the small producers than the big producers, because the big producers generally have teams (that they pay for) that service the clients.  The little solo guys doing 300K by themselves rely on others for support.  This is the other little secret wirehouse firms have as to why teams or so great to have.  THEY pay for the support staff, not the firm.  Obviously, you need home-office staff to process transactions, do compliance, registration, marketing, etc.  But why not do it across fewer FA's and fewer accounts?  And how many clients with 50K in an allocation fund need corporate cash management services, or will buy IPO's, or run institutional firms that need services, or have wealthy friends and co-workers?  There are a lot of self-fulfilling advantages to serving wealthy clients beyond just larger account balances. 
 
It also makes selling a firm more attractive.
 
What a bullsh*t answer.  These mopes have a business model that doesn't work and it won't.  The first post above spells it out very well. 
 
Where's the evidence that the business model doesn't work? The fact that some firms got caught up in sub-prime issues and stumbled?  Because the markets are down? Don't confuse those issues with long term profitability.
 
I fear B24 has hit the nail on the head. Firms know a massive measure of profitablity is average production per broker, and nothing gooses that number faster than cutting out the lower producers, especially the senior ones. One 1MM producer is more profitable than 3 333.3M producers (less overhead) and the 3 reps tend to represent a higher level of legal exposure to the firm than the 1 1MM FA does.
 
IMHO, if you're under 400k and at a wirehouse, you'd better be thinking about "plan B".
 
 

secretknowledge's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-28

It all has to do with decreasing cost structures. It is not just UBS but the entire wirehouse portion of the industry. The support structures are bloated and need to be reduced. There will be large layoffs at the corporate level at UBS and all other firms.

You will seee a decrease in the number of regions and all of the support that goes with those offices. Small branches will be sold and overlapping offices in medium and small loacations consolidated.

Look at the retention deals at ML, WFC and citimorg. None are compensating the under $500,000 producer. There is a reason, they do not make money on them. Margins are not large enough at UBS, about 10%. They are 20% at ML and SB. The reason in someways is scale. Not headcount scale, but revenue scale.

The under $500,000 producer is headed to the regionals were thay are welcome as they can make $$$ on them. The reason? The support structures at regional firms are not as extensive or expensive as the wirehouses.

Also, production is going down, the $600,000 producer in 2007 did $450,000 ish in 2008 and is headed to a $375,000 year in 2009 if the markets do not improve. this means that the staffing in your offices will decrease.

The cuts at UBS will be announced before the April 15th meeting. They will be extensive management cuts as well as FA cuts. If youare doing under $300,000 at UBS or any other wirehouse and are not on a team you are going to get laid off.

The wirehouses are going to have to totally rebuild there support model. It will be more team oriented, financial planning, fees and yet more transaction oriented at the bond level. The brokers left will be more sophisticated and knowledgeable, yet product offerings will return more to the basics.

So, help your clients and you will still survive.

If you are under $500,000 reaxamine your business model decide if it is still correct and if it can continue to be implimented at your current employer.

Good luck all.

Sam Houston's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-12-01

secretknowledge wrote:It all has to do with decreasing cost structures. It is not just UBS but the entire wirehouse portion of the industry. The support structures are bloated and need to be reduced. There will be large layoffs at the corporate level at UBS and all other firms. You will seee a decrease in the number of regions and all of the support that goes with those offices. Small branches will be sold and overlapping offices in medium and small loacations consolidated. Look at the retention deals at ML, WFC and citimorg. None are compensating the under $500,000 producer. There is a reason, they do not make money on them. Margins are not large enough at UBS, about 10%. They are 20% at ML and SB. The reason in someways is scale. Not headcount scale, but revenue scale. The under $500,000 producer is headed to the regionals were thay are welcome as they can make $$$ on them. The reason? The support structures at regional firms are not as extensive or expensive as the wirehouses. Also, production is going down, the $600,000 producer in 2007 did $450,000 ish in 2008 and is headed to a $375,000 year in 2009 if the markets do not improve. this means that the staffing in your offices will decrease. The cuts at UBS will be announced before the April 15th meeting. They will be extensive management cuts as well as FA cuts. If youare doing under $300,000 at UBS or any other wirehouse and are not on a team you are going to get laid off. The wirehouses are going to have to totally rebuild there support model. It will be more team oriented, financial planning, fees and yet more transaction oriented at the bond level. The brokers left will be more sophisticated and knowledgeable, yet product offerings will return more to the basics. So, help your clients and you will still survive. If you are under $500,000 reaxamine your business model decide if it is still correct and if it can continue to be implimented at your current employer. Good luck all.
 
WFC had a retention?  There is a 400+ post thread that disagrees with you.

Conrad Dobler's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-11

Sam Houston wrote:secretknowledge wrote:It all has to do with decreasing cost structures. It is not just UBS but the entire wirehouse portion of the industry. The support structures are bloated and need to be reduced. There will be large layoffs at the corporate level at UBS and all other firms. You will seee a decrease in the number of regions and all of the support that goes with those offices. Small branches will be sold and overlapping offices in medium and small loacations consolidated. Look at the retention deals at ML, WFC and citimorg. None are compensating the under $500,000 producer. There is a reason, they do not make money on them. Margins are not large enough at UBS, about 10%. They are 20% at ML and SB. The reason in someways is scale. Not headcount scale, but revenue scale. The under $500,000 producer is headed to the regionals were thay are welcome as they can make $$$ on them. The reason? The support structures at regional firms are not as extensive or expensive as the wirehouses. Also, production is going down, the $600,000 producer in 2007 did $450,000 ish in 2008 and is headed to a $375,000 year in 2009 if the markets do not improve. this means that the staffing in your offices will decrease. The cuts at UBS will be announced before the April 15th meeting. They will be extensive management cuts as well as FA cuts. If youare doing under $300,000 at UBS or any other wirehouse and are not on a team you are going to get laid off. The wirehouses are going to have to totally rebuild there support model. It will be more team oriented, financial planning, fees and yet more transaction oriented at the bond level. The brokers left will be more sophisticated and knowledgeable, yet product offerings will return more to the basics. So, help your clients and you will still survive. If you are under $500,000 reaxamine your business model decide if it is still correct and if it can continue to be implimented at your current employer. Good luck all.
 
WFC had a retention?  There is a 400+ post thread that disagrees with you.
 
Didn't WFC institute some "client service" hurdles that looked like a retention package? A sort of retention package that would avoid the TARP-meets-bonuses-meets-Congress noises other firms have encountered?

secretknowledge's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-28

WFC techanically did not have a retention. Take a look at how it is set up. Retention package has no strings attached to hit the numbers.

Raindog's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-02-17

UBS is going to cut the fat and be an upscale "boutique" of 5000 advisors instead of trying to get up to 12,000 advisors.

From what I have seen they are being very selective on who gets show the door.

burtonfinancial1's picture
Joined: 2008-09-30

I think those saying UBS is being VERY selective on who get's in the door right now is true. Deals are being cut back at UBS hard lately. There's serious denial going on within the walls of the local offices to me. I know a load of guys there with heavy LOS who are at risk of getting rolled who continue to tell me how profitable they are. It's hard to wake up and realize that your 08' production is NOT your current production. My dad who got me into this business forever ago told me I was only as good as my last month at least 1000 times over the decade we worked together. Harsh but true. 

dpiper's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-31

Wake up and smell the coffee guys, its going to happen.   Before you sign on with SN check out the independent end, First Financial Equity Corp has been around for 25 years, has all the good stuff without the B.S.  looks pretty good.   Stifel is where Dain was 12-15 years ago, and wanting to grow, so where will you be in 5 years?

georgicaclose's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-16

Nothing has gone down in our office the past two days, so the whole end of first quarter purge didn't seem to happen. One thing I have heard is that it's lower quintile FAs with double digit LOS they are targeting, not the newer FAs that have managed to grow their books through this crisis.  Growth is key.  Anyone else at a UBS office have anything to report?

nestegg's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-14

dpiper wrote:Wake up and smell the coffee guys, its going to happen.   Before you sign on with SN check out the independent end, First Financial Equity Corp has been around for 25 years, has all the good stuff without the B.S.  looks pretty good.   Stifel is where Dain was 12-15 years ago, and wanting to grow, so where will you be in 5 years?Seriously???

secretknowledge's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-28

All Fa's no matter LOS or if they are on a deal. If you are on a deal and let go you will owe $$$$ to the firm. If in this situation, go back and read your EFL.

Most all trainees 3 years and under will be gone.

Deals will stop alll over the street for while.

bluetoon's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-29

do you know if it's this week or next by chance? My contact said apr 17th ish but not 100%

Takingnames's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-11-09

Nothing I'll put in writing, but something is definately up.
Kicking & Taking

ubssb's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-28

I think the day everything will happen is after the managed money revenue hits the FA's grid in April. If they cut anyone before that I think UBS will have a serious problem on their hands. How could they cut FA's and then give the past 3 months of managed money revenue to another FA that inherits the account?    

NOVA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-01-11

They pay you  in May for Q2, and when you depart the next day you've been paid for 12 weeks but worked only 6.  So, one of their entry level attorney's sends you a letter with the sentence "we DEMAND payment."  It's great to finally confirm who's in charge.  It's a BONUS for sticking it out as long as you did.  However, the FA who takes over your account does NOT get paid for the remainder of the quarter, all that revenue goes straight to the firm.  Maybe branch level, don't know.
 
Also, I think fee revenue hits end of April, I don't see this thread lasting another month.

Independent's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-15

At some point you have to get frustrated being a pawn in a chess game.  You are not valued because your office is in a rural area.  You are not valued because your production is down in the midst of the greatest bear market since the Depression.  Why not take control of your own destiny?  To get started in the process, get that book on Going Independent at www.cantella.com

burtonfinancial1's picture
Joined: 2008-09-30

Independent wrote:At some point you have to get frustrated being a pawn in a chess game.  You are not valued because your office is in a rural area.  You are not valued because your production is down in the midst of the greatest bear market since the Depression.  Why not take control of your own destiny?  To get started in the process, get that book on Going Independent at www.cantella.comDude... please

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

nestegg wrote:
dpiper wrote:Wake up and smell the coffee guys, its going to happen.   Before you sign on with SN check out the independent end, First Financial Equity Corp has been around for 25 years, has all the good stuff without the B.S.  looks pretty good.   Stifel is where Dain was 12-15 years ago, and wanting to grow, so where will you be in 5 years?What does this mean? Where was Dain 12-15 years ago? Who is First Financial Equity? Has anyone on this board ever heard of them? Are you recruiting for them? Enlighten me. This enviroment is going to be excellent for Stifel and RJ and LPL. A lot of small B/D's are going to fall by the wayside. There is going to be a tremendous need for scale and size. If for no other reason, because of the rising costs of regulation that are about to hit these firms.If i was going indie or regional, i would want to be with a firm that is well established, and can handle growth without breaking stride.

nestegg's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-14

Sportsfreakbob wrote:
nestegg wrote:
dpiper wrote:Wake up and smell the coffee guys, its going to happen.   Before you sign on with SN check out the independent end, First Financial Equity Corp has been around for 25 years, has all the good stuff without the B.S.  looks pretty good.   Stifel is where Dain was 12-15 years ago, and wanting to grow, so where will you be in 5 years?What does this mean? Where was Dain 12-15 years ago? Who is First Financial Equity? Has anyone on this board ever heard of them? Are you recruiting for them? Enlighten me. This enviroment is going to be excellent for Stifel and RJ and LPL. A lot of small B/D's are going to fall by the wayside. There is going to be a tremendous need for scale and size. If for no other reason, because of the rising costs of regulation that are about to hit these firms.If i was going indie or regional, i would want to be with a firm that is well established, and can handle growth without breaking stride.I was wondering the same thing!

secretknowledge's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-28

I heard April 20th.

bondo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-04-15

Anything new with this?  Seems like too big of a rumor, if true, to keep this quiet.

georgicaclose's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-16

Smaller producers are going independent en masse.  Not sure if management is turning the screws or if word of this culling has been confirmed and they are getting out in front of it.  

NOVA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-01-11

Someone posted about "retention deals" to some Sr brokers a week or so ago.  To me this is key, it's a secret that can't be kept.  If the April 17 or 20th rumor is correct, and that 20% of the FAs are cut, then will UBS:
1) be cruel, and  re-allocate all the accounts that day after telling the 20% that protocol doesn't apply to layed off folks, and then re-assign only to folks who signed the mysterious "retention"?
or
2) be corporate, and say sorry, good luck to you, business is business, we'll keep what we can good luck getting a few clients to move (once you've found another firm)
 

Lew Ashby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-13

My manager has dropped hints that within two weeks, things will be shaken up drastically in the branch.  We have rookies and dinosaurs-- not sure if either will be with us after tax day.  
 
LA

NOVA's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-01-11

I heard teams supposedly get preferential treatment.  If you're doing 300K as a jr you stay.  300K as a loner you're gone. 

Lew Ashby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-13

NOVA wrote:I heard teams supposedly get preferential treatment.  If you're doing 300K as a jr you stay.  300K as a loner you're gone. 
 
Nova, just to clarify what you said, if a person has T12 of $299K, they are gone, but if they are at $301K, they're fine?  Also, where are you getting this specific number, and what date are they saying?
 
LA

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×