500 or bust?
3938 RepliesJump to last post
Got text from a long time friend who’s served as my ‘source’ behind much of the posts I’ve made here. He’s in St. Louis yesterday and today. Text read:" FAs who need $ now- bad. Know anyone looking for a manager?" This guy has been in his position for 8 yrs. with WS. He’s always been the Kool-aid drinker. Caught me off guard. Cryptic msg, maybe adds cred to increased payout as the plan?
Me either but I dont see that deal happening soon enough to impact this announcement.[/quote] What announcement? The elusive Feb. 13 retention/name conf call?? I am not getting a warm and fuzzy that it will happen....hope I'm wrong, very wrong.[quote=shredder]I don’t think the UBS deal is dead yet…
The reasoning is quite simple: Dollars and cents. Fair? Not really However, from management's perspective the retention that AGE brokers received and would owe will make it more difficult to leave than the WB broker. I received about $600,000 in deferred retention that I won't start seeing until 2012 or something. That's not going to keep me when my gross is down 20-30% Y/Y. AGE reps received decent amount of upfront money which they will owe the largest portion of back to the firm. WFC doesn't care about making it easier for you and me. They only care about retaining as many reps as possible with the least amount of cash. If you ask me, they don't get it. DL and Hays don't get it. They'd be smart to pay us all upfront and deferred comp and get us the money ASAP. It'll cost them a lot more to recruit someone to replace you or I than to pay us and keep many of us now. They are very short sighted. [/quote] 20yrVet -- FWIW, there is a pretty strong undercurrent running that the deferred retention you spoke of will have its vesting moved up as part of this package. The thinking is that doing so addresses the "cash" aspect of this "non traditional" deal.[/quote] The problem with that is that peoples DC has been decimated unless you kept in all in cash. If you were drinking the koolaide and bought CO stock you got destroyed. At the end of the day it ends up a pure BS deal if what you guys are saying is true. If they are going to true up then that would be different but merely accelorating vesting does basically nothing for the vast majority of us. You know, I just wonder if the UBS/WS joint venture was actually what was going on behind the scene? Why would you pull ISG out from brokerage if you had any intention of keeping your retail brokerage. It makes FAR more sense to have all brokerage channels under retail brokerage unless your plan is to "sell" retail brokerage. The rumor about a retention package for the combined entity starts to make a lot of sense now. The deal comes undone at the last minute and now DL, JH and DC are saying what do we do now? WFC doesnt want to pay and it made sense with the JV but we cant tell them they get nothing..... WFC says no money so they are left with trying to convince to accelorate DC and bump the grid.....[/quote] BukiRob -- You may be right on all counts, but that's not going to change it. From mgmt's perspective, what people did with deferred comp is their business (or problem). In their minds, they granted the $. Either in cash to AGE or deferred comp to WS. When the original thinking was for traditional retention (read cash up front), the skinny was always that the retention amount already paid on the AGE deal would be somehow factored against a typical "clean" deal, anyway. As for what happens next, there's a good spec that the JV resurfaces, but with four components: WFC (1) and UBS (2) in for about a 2:1 ratio, similar to broker headcount. Brokers retention (3) takes form of restricted stock in the JV and cash, supplied by a limited public offering (4) of enough stock from both WFC and UBS to take WFC's dominent share down to below 50% so they don't have to consolidate the JV's financials into theirs. But that'll take time, and maybe a better market, to pull off.[/quote] In the mean time, more empty words, no cash and "trust us" eh?[quote=BukiRob][quote=res ipsa loquitor][quote=20yrVet][quote=skbroker]I just dont see the reasoning behind paying the WB guys and not AGE. WB guys would be getting paid twice for just sitting on their ass.
I took the liberty of highlighting for all (above) the conclusion of this saga. It says everything and on many levels. Thanks for posting it in the first place.Got text from a long time friend who’s served as my ‘source’ behind much of the posts I’ve made here. He’s in St. Louis yesterday and today. Text read: " FAs who need $ now- bad. Know anyone looking for a manager?" This guy has been in his position for 8 yrs. with WS. He’s always been the Kool-aid drinker. Caught me off guard. Cryptic msg, maybe adds cred to increased payout as the plan?
Yes for the top tier producers. Unfortunately it could likely mean the elimination of lower producing FA's. If you are doing $300 or less you should be very concerned about your job if WS and UBS get together. I would say those FA's should look for a place to go before the axe fell. I hate to say that, but that is what I believe because that is the way the business is going. RJF and SF would then benefit as they are now. I also believe that the UBS WS deal is probable.If UBS/WS develops do you see a larger upfront retention coming?
" FAs who need $ now- bad. Know anyone looking for a manager?"
Text him back and tell him to ask those dumb ass MFers how economical it is to pay someone $1.2 mil to replace my production when I walk out of this dump vs. paying me $500k to stay.Didn’t Morgan Stanley just lop off anyone under 300k about 4 years ago without warning?
I have a feeling SF and RJ and LPL will benefit greatly in the next 3 months.Anyone hear anything about the timing of this annoucement??? Tomorrow, but what time??
* Brokerage focus in 2009 is organic growth
* U.S. wealth management unit "not for sale"
* January recruiting on pace with 4th-qtr
NEW YORK, Feb 11 - UBS, which considered a number of deals for its U.S. brokerage during the past year, is committed to keeping the business and growing it by actively recruiting advisers from rival firms, the Swiss bank's top U.S. brokerage executive told Reuters.
"There are so many people who don't intend to stay at their existing firms, the real growth potential in 2009 will be organic expansion," UBS Wealth Management Americas Chief Executive Marten Hoekstra said in an interview on Wednesday.
"That is not definitive -- at some price, every acquisition is attractive -- but this is an important growth opportunity," he added.
It was a tumultuous year for UBS, where massive credit losses prompted radical changes to its approach to investment banking and led investors to question UBS' presence in a number of businesses, including U.S. brokerage.
Hoekstra, who has worked his entire career at UBS and predecessor PaineWebber, said UBS is not exiting the U.S. brokerage business.
"As we speak today, the business is not for sale," he said.
UBS senior management in Zurich on Tuesday reiterated the group's commitment to U.S. wealth management.
Still, investors have been frustrated by a unit that reported a pretax loss of 698 million Swiss francs ($603 million) last year. The loss was driven by auction rate securities, illiquid debt securities UBS was forced by regulators to repurchase from clients.
Yet the U.S. wealth management business finished the year strong in terms of recruitment, taking advantage of an unprecedented period of turmoil in financial markets. Last fall Merrill Lynch rushed into the arms of Bank of America Corp, to avoid a Lehman Brothers-like collapse, while Wachovia Securities's parent was hobbled by mortgage losses.
UBS on Wednesday said it hired about 400 brokers in the fourth quarter, helping offset departures and grow the ranks of financial advisers by 274 to 8,182.
Total client assets at the U.S. unit fell by 29 percent to 600 billion francs ($518 billion) during the year, reflecting swooning markets as well as 10 billion francs ($8.6 billion) of outflows last fall.
Yes for the top tier producers. Unfortunately it could likely mean the elimination of lower producing FA's. If you are doing $300 or less you should be very concerned about your job if WS and UBS get together. I would say those FA's should look for a place to go before the axe fell. I hate to say that, but that is what I believe because that is the way the business is going. RJF and SF would then benefit as they are now. I also believe that the UBS WS deal is probable. [/quote] I COMPLETELY disagree with you. WS break even production number is about 250. Adding UBS in a JV isnt going to raise that number. Things will be run out of ST Louis and the additional assets and production will likely slightly reduce the break even point. It seems to me a LOT of you have no idea just how much damage this down turn has done to the firm wide average production. At the end of 2008 production was down an average of 35% and the market is down almost 12% YTD. A guy doing 450 in 07 is probably on track to do around 250 this year if things dont have a monster 2nd half of this year. No way in H*ll does a firm blow out guys who less than 2 years ago were doing north of 400.[quote=BE PATIENT]If UBS/WS develops do you see a larger upfront retention coming?
[quote=CDO Squared]
INTERVIEW-UPDATE 1-UBS seeks brokerage growth through recruiting* Brokerage focus in 2009 is organic growth
* U.S. wealth management unit "not for sale"
* January recruiting on pace with 4th-qtr
NEW YORK, Feb 11 - UBS, which considered a number of deals for its U.S. brokerage during the past year, is committed to keeping the business and growing it by actively recruiting advisers from rival firms, the Swiss bank's top U.S. brokerage executive told Reuters.
"There are so many people who don't intend to stay at their existing firms, the real growth potential in 2009 will be organic expansion," UBS Wealth Management Americas Chief Executive Marten Hoekstra said in an interview on Wednesday.
"That is not definitive -- at some price, every acquisition is attractive -- but this is an important growth opportunity," he added.
It was a tumultuous year for UBS, where massive credit losses prompted radical changes to its approach to investment banking and led investors to question UBS' presence in a number of businesses, including U.S. brokerage.
Hoekstra, who has worked his entire career at UBS and predecessor PaineWebber, said UBS is not exiting the U.S. brokerage business.
"As we speak today, the business is not for sale," he said.
UBS senior management in Zurich on Tuesday reiterated the group's commitment to U.S. wealth management.
Still, investors have been frustrated by a unit that reported a pretax loss of 698 million Swiss francs ($603 million) last year. The loss was driven by auction rate securities, illiquid debt securities UBS was forced by regulators to repurchase from clients.
Yet the U.S. wealth management business finished the year strong in terms of recruitment, taking advantage of an unprecedented period of turmoil in financial markets. Last fall Merrill Lynch rushed into the arms of Bank of America Corp, to avoid a Lehman Brothers-like collapse, while Wachovia Securities's parent was hobbled by mortgage losses.
UBS on Wednesday said it hired about 400 brokers in the fourth quarter, helping offset departures and grow the ranks of financial advisers by 274 to 8,182.
Total client assets at the U.S. unit fell by 29 percent to 600 billion francs ($518 billion) during the year, reflecting swooning markets as well as 10 billion francs ($8.6 billion) of outflows last fall.
[/quote] Hence a JV is not selling anything. I keeps a MKT precense, allows DL, DC and JH to run the US operations with WFC being the minority interest, brings down costs, increases revenue and profitability for UBS especially.[quote=Danny Isadouche]" FAs who need $ now- bad. Know anyone looking for a manager?"
Text him back and tell him to ask those dumb ass MFers how economical it is to pay someone $1.2 mil to replace my production when I walk out of this dump vs. paying me $500k to stay.[/quote]Sure, I'm sure he's anxious to accelerate his exit. Agree with your sentiment though!
2002 was a good year for me…i see no reason this year will be any differnt…lots of assets to be had in this market, if you have a good recovery strategy
why has this UBS guy gone out of his way to say "no deal’
i think the swiss have no clue what to do. they flipped flopped. they changed minds mid stream and left WS/DL holding their d&*(^ now all of a sudden they going to keep USA and grow internally i think DL was banking on it ws now red headed step child WFC got bagged with tax ruling also dont want ws ubs/ws would by far best best for us get rid of MF banks[quote=Tarpon]Didn’t Morgan Stanley just lop off anyone under 300k about 4 years ago without warning?
I have a feeling SF and RJ and LPL will benefit greatly in the next 3 months. [/quote] I don't think it was that high. Maybe for a long LOS. I thought they chopped 200 or 250 and below.[quote=CDO Squared]why has this UBS guy gone out of his way to say "no deal’
i think the swiss have no clue what to do. they flipped flopped. they changed minds mid stream and left WS/DL holding their d&*(^ now all of a sudden they going to keep USA and grow internally i think DL was banking on it ws now red headed step child WFC got bagged with tax ruling also dont want ws ubs/ws would by far best best for us get rid of MF banks[/quote] Things have gone from bad to worse in a matter of 3 weeks. Its all been negative news for WFC and I have come around to the perspective that they dont like, dont want a national scale wirehouse firm. I really think they (DL, JH and DC) thought they had a deal and were going to be able to do some things that would make people here real happy. That came unwound and now are going to drop a bag of bad news on us.[quote=CDO Squared]why has this UBS guy gone out of his way to say "no deal’
i think the swiss have no clue what to do. they flipped flopped. they changed minds mid stream and left WS/DL holding their d&*(^ now all of a sudden they going to keep USA and grow internally i think DL was banking on it ws now red headed step child WFC got bagged with tax ruling also dont want ws ubs/ws would by far best best for us get rid of MF banks[/quote] They way you grow the scope and market share of your business is by acquiring brokers and their assets. They will continue to recruit aggressively and imo look for a partnership. UBS growing from the 8000 advisers to the 20,0000 their competitors have will require a lot more than recruiting. UBS and WS would make sense.I would think if we were having a conference call tomorrow we would know by now. Not sure where everyone gets their info but it seems not even our so called sources have any clue.