500 or bust?
3938 RepliesJump to last post
Let me ask the question of you all more clearly…some please tell me why Obama appointed the UBS America CEO Robert Wolf as on of the only handful (and only Wall Street Executive) to his Newly Created Economic Advisory Board. This board is for the best of the best. There is Immelt, Owen (Catepillar CEO), Donaldson, Ferguson (TIAA-CREF Pres)…etc etc…and Wolf…UBS. Why??? Obviously Hoekstra would say that UBS isn’t leaving the USA…they are in with the admin. now…why would they leave. Maybe JV is still on the table…just my thoughts…from my head…no sources of info…
I worked @ pwj as well, and continue on at ubs. Never once in 15 years have I ever had any product pushed on me. That sounds absolutely absurd. You must have either been under a crappy manager’s thumb, or you should have spoken up to the region. I’ve worked for multiple BOM’s and have always been proud of the lack of such pressure at the firm. The open architecture has always been present, with proprietary products available, but NEVER pushed. Half the FA’s don’t even know what structured prods are.
As far as a deal, UBS hinted that a retention dal was en route (though minor in significance), but has been quiet with details for a couple weeks. They have clearly been segregating the portion of the field they would prefer to retain via the ten HNW offices over the past couyple of years. All the big $ recent recruits from LEH and GS have been targeted for those offices as well. UBS never envisioned themselves as a mom and pop investment shop in the states, and clearly would prefer to be seen as a more exclusive offering (like a GS). If any deal does come to fruition, watch for the HNW offices to stick with the mother ship, and the remaining us wealth management brokers to be spun off. Global Asset Management just announced significant layoffs on thursday, and has been on the bloc for months. If they can't find a dancing partner in the short term, they will wait until the landscape is better and reapproach. Rumor is that some of the JPM guys have very close ties to UBS. Big difficulty for any deal with WS is the finet platform. No similar structure exists on the UBS side, and they know there would be a significant wave of UBS guys wanting to jump to that channel.[quote=jacks]
As far as a deal, UBS hinted that a retention dal was en route (though minor in significance), but has been quiet with details for a couple weeks. They have clearly been segregating the portion of the field they would prefer to retain via the ten HNW offices over the past couyple of years. All the big $ recent recruits from LEH and GS have been targeted for those offices as well. UBS never envisioned themselves as a mom and pop investment shop in the states, and clearly would prefer to be seen as a more exclusive offering (like a GS). If any deal does come to fruition, watch for the HNW offices to stick with the mother ship, and the remaining us wealth management brokers to be spun off. Global Asset Management just announced significant layoffs on thursday, and has been on the bloc for months. If they can't find a dancing partner in the short term, they will wait until the landscape is better and reapproach. Rumor is that some of the JPM guys have very close ties to UBS. [/quote] I have been thinking the exact same thing. I was thinking that offices with under $10mm in revenue would be spun off and formed into whatever joint-venture they could come up with.jacks,
sounds like you have had a good experience at ubs. that was not the case with us at all. worked very hard building a fee-based business only to be told constantly we had to meet a monthly minimum for structured products. complained to regional many times to no avail. incidently, both the BOM from that time and the regional are now gone. you are right. i think a lot of producers at UBS would be very intrigued by the Finet platform. At least from my experience, I don't see that as being acceptable to UBS management. I don't think UBS would agree to a JV with Finet as part of the deal. Finet and probably Profit Formula would be spun off in another direction. Interesting times we are in here.Wealth management is the core of UBS. More than 30 percent of global wealth is in the United States. UBS would not be a global player without a U.S. offering…
That does not exclude a JV on the brokerage side. As a matter of fact that would allow both banks to profit. It would enhance distribution. And, they could bounce a ton of back office expenses eliminating duplication. It would not be either firm getting rid of the business - it would just be combining two sales forces and splitting the profits while increasing margins and market share. So UBS would continue in the US market - the combined group would be the biggest and most profitable brokerage out there. Given the Wachovia ranking and now the UBS ranking in terms of size it would make sense.The downside for the lower producers is that all the lower producers would be sliced eventually. Just an opinin but I think it makes sense from a business perspective.
I wish Tad the best, but Holy Crap that webpage is straight outta 1993.Benjamin F. Edwards & Co
www.Benjaminfedwards.com
http://www.wallstreetletter.com/ArticleLogin.aspx?ArticleID=1364216
Wachovia Securities last week began discussing retention packages with A.G. Edwards managers and is expected to offer most brokers 30% of their annual production to stay at the firm. While that figure seems low and details of the offer slow in coming, Wachovia is said to be feeling out the right price and will make package adjustments to minimize attrition. Top-end producers with more than $1 million in annual commissions would receive 100% of last year's production, and there would be a range of offers for those with production between $300,000 and $1 million. The offer won't assuage every broker; producers with less than $300,000 in annual production don't anticipate a retention offer as part of the $6.8 ...Well, correct me if I am wrong, but that is the first published article I have seen that mentions some actual percentages as far as retention is concerned. Now we can all spend the next couple of days speculating what those %'s are, and whose channel gets what…fun.
[quote=jacks] I worked @ pwj as well, and continue on at ubs. Never once in 15 years have I ever had any product pushed on me. That sounds absolutely absurd. You must have either been under a crappy manager’s thumb, or you should have spoken up to the region. I’ve worked for multiple BOM’s and have always been proud of the lack of such pressure at the firm. The open architecture has always been present, with proprietary products available, but NEVER pushed. Half the FA’s don’t even know what structured prods are.
As far as a deal, UBS hinted that a retention dal was en route (though minor in significance), but has been quiet with details for a couple weeks. They have clearly been segregating the portion of the field they would prefer to retain via the ten HNW offices over the past couyple of years. All the big $ recent recruits from LEH and GS have been targeted for those offices as well. UBS never envisioned themselves as a mom and pop investment shop in the states, and clearly would prefer to be seen as a more exclusive offering (like a GS). If any deal does come to fruition, watch for the HNW offices to stick with the mother ship, and the remaining us wealth management brokers to be spun off. Global Asset Management just announced significant layoffs on thursday, and has been on the bloc for months. If they can’t find a dancing partner in the short term, they will wait until the landscape is better and reapproach. Rumor is that some of the JPM guys have very close ties to UBS.
Big difficulty for any deal with WS is the finet platform. No similar structure exists on the UBS side, and they know there would be a significant wave of UBS guys wanting to jump to that channel.[/quote]
what does “open Architecture” mean?
CDO, it’s means they haircut every product, so feel free to work whatever you want.
What does Open architecture mean?? I can only hope you are kidding when you ask this, but it means that you have the right/ability to “design” you practice however you want, meaning you do not have to use proprietary product. In essence, you could have 10 different guys in an office who all do business using 10 different techniques or product mixes.
nope. not kidding.
what i though it ment was what WS has.
ie: profit formula, FINET etc
where FA have various levels of control over core expenses etc
i didnt think there was any way in hell UBS had that flexibility
then who does NOT have open arch in our biz?
The last words…part of the $6.8 leads me to believe this is an old article
on the original retention in 2007. The search in Google shows this to be 6/01/07.[quote=Namadi] http://www.wallstreetletter.com/ArticleLogin.aspx?ArticleID=1364216
Wachovia Securities last week began discussing retention packages with A.G. Edwards managers and is expected to offer most brokers 30% of their annual production to stay at the firm. While that figure seems low and details of the offer slow in coming, Wachovia is said to be feeling out the right price and will make package adjustments to minimize attrition. Top-end producers with more than $1 million in annual commissions would receive 100% of last year’s production, and there would be a range of offers for those with production between $300,000 and $1 million. The offer won’t assuage every broker; producers with less than $300,000 in annual production don’t anticipate a retention offer as part of the $6.8 … [/quote]
its from age deal
If retention is announced this coming week (have heard from the BM that is the case) when do firms typically pay it? I know for the AGE/WS merger they were very quick with checks.
I am thinking of non compete paperwork to get the new retention. If you wanted to leave after March 20 seems like this would be a problem. Not like you can just pass on whatever the retention deal is.