Ubs

interested also…

I'd vote for you...you've got a sweet bike and you're really good at hooking up
with chicks. Plus you're like the only guy in school with a mustache.

-Napoleon Dynamite

Was that a good movie or what?

their web site says a lot.  I think its the same as ML, SB, MS.  You get food money for a limited time.

Why UBS is my question.  They are not a leader.  Go after the leaders first like Merrill, Raymond James , and AG Edwards.  Settle for UBS if you can’t get offers from those guys.

do you put ML, RJ, and AGE in the same category?  Also, do you put UBS below RJ and AGE?

that surprises me, what do others think?

Personally, I think Merrill, then UBS and AG, then RJ… Just my humble non-informed opinion.

"Go after the leaders first like Merrill, Raymond James , and AG Edwards"

Huh? The leaders are ML, MS and SB, period. They're almost clones they're so close.

AG is a fine second tier firm with no proprietary funds, but no underwriting either. UBS is a second tier firm with loads of proprietary products and limited underwriting (and it’s owned by a foreign bank) RJ is a regional firm with a mixed rep so far as I can tell.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Match up your goals for your business with the right firm.  ML and
SB will only work if you want to work crazy hard for a few years, and
if you have a desire to manage larger affluent clients.  The
typical client between $0 and $500K can be done with mutual funds,
annuities, and more basic products.  If this is what you are going
after, which is a fine business, ML and SB may not be the best fit.

I am afraid you are mistaken folks. UBS happens to be the largest asset management firm on the planet!! And the #1 municipal underwriter in the country last year!

Yeah, UBS is a good firm, and based on assets under management it hold
a slight lead… But what client out there is gonna get excited that it
writes the most muni fixed income… Congrats UBS… I think most would
agree that UBS falls into the second tier of brokerage firms IN THE US.
This is based on several factors, such as product and service breadth,
quality of technology, brand recognition, etc. They have made vast
improvements in recent years, but I feel that they have been hurt by
dropping the Paine Webber name… Its just a cosmetic change, but in
the US, name recognition is huge ( on the other hand, UBS has seemed to
stay out of trouble the past few years). Ah, its all a crapshoot…

Could you please pass me the Corporate Kool-Aid?

I don't think any firm has better technology than Merrill, and they have strong lending capabilities, but other than that I don't think Merrill is as strong as it once was. UBS business model is set up to change ultra high-net worth clients, and they do lead the industry in that market numbers-wise. AG and RJ are more set up for traditional retirement planning clients, not that anything is wrong with that, one of UBS's biggest producers does most of his production through rollovers.

Stan, what are these proprietary products, other than hedge funds? They do have their own mutual funds, but I don't know anyone at UBS who uses them. They have managed platforms that are proprietary, but they're pretty decent platforms, as well as managed platforms that aren't proprietary.

What client gets excited about muni capability? High net worth clients who own nothing but muni's, and 4-7% a year tax free is just fine with them.

Oops that should be chase high net-worth clients.

"UBS business model is set up to change ultra high-net worth clients, and they do lead the industry in that market numbers-wise."

Worldwide, perhaps. They're minor league in the US market.

"Stan, what are these proprietary products, other than hedge funds? They do have their own mutual funds, but I don't know anyone at UBS who uses them. "

Perhaps you don't know anyone that use their mutual funds, but they are, in fact proprietary.

"What client gets excited about muni capability?"

It isn't muni capability. Everyone has that. It's muni underwriting, which is a relatively minor issue.

Large quantities of muni underwriting lead to large inventories of muni's. Sure they have proprietary funds, so do Merrill, Morgan, Smith Barney, American Express, AXA..... I have experienced no pressure to sell UBS funds.

Leads to large inventories? Nah, those bonds go right out the door, and usually with other firms involved in the underwriting. The inventory is another issue, and they're largely secondaries, which everyone has. OTOH, what might matter is if your firm is very active in underwriting in your own state.

BTW, I never said there was pressure to sell them, I said they exist. I mentioned them (proprietary products) as a contrast to AG Edwards, another tier two firm (IMHO) which doesn't have any. These days you'd have to be at a real scummy bucketshop to have been pressured to sell in house funds.

I never meant to say UBS is a bad firm, just to contrast it with the big three, ML, MS and SB. Say, do prospects ever say they don't want to do their investing with a foreign bank?

oh great… this topic is going to once again turn into a forum about
what firm pressures brokers to sling prop, and what firms dont…
Obviously, every firm has their own funds, some are quality, most are
sh-t… The margins and fees they generate are always going to be more
than outside vendor funds… There will always be an urge by management
to “encourage” their underlings to sell their own stuff… Higher
profits, works itself to the bottom line, which helps earnings, which
"surprises" analysts, which lead to higher stock prices, which makes
everyone wealthier over time… So on so on… I know 38 people who
read this post are gonna say- " not in this day and age with Spitzer
running around waving his----", OR " no, not my firm, my firm doesnt
make us sell anything prop"… Its all crap… This business is…
drumroll… about earning maximum profit for the sharhold-- er…
themselves…An there will always be incentive to achieve that
goal.Which means upper management in the ivyory towqer will always
encourage the serfs to sling the prop… They are just more discrete
about it now… Even with reforms and spitzer and crew on the prowl…
It is what it is… 

Bingo, Blarmstorm!!!  Very well said.  Stan might think AGE is second tier, but they have never sold any proprietary crap.  And, they look pretty squeaky clean at the moment.  Maybe they’re not a big player in terms of underwriting, but hardly second tier in clients’ eyes.  I don’t work there, but I have a hell of a lot of respect for how they do things.  If I dropped dead tomorrow, and I had to tell my family members where to go, AGE would be at the top of my list.  Stan’s “top tier” firms (ML, SB, and MS) wouldn’t even be considered.  That’s where all the also-ran, groupthink, heavy on the fee/light on dispensing real advice, grandiose sense of self (Yes, I really do believe that I deserve to be driving that Beamer 7 series in the parking lot) blowhards make their careers.  There is more to independence than “just independence.”  I like to think of it as independence in your own thought process and problem solving ability on a day to day basis.  Okay, maybe I was a little hard on the wirehouse guys.  But, c’mon, Stan said it himself.  They’re all practically clones.  That bowl of soup just ain’t for me.

the only problem with UBS is name recognition. at least with Merrill, SSB and MSDW you have somewhat of a brand name. sometimes that can get you in the door easier. especially if you are cold calling some old lady who doesn't trust companies she's never heard of. and when is the last time you heard someone mention UBS in conversation?

and saying they are owned by a Swiss bank doesn't really make a sale either.

Paine Webber was somewhat of a brand name but then UBS dropped it. and for advertising UBS has some of the worst ads? UBS = U and US or some stupid slogan.

they should fire their ad agency.

Would you take a job with AGE even if they pay $30K less than UBS in the first two years but compatible the third year?  This is for a career changer that would need to get full license.  In addition, Does UBS really have a better process to acquire high networth client than AGE?  I am torn with this decision because I do have more freedom with AGE than with UBS. 

Thanks for all the advices.

I would go with UBS even if AGE paid more.

NOVA,  Would you mind elaborate on your comments?  Please share your training experience if you have been trained with them (PM me if you want to be discreet).  I have an impression that UBS is much more agressive than AGE; I am not certain that they would provide the proper training, supports, and tools to do it.  UBS is certainly bigger in size and more beauratic.

Thank you for your advices.

Reading these posts about large firms and the corporate intiiatives
filtering down to the reps, and the idea that the reps need to fall in
line with such initiatives, even if they are not sutable for clients,
bothers me.  We hold certificatons (NASD, CFP, ETC…) that
superceed such corporate pressure.  I have worked for two large
firms in my life, and heave felt pressures at both.  The first,
being a huge bank, was far worse than the large wire I work for
now. 



I suspect UBS and the rest have the pressures but we, as individuals,
need to advise under the roof that really protects us, that of hard
line ethics.  If any firm does not allow for that, leave.  I
cannot imagine UBS or SB not letting someone serve their clients in a
cost effective, ethical way.  99% of the ridiculous stereotypical
comments out here about wires are just one-off’s based on singualr
experiences, experiences which we all can recount as we take on new
clients. 

Second Tier? First Tier?  I don't know.  In Europe it's considered top tier.  Paine Webber, which is now UBS, was never considered anything but top tier.  Here's a few thoughts about UBS (disclaimer - I happily work there).

Largest asset manager in the world.

Very few proprietary products.  There are the some funds put out by UBS Global Asset Management, but these are geared towards larger investors and consultants ($40MM+).  There are also a small handful of proprietary mutual funds, but there is no incentive (financial or otherwise) for any advisor to place a client in them.  It's a non-issue, if not actually an advantage of a wider breadth of offerings.  Also, the derivatives desk can design products for specialty needs, for example, CMT bear yield notes or housing-linked notes.  It's a big deal to have access to a real trading desk when you have UHNW clients who will need sophisticated hedging tools.

Incredible open architecture.  Access to the Carlysle Group at $250k, among other PE and hedgeies. PIMCO as a single manager at $100k.  You're not going find that sort of access many places, and that's an awesome offering for your clients.

As far as NASDAQ goes, with the acquisition of Schwab capital markets, likely the largest NASDAQ market maker in the world.  Probably tied for #1 or #2 on the NYSE with Bear.

#1 underwriter in munis, CMOs, and pass-throughs.  That may not be a concern unless you work with small or middle market institutions. Munis are, of course, a definite need for many wealthy clients, but I agree that they really are a dime a dozen.

UBS really runs the gammit from newbies to extremely sophisticated family offices.  It really depends where you are.  Where I work, outside of New York in CT, you'll find a lot of brokers who are more in-tune with the role of money manager/private banker.  But, there's also a training branch not too far away for folks just getting started.

I wouldn't call it corporate or cold at all.  Perhaps that comes from the Swiss (??).  Each branch has its own flavor; there's no top-down mandated culture.

In a nutshell, the access you have to structured products and non-proprietary money managers at UBS is likely not replicated at many shops.

On the issue of being a non-American bank, this has caused an issue in one case with which I am familiar.  It involved one of the acquired financial entities, WWII activities, and a client who said "no thanks." I gave the client credit for his moral stance, although all large firms have a well-known history, and not all of it is pretty. 

By the way...

The leaders are ML, MS and SB, period. ... UBS is a second tier firm with loads of proprietary products ..."

I don't think house brands are bad one way or another, because often these proprietary funds are earmarked for a specific niche application within a portfolio strategy.  But it is silly to mark this a fault of UBS when the 3 firms you contrast each have excessive prop funds.

I would ask about their hurdles.  Training is going to be similar at all these firms.



Do you believe you have the capability to bring in 6-8 million dollars
each year?  If yes, go with the bigger firm.  If not, go with
AGE.  They only hope for 3-4 million/year out of new brokers.

[quote=blarmston]oh great… this topic is going to once again turn into a forum about
what firm pressures brokers to sling prop, and what firms dont…
Obviously, every firm has their own funds, some are quality, most are
sh-t… The margins and fees they generate are always going to be more
than outside vendor funds… There will always be an urge by management
to “encourage” their underlings to sell their own stuff… Higher
profits, works itself to the bottom line, which helps earnings, which
"surprises" analysts, which lead to higher stock prices, which makes
everyone wealthier over time… So on so on… I know 38 people who
read this post are gonna say- " not in this day and age with Spitzer
running around waving his----", OR " no, not my firm, my firm doesnt
make us sell anything prop"… Its all crap… This business is…
drumroll… about earning maximum profit for the sharhold-- er…
themselves…An there will always be incentive to achieve that
goal.Which means upper management in the ivyory towqer will always
encourage the serfs to sling the prop… They are just more discrete
about it now… Even with reforms and spitzer and crew on the prowl…
It is what it is… 
[/quote]



Don’t kid yourself kids, blarm is right.  There is plenty of
pressure at UBS to sell prop products that generate greater profits for
the firm.  It is simply more subtle…in the guise of
’information’.