Danny Ludeman top choice to lead UBS
A UBS spokeswoman in New York said the bank has repeatedly mentioned in the past that its U.S. business was not for sale, and declined to give further comments.
CNBC said McCann and Wachovia Securities Chief Executive Daniel Ludeman were both in the running to lead UBS U.S. unit.
Media reports have said that UBS has considered selling its U.S. wealth management business, which consists mainly of the Paine Webber unit acquired in 2000 for roughly $10 billion, for a long time.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN3145949120090731 reuters UKIsn’t McCann suppose to be good… Might not be a bad move, might be able to rebrand Paine Webber
you can have him. ummm
There goes UBS as an option.
Bernie Madoff was the first choice, but he is currently off the market.
[quote=skillopie]Take Danny, PLEASE!
He would fit in perfectly at UBS. Lie to the advisors, suck up to upper management. [/quote]Be careful what you ask for!
Ludy wants to jump bcause Wells will be selling the b/d as soon as the climate improves…most likely in early 2011. that means 2 yrs here or 3 yrs at UBS…by the way say what you will about Ludy…if he leaves we have Hays (mother Merrill)running us like Mer…that my friends is not an improvement.
Danny’s looking for a way out because he is a short timer at WFA. Bleeding AGE brokers, bleeding WS brokers, they can’t recruit fast enough with the financial handcuffs WF put on them. 17k brokers to 11k brokers since merger was announced, ouch!
[quote=Jebediah]Danny’s looking for a way out because he is a short timer at WFA. Bleeding AGE brokers, bleeding WS brokers, they can’t recruit fast enough with the financial handcuffs WF put on them. 17k brokers to 11k brokers since merger was announced, ouch!
[/quote]I would check my numbers if i were you, FA count up for the year. Low producers out, high producers in.
[quote=Hydeho] [quote=Jebediah]Danny’s looking for a way out because he is a short timer at WFA. Bleeding AGE brokers, bleeding WS brokers, they can’t recruit fast enough with the financial handcuffs WF put on them. 17k brokers to 11k brokers since merger was announced, ouch!
[/quote]I would check my numbers if i were you, FA count up for the year. Low producers out, high producers in.
[/quote] You honestly thing there are more brokers now than when the merger was announced in May 07? All the brokers they have recruited, all the trainees they have hired, and the number is still dramatically lower. I have heard (do not know how reliable the source is) that the "regretable attrition" that WS wanted to keep under 15% is over 35% at AGE and the back office disaster has them bleeding legacy Wach brokers at an alarming rate. But if you still believe that WFA has nearly 18k brokers, you are beyond stupid.
[quote=Jebediah][quote=Hydeho] [quote=Jebediah]Danny’s looking for a way out because he is a short timer at WFA. Bleeding AGE brokers, bleeding WS brokers, they can’t recruit fast enough with the financial handcuffs WF put on them. 17k brokers to 11k brokers since merger was announced, ouch!
[/quote]I would check my numbers if i were you, FA count up for the year. Low producers out, high producers in.
[/quote] You honestly thing there are more brokers now than when the merger was announced in May 07? All the brokers they have recruited, all the trainees they have hired, and the number is still dramatically lower. I have heard (do not know how reliable the source is) that the "regretable attrition" that WS wanted to keep under 15% is over 35% at AGE and the back office disaster has them bleeding legacy Wach brokers at an alarming rate. But if you still believe that WFA has nearly 18k brokers, you are beyond stupid.[/quote]
" that WS wanted to keep under 15% is over 35% at AGE."
Then they would have lost a bunch of $250K producers, or NO LOSS!!
My market has added 12 FA's and lost 1 FA, AGE dude doing about $100K. BTW, was asked to leave.
[quote=Hydeho] [quote=Jebediah][quote=Hydeho] [quote=Jebediah]Danny’s looking for a way out because he is a short timer at WFA. Bleeding AGE brokers, bleeding WS brokers, they can’t recruit fast enough with the financial handcuffs WF put on them. 17k brokers to 11k brokers since merger was announced, ouch!
[/quote]I would check my numbers if i were you, FA count up for the year. Low producers out, high producers in.
[/quote] You honestly thing there are more brokers now than when the merger was announced in May 07? All the brokers they have recruited, all the trainees they have hired, and the number is still dramatically lower. I have heard (do not know how reliable the source is) that the "regretable attrition" that WS wanted to keep under 15% is over 35% at AGE and the back office disaster has them bleeding legacy Wach brokers at an alarming rate. But if you still believe that WFA has nearly 18k brokers, you are beyond stupid.[/quote]
" that WS wanted to keep under 15% is over 35% at AGE."
Then they would have lost a bunch of $250K producers, or NO LOSS!!
My market has added 12 FA's and lost 1 FA, AGE dude doing about $100K. BTW, was asked to leave.
[/quote] Regrettable attrition means brokers they did not want to lose, I am pretty sure this doesn't include pikers. I am happy to see your market up 11 brokers, however the number for the company is down thousands since the merger was announced. Add in trainees and recruits, it gets much more painful. Of course your market added 11 brokers so WFA is well on it's way back to prominence.
[quote=Hydeho]
[quote=Jebediah][quote=Hydeho] [quote=Jebediah]Danny’s looking for a way out because he is a short timer at WFA. Bleeding AGE brokers, bleeding WS brokers, they can’t recruit fast enough with the financial handcuffs WF put on them. 17k brokers to 11k brokers since merger was announced, ouch!
[/quote]I would check my numbers if i were you, FA count up for the year. Low producers out, high producers in.
[/quote] You honestly thing there are more brokers now than when the merger was announced in May 07? All the brokers they have recruited, all the trainees they have hired, and the number is still dramatically lower. I have heard (do not know how reliable the source is) that the "regretable attrition" that WS wanted to keep under 15% is over 35% at AGE and the back office disaster has them bleeding legacy Wach brokers at an alarming rate. But if you still believe that WFA has nearly 18k brokers, you are beyond stupid.[/quote]
" that WS wanted to keep under 15% is over 35% at AGE."
Then they would have lost a bunch of $250K producers, or NO LOSS!!
My market has added 12 FA's and lost 1 FA, AGE dude doing about $100K. BTW, was asked to leave.
[/quote]
I think you are in a rare circumstance...in my market all teh 250k and under guys are the ones that stayed...one of the top teams from the WS left for UBS and from the AGE side dozens left to a variety of firms, mostly regionals and those guys were the bread an butter 250-600k guys. My old office for instance has lost the entire top half of the office...20 person office down to 10 and of the 10 only 3 over 250k and of the 3 all are under 500k. Of the 10 that left none were under 250k. They have brought in ZERO new brokers in the last 2 years. Same for most of my old region.
[quote=nestegg]
[quote=Hydeho]
[quote=Jebediah][quote=Hydeho] [quote=Jebediah]Danny’s looking for a way out because he is a short timer at WFA. Bleeding AGE brokers, bleeding WS brokers, they can’t recruit fast enough with the financial handcuffs WF put on them. 17k brokers to 11k brokers since merger was announced, ouch!
[/quote]I would check my numbers if i were you, FA count up for the year. Low producers out, high producers in.
[/quote] You honestly thing there are more brokers now than when the merger was announced in May 07? All the brokers they have recruited, all the trainees they have hired, and the number is still dramatically lower. I have heard (do not know how reliable the source is) that the "regretable attrition" that WS wanted to keep under 15% is over 35% at AGE and the back office disaster has them bleeding legacy Wach brokers at an alarming rate. But if you still believe that WFA has nearly 18k brokers, you are beyond stupid.[/quote]
" that WS wanted to keep under 15% is over 35% at AGE."
Then they would have lost a bunch of $250K producers, or NO LOSS!!
My market has added 12 FA's and lost 1 FA, AGE dude doing about $100K. BTW, was asked to leave.
[/quote]
I think you are in a rare circumstance...in my market all teh 250k and under guys are the ones that stayed...one of the top teams from the WS left for UBS and from the AGE side dozens left to a variety of firms, mostly regionals and those guys were the bread an butter 250-600k guys. My old office for instance has lost the entire top half of the office...20 person office down to 10 and of the 10 only 3 over 250k and of the 3 all are under 500k. Of the 10 that left none were under 250k. They have brought in ZERO new brokers in the last 2 years. Same for most of my old region.
[/quote]
I am at home (weekend), but when I looked at my Production Profile last week, I think it said there were around 11,200 advisors in the firm at the end of June. Far from almost 16,000 at the time of the merger. Additionally, my percentile ranking in the firm has remained pretty constant, so I don't think that the losses have across the board and not only been in the lower ranks, or else my percentile ranking would have moved much higher.
[quote=Jebediah]Danny’s looking for a way out because he is a short timer at WFA. Bleeding AGE brokers, bleeding WS brokers, they can’t recruit fast enough with the financial handcuffs WF put on them. 17k brokers to 11k brokers since merger was announced, ouch!
[/quote] Not sure where you get your info from, but every bit of it is wrong.17k brokers to 11k brokers since merger was announced?
Do you use that math to convince your clients how well they're doing? Tell me what date and publication ever said WS had 17k brokers? Tell me what publication now says there are 11k?[quote=RicRelo]17k brokers to 11k brokers since merger was announced?
Do you use that math to convince your clients how well they're doing? Tell me what date and publication ever said WS had 17k brokers? Tell me what publication now says there are 11k?[/quote] Hey, don't go and confuse Jeb with facts.The current headcount comes from the monthly rankings. And I am willing to admit when I am wrong, 15k brokers when the merger was announced. The number I would be curious about is the number of recruits and newbees hired. This would make the drop far more drastic than 4K brokers.
McCann is the man… watch and learn here my friends.
In an article from onWallStreet titled “Power Players” from 1/1/09 19,000 FAs are referenced. Monthly rankings now show just over 11,000 FAs in the firm. I know it is shrinking because some osh-wipe in my branch with just over 6k production (YTD!) is showing up in the firm’s monthly rankings-- oh, that’s right, he’s one of the great hires the BOM has made over the last year-- I think they paid him with my retention…
Well, get to admitting then. First, you are an idiot if you are using the monthly rankings. Monthly rankings is comprised of only the PCG FA's. It does not include FiNet, ISG, bank brokes, etc. The firm has over 15,500 FA's as of June 30th, and has over 21,700 if you count the bank brokers.The current headcount comes from the monthly rankings. And I am willing to admit when I am wrong, 15k brokers when the merger was announced. The number I would be curious about is the number of recruits and newbees hired. This would make the drop far more drastic than 4K brokers.
ISG are the bank brokers and they were taken away from WFA and moved under Wells Fargo Bank back in January. The best number to get to see what is happening at WFA and how well/poorly Danny is doing is to look only at PCG - get those numbers at the time of the merger and compare them to now. I have no idea if a drop from 15k to 11k brokers is correct but if it is, then a 26% drop in FAs is significant. Anyone have have the real numbers not only for WFA, but also MER, MS/SB, UBS - compare all of them now to where they were around Jan08? It would be interesting to see the results. If RR did it and included similar numbers for RJ, SF, LPL, etc. we’d get a much better idea of the migration that is/isn’t happening from the wirehouses.
Like Obama
The guy who replaces MH and Price at UBS has a chance to be a God crap so toxic now. only way is upSource URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/whats-firms/danny-ludeman-top-choice-lead-ubs