MSSB/ML VP Titles

or Register to post new content in the forum

10 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Dec 15, 2009 2:28 am

Quick question, what type of production does one have to attain to gain the VP title at the wires (i.e. MSSB, ML)?   

Dec 15, 2009 2:40 am

at UBS i believe 400k.

Dec 15, 2009 7:28 am

Never, ever, ever believe those titles.  Some guys are above 1 million in production and others doing less than half of that are VPs because they negotiated it in a recruitment package.

Dec 15, 2009 7:32 am

The MSSB requirements for 2010 are:

$400K Assistant VP
$500K VP
$750K First VP
$1mm Senior VP
$12mm (over previous 3 years) Managing Director

BF

Dec 15, 2009 9:31 am

I'd rather have "Financial Advisor" on my card than "Asistant VP"

Dec 15, 2009 9:56 am

Thanks a lot. I appreciate the responses.

Dec 15, 2009 10:44 am

Our office admin at MSSB has a VP title and I've heard her tell people she's "upper management." We call her Smith Barney Fife.

Dec 15, 2009 12:21 pm

VP on a card, Now that is a worthless letters on a card.

 
It is like a bank everyone gets to be a VP.
 
Go indy and tell them you are the owner.  
Dec 15, 2009 1:05 pm

+1.

my buddy just went over to chase. Vice President of Investments.


Dec 15, 2009 8:45 pm

Titles mean something really only at ML. In addition to a title being pretty much par for the course for any recruit, there were a lot of guys that qualify for that production in a single year and never produce after that.
At ML, titles are allocated based on current production. Accordingly, that Senior VP at ML that's a real producer.
The public has no respect for titles at banks or brokerages anyway. We've inflated titles to the point that their meaningless - I remember that the branch manager of the local Bear Stearns was a "Senior Managing Director". I imagine that it won't be long before "Executive Managing Director" or "Divisional Managing Director" becomes necessary to know whether a guy has ANY pull at their company.
Ultimately, I think that the problem with the elaborate titling issues at ANY firm, is that the result is to screw over the trainees and guys that are early in the business by making any serious prospect wonder why VP isn't on their card.