UBS Always Last

or Register to post new content in the forum

30 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.
Apr 5, 2008 11:07 pm

I've used the "always recommended" search button for rookie posters. Seems to me when people are ranking the Wirehouses, or talking about going from one firm to the next, UBS is always last.

I know people have their biases and "favorite firms", and (at least from my prospective) it doesn't appear that people put them last on the list because they are the worst wirehouse on the face of the planet. Which, some of you may feel that way. To each his own.

I interpret each wirehouse like I would luxury cars. BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Acura, Jaguar etc. They're all essential the same, with minor differences.

Why is the UBS preference always the least preferred?


Apr 6, 2008 8:30 am

Well, they're going to be sold soon. So I wouldn't consider them right now.



Disclosure: I've never worked there, and know nothing else about them beyond their current financial issues.

Apr 6, 2008 10:34 am
Broker24:

Well, they're going to be sold soon. So I wouldn't consider them right now.

Disclosure: I've never worked there, and know nothing else about them beyond their current financial issues.

 
Sold soon? Can you elaborate on that more?
Apr 6, 2008 10:47 am

Look at any financial news site for UBS news.



In short, the old president of ins wants them to sell their asset management side to raide capital. The capital can then be used to "save" the investment banking side.

Apr 6, 2008 11:07 am

I saw that news but I thought maybe there was some other information the poster had.

 
That gentleman, Arnold, was fired in 2001 and really does not have much say in anything.
 
Also, he is NOT calling for UBS to sell its asset management wing but rather the I-bank.
Apr 6, 2008 4:00 pm

cppr, nearly everyone on Wall Street is clamoring for them to sell. The investment bank needs the cash from sale of wealth management to keep them going. It is widely accepted that they are the next to go. However, I don't have any particular inside knowledge on that.

Apr 6, 2008 4:03 pm

Haha, I have an interview for WM this week.



Sweet

Apr 6, 2008 4:25 pm

It will be interesting to see how it plays out if at all.

Apr 6, 2008 4:32 pm

On the brokerage side I wouldn't imagine it being to big of an issue anyway. At least in terms of job security.



If your not producing you probably don't have a job.

Apr 6, 2008 4:36 pm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aY046sSHRsJw&refer=uk


Article from today about the topic, it is just the I-Bank that is for sale and it is the I-Bank that has the "bad" paper in it. I cannot see them selling the main part of their business (WM) to keep the supposed ancillary part (I-Bank) going.
Apr 6, 2008 8:23 pm

Well...which historically has the largest profit margins? The other factor that you might leave out is US vs. Europe. They are 2 very different issues.  One is far more profitable than the other.  Bottom line, I think UBS will sell their US based WM and keep the IB part...2 cents

Apr 7, 2008 4:53 pm
shredder:

Well...which historically has the largest profit margins? The other factor that you might leave out is US vs. Europe. They are 2 very different issues.  One is far more profitable than the other.  Bottom line, I think UBS will sell their US based WM and keep the IB part...2 cents

 
Probably right.  The European model is MUCH different.  Glad I work over here...(then again, we seem to be moving in their direction more and more)
Apr 7, 2008 5:07 pm

How is Europe's WM so different?

Apr 7, 2008 10:15 pm
My two cents....
 
I've heard it's going to be barclays that snaps up UBS - make sense because:
 
*  Barclays is a bit stronger financially than UBS
*  It's missing the WM practice and I-bank
*  It removes the distractions of weakness caused by Arnold, I-bank write downs, potential sale
*  It preserves the strong wealth management franchise before too many guys hit the road for 150 bps at other firms.
 
Plus, word is getting out about retention packages (similar to what the AGE guys got) -  but who knows, it could be a cynical ploy.
 
Anyone else hearing similar?
 
j
 
 
Apr 7, 2008 10:28 pm

According to everything I've read it's the I-Bank that's for sale not the WM.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSN0720106620080407?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Apr 8, 2008 9:41 am
M P R:
My two cents....
 
I've heard it's going to be barclays that snaps up UBS - make sense because:
 
*  Barclays is a bit stronger financially than UBS
*  It's missing the WM practice and I-bank
*  It removes the distractions of weakness caused by Arnold, I-bank write downs, potential sale
*  It preserves the strong wealth management franchise before too many guys hit the road for 150 bps at other firms.
 
Plus, word is getting out about retention packages (similar to what the AGE guys got) -  but who knows, it could be a cynical ploy.
 
Anyone else hearing similar?
  j 


Whoooah, pony - slow down!

There are rumors flying about a possible sale and you're already asking about what retention packages look like?!  Here's what you can bank on:

Those that are talking don't know anything, and those that know anything aren't talking.

Assuming you are with UBS, focus your efforts instead on really warming up all your key client relationships now.  No matter how good they are, more attention will pay benefits if and when anything happens and the news causes them to get jittery, and even more so if you then decide to jump ship.  Your client relationships are everything; the rest is just background noise.

Control what you can control.


Apr 8, 2008 11:03 am
There aren't any talks of retention packages around here.  It's more of a "if we're sold, how much would they pay to keep the FA's" sort of thing.  But no one seriously thinks we'll be sold anytime soon.  However, we are getting a lot more "pep talks" by management telling us that the firm understands our concerns and so on.  More so because of the auction rate situation than any rumors about the firm being sold.  A lot of pretty big guys are upset with the firm right now, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some leave soon.  The volume of recruiting calls we get has gone way up. 
 
Morphius:
M P R:

My two cents....
 
I've heard it's going to be barclays that snaps up UBS - make sense because:
 
*  Barclays is a bit stronger financially than UBS
*  It's missing the WM practice and I-bank
*  It removes the distractions of weakness caused by Arnold, I-bank write downs, potential sale
*  It preserves the strong wealth management franchise before too many guys hit the road for 150 bps at other firms.
 
Plus, word is getting out about retention packages (similar to what the AGE guys got) -  but who knows, it could be a cynical ploy.
 
Anyone else hearing similar?
 


Whoooah, pony - slow down!

There are rumors flying about a possible sale and you're already asking about what retention packages look like?!  Here's what you can bank on:

Those that are talking don't know anything, and those that know anything aren't talking.

Assuming you are with UBS, focus your efforts instead on really warming up all your key client relationships now.  No matter how good they are, more attention will pay benefits if and when anything happens and the news causes them to get jittery, and even more so if you then decide to jump ship.  Your client relationships are everything; the rest is just background noise.

Control what you can control.


Apr 10, 2008 3:53 am

i worked at Morgan and UBS and UBS blows in comparison.

 
Technology, Trading, Sophistication - the whole nine yards.
 
 
Apr 10, 2008 9:20 am
Insideman - "How is Europe's WM so different? "
*******************************************
 
From what I understand, it is a lower incentive model.  For example, "brokers" tend to get paid salary plus some level of bonus, versus all commission.  There may be some on 100%commission, but it is lower than what we in the U.S. are used to.  Note that I am not an expert, this is just based on an article I read.  There is much more of an "employee" or "banker" type mindset in the brokerage business.  In other words, your job is to go to work and get paid for servicing your clients, without much incentive to bring in more or increase your income.  I don't know many of the details, but that is the theme of the article I read many months ago.  I'd have to find the article to get more details....
Apr 10, 2008 2:50 pm
You would be correct.  In Switzerland at least, and I believe in most of Europe, UBS guys are paid on a salary plus bonus model.  It's a dramatically lower pay scale than brokers get here.  When I was in Zurich, I was told that the average UBS advisor there manages something ridiculous like $300 mil. and makes ~$250,000.  That sort of compensation would never be able to get adopted here in the US.
 
 
Broker24:

Insideman - "How is Europe's WM so different? "
*******************************************
 
From what I understand, it is a lower incentive model.  For example, "brokers" tend to get paid salary plus some level of bonus, versus all commission.  There may be some on 100%commission, but it is lower than what we in the U.S. are used to.  Note that I am not an expert, this is just based on an article I read.  There is much more of an "employee" or "banker" type mindset in the brokerage business.  In other words, your job is to go to work and get paid for servicing your clients, without much incentive to bring in more or increase your income.  I don't know many of the details, but that is the theme of the article I read many months ago.  I'd have to find the article to get more details....