UBS to Cut Brokers < $400K

I do not think that this will happen. Especially the second part about reassignment of accounts. Everything $250,000 goes to the emerging affluent center when an FA leaves unless the branch manager decides there is a reason for it to stay in the branch. The rest of the accounts go in to a system that assigns them on a random basis based on qualifications. This was created for HR issues related to favoritism of handing out accounts.

Not sure about your office.  That is exactly what happened in mine.  All of the households below $250K go to the call center.  They did it on Friday when they let go of the rookies.  They did it a couple of months ago when they cut to $250-275K.  They will do it again and again.

What about jrs on teams?  Will they ever bee vulnerable?

I haven’t a clue.

I have never seen a company shrink to greatness.  You really have to look at the final years of Prudential Securities.  Its right out of his playbook.  Play for play.  The only thing he hasn't done is bring back that knucklehead Mike Rice.

This is a complete load of BS.  If UBS cut all brokers under 400K they would be down to 3000 brokers. 

I bet those offices SF bought are VERY happy right now!

How about fire everyone and send all the accounts to the call center !!  That would make more sense than what you are saying.

[quote=UB-YOU] I haven’t a clue.

I have never seen a company shrink to greatness. You really have to look at the final years of Prudential Securities. Its right out of his playbook. Play for play. The only thing he hasn’t done is bring back that knucklehead Mike Rice.

[quote=nestegg] I bet those offices SF bought are VERY happy right now!

[/quote]





You and SN need to get a room order some kool-aid from room service

[quote=wolverine1945] This is a complete load of BS. If UBS cut all brokers under 400K they would be down to 3000 brokers.

I do not think that this will happen. Especially the second part about reassignment of accounts. Everything $250,000 goes to the emerging affluent center when an FA leaves unless the branch manager decides there is a reason for it to stay in the branch. The rest of the accounts go in to a system that assigns them on a random basis based on qualifications. This was created for HR issues related to favoritism of handing out accounts.

250k to call center will happen, they just want ultra high net worth, to bad they won’t want UBS

Call center eyy,  easy pickens for a cold call.

Im not liking a lot of the direction of UBS right now but I disagree with original poster.  Account re-assignments are very much governed by HR (random and fair) recruits are not eligible for 1 yr.

However if you are LOS 10+ and not doing 400k or better you should worry (or get to work) {Unless of course your now a producing bom and need to start from scratch }. UBS is not the place to be for a solo producer that long in biz doing low numbers.

Another poster said UBS had “Paycuts” to FA’s, thats also not true. households under 50k have 0% payout but larger and fee based accounts recieved a signifigant pay increase. UBS increased FA pay in 2009 by about 7-10% for advisors (especially signature teams)

signature teams = at least one q1/q2 FA and at least 70% of aum shared in joint number.

UB-You - you are dead on…



Sr. Management = No accountability; just re surface at another firm. Promote another idiotic corp. agenda and explain why it’s good for clients and advisors. FA’s have their a$$ on the line every day and risk firing from clients if they do not perform. Management isn’t accountable - they take care of their own and just pop up at the next firm. They know best and we need them to lead and coach us!



ABOM - they raised payouts to tilt asset flow to lock in FAs with certain products and encourage ‘teaming’. I read the internal stuff on how coaching retains advisors and teaming does as well.



Teams = team agreement laden with lock down legal verbiage that keeps assets sticky; let us incentivize you to team up and sign a team agreement so you can’t take confidential client data or recruit employees (your CSA). The team agreement is dangerous, but a lot of oofice insist you must sign to benefit from the team payouts and to be an official team.



What an ensnaring crock of ________ . Total institutionalization of clients and overt agenda to convince FA’s they should be on teams. They encorage large FA’s to team up too and sign a team agreement with their jr. partners. Too bad the management is so focused on teaming and locking FA’s into the firm rather than realizing how to improve some of the things they do well and encourage entrepreneurial culture. That is gone and the “leaders” have ruined the place.



Let’s be honest - UBS isn’t the best place for solo producers doing big #'s either.

Unless you run a Ponzi,  ohh yea I know!!!

The scheme was “you and us” and the “us” got paid got paid form “you” 

McCann here by end of Nov.

Thanks UBS keep it up and I hope all the other wires and big banks follow suit!

I can never figure out why big firms do this type of thing. It totally creates anger/hatred by mid level brokers and clients.  There are different types of 250k clients.  The ones that are all fee, ones that bought 250k of muni’s and you will never make any more money off of and there are 250k clients that trade stocks and are good for 3-5 grand ever year. 

this is why firms like Stifel, LPL, and Regional Banks will thrive. Top brokers and HNW Clients have no reason to be at Wirehouse’s anymore. 

[quote=LogansRun]UB-You - you are dead on…



Sr. Management = No accountability; just re surface at another firm. Promote another idiotic corp. agenda and explain why it’s good for clients and advisors. FA’s have their a$$ on the line every day and risk firing from clients if they do not perform. Management isn’t accountable - they take care of their own and just pop up at the next firm. They know best and we need them to lead and coach us!



ABOM - they raised payouts to tilt asset flow to lock in FAs with certain products and encourage ‘teaming’. I read the internal stuff on how coaching retains advisors and teaming does as well.



Teams = team agreement laden with lock down legal verbiage that keeps assets sticky; let us incentivize you to team up and sign a team agreement so you can’t take confidential client data or recruit employees (your CSA). The team agreement is dangerous, but a lot of oofice insist you must sign to benefit from the team payouts and to be an official team.



What an ensnaring crock of ________ . Total institutionalization of clients and overt agenda to convince FA’s they should be on teams. They encorage large FA’s to team up too and sign a team agreement with their jr. partners. Too bad the management is so focused on teaming and locking FA’s into the firm rather than realizing how to improve some of the things they do well and encourage entrepreneurial culture. That is gone and the “leaders” have ruined the place.



Let’s be honest - UBS isn’t the best place for solo producers doing big #'s either.



[/quote]

???

how does signing a team agreement lock you in to a firm that is part of protocol?

???

all it does is protect both parties by making them id what clients they introduced to the team (which as a good practice should be updated twice a year). should you deiced to split up anytime.

Your assertion has no validity as an fa can walk away from a team anytime. also you  can walk away from firm and bring all of your  clients protocol info with you anytime.

I had some “conspiracy theory FA’s” say the same thing but when they actually took time to read agreement they see it mostly protects them (eg there is a death benefit you can elect for your family at no cost to you)

ABOM:



You have some good insight most of the time. I would disagree with you on this one. I have read the agreement and would never sign it as it is now written. The part that you should really concentrate on is what the rules are for the divorce, as most teams end this way. Read the rules and apply them to what your business is supposed to look like in three years. It is very messy to do a team divorce and I believe if followed to the letter has a number of pitfalls.



If you are interested in teaming, have a long meeting on how your team is going to operate. Document the strategies that you are going to utilize and then map out what you would need to do with all of your accounts to accomplish this.



For example, team A decides that they are going to run a financial planning process on all clients and the investment process is going to run through PACE. What does the team need to decide or find out?



1. How many relationships have we never done an FGA for?



2. To make the model work what % would have to agree to go through the process?



3. How are we going to identify the correct funds for the portfolio?



4. How are or are we going to make all existing PACE accounts have the same funds?



5. waht is the time committment from all parties to get this done?



Each person/team needs to have this type of conversation. It deals more with creating an efficient practice that has a defined target market, strategy and process. I believe that if you do this your success ratio will go up regardless if you are on a team or not



Unfortunatley, the firm is more concerned with sending most everything under $250,000 to the Emerging Affluent Center. While this is not a bad idea in a large number of cases, I beliueve that it is foolish to send them in mass. The FA’s practice management emphasis should be more on:



1. What strategies can I use to increase the ROA on all of my different segments? more fee based business, strategic advisor etc…



2. Profiling all of the relationships that one has. Then deciding if they fit or not. Migrate those that do not fit. For example, you have a $100,000 PACE account and a $200,000 buy and hold stock account that wants no planning or fee services. The $200,000 account should be migrated and the $100,000 kept.



3.Do the accounts fit my practice model/



Just some thoughts. I think teaming for the sake of teaming or for the sole purpose of getting a slightly hire payout is the wrong reason to team.



et…

ABOM:

You have some good insight most of the time. I would disagree with you on this one. I have read the agreement and would never sign it as it is now written. The part that you should really concentrate on is what the rules are for the divorce, as most teams end this way. Read the rules and apply them to what your business is supposed to look like in three years. It is very messy to do a team divorce and I believe if followed to the letter has a number of pitfalls.

If you are interested in teaming, have a long meeting on how your team is going to operate. Document the strategies that you are going to utilize and then map out what you would need to do with all of your accounts to accomplish this.

For example, team A decides that they are going to run a financial planning process on all clients and the investment process is going to run through PACE. What does the team need to decide or find out?

1. How many relationships have we never done an FGA for?

2. To make the model work what % would have to agree to go through the process?

3. How are we going to identify the correct funds for the portfolio?

4. How are or are we going to make all existing PACE accounts have the same funds?

5. waht is the time committment from all parties to get this done?

Each person/team needs to have this type of conversation. It deals more with creating an efficient practice that has a defined target market, strategy and process. I believe that if you do this your success ratio will go up regardless if you are on a team or not

Unfortunatley, the firm is more concerned with sending most everything under $250,000 to the Emerging Affluent Center. While this is not a bad idea in a large number of cases, I beliueve that it is foolish to send them in mass. The FA’s practice management emphasis should be more on:

1. What strategies can I use to increase the ROA on all of my different segments? more fee based business, strategic advisor etc…

2. Profiling all of the relationships that one has. Then deciding if they fit or not. Migrate those that do not fit. For example, you have a $100,000 PACE account and a $200,000 buy and hold stock account that wants no planning or fee services. The $200,000 account should be migrated and the $100,000 kept.

3.Do the accounts fit my practice model/

Just some thoughts. I think teaming for the sake of teaming or for the sole purpose of getting a slightly hire payout is the wrong reason to team.

et…

Why would you have a class action suit for something you are not forced to sign? Just don’t sign the agreement. No FA is a victim - but some don’t get it. Firm’s are out for their own interest - not yours; and that is okay. Just how it is. You have control over whether you accept this or not. Be your own firm if you want to be on the other side. Last I checked this is America still, not Switzerland - at least for the time being.



Conspiracy theorist FA’s huh? Read the language and keep telling your FA’s don’t worry about what they sign. Anything you sign has legal meaning and to think that firm’s craft these agreements for the pure benefit to protect FA interests is insane. But as a BOM I can appreciate your stance and how it must be positioned. I agree with secretknowledge that you have had some good points. BTW, I think the call centers when used right were actually not bad as it was a way to keep focused on important clients and give small clients more attention than an FA with too many households could. Even I drank some of the swiss punch and learned someting from that place. It tasted good at the time, but began to sour…



As mentioned earlier, the firm is not the best place no matter how much or how little rev. you do. Unless you are just accepting of the status quo, right Lew? It’s okay to accept the firm and that is one way to stay happy. Can’t find any fault there. If you don’t accept it and stay, well that’s another story… and someone at $400k has a lot less risk than someone doing double or triple that #. (no offense meant). Why would you stay?



Better to leave than long for a buyer or better times. Management will keep sloshing around between the firms and they look after themselves. It starts with the young mangers who get scared and give up thier books and over time they somehow feel by controlling purse strings they “make” million dollar producers and they are needed by FAs to motivate them and offer coaching. They move up to regional, division, and get so far removed from the trenches they just lose touch with reality and that’s no lie. Sr. Management offers very little and it’s time for FAs to recognize that you must eat what you kill and stop relying on stooges to lead you as they will keep finding ways to sell you on increased ticket fees, cut payouts, trim staff, incentives for cross selling firm product, and continue bringing in firm “specialist” etc. McCann will be nothing new and expect more spin why it’s good for the client, the FA, and the firm! Yeah. Tell me I am wrong…



I actually hope they listen to the FA’s and get there act together - I own shares and it’d be good to see them regain some traction but can’t ever see being at a culture like this after getting out. The grass is actually greener despite what they say.





Been there. It got boring…