or Register to post new content in the forum

28 RepliesJump to last post



  • 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.
Mar 10, 2005 11:01 pm

Am interviewing with UBS soon.  Does anyone have any info on them? for example training, first year salary, support etc.

Mar 11, 2005 9:56 am

interested also…

Mar 11, 2005 10:31 am

I'd vote for'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?

Mar 11, 2005 12:10 pm

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

Mar 11, 2005 12:26 pm

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.

Mar 11, 2005 2:33 pm

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?

Mar 11, 2005 4:06 pm

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

Mar 11, 2005 4:55 pm

"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" />

Mar 12, 2005 6:33 pm

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.

Mar 12, 2005 8:41 pm

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!

Mar 12, 2005 9:17 pm

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…

Mar 12, 2005 10:06 pm

Could you please pass me the Corporate Kool-Aid?

Mar 21, 2005 7:06 pm

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.

Mar 21, 2005 7:07 pm

Oops that should be chase high net-worth clients.

Mar 21, 2005 7:57 pm

"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.

Mar 21, 2005 8:34 pm

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.

Mar 21, 2005 9:29 pm

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?

Mar 21, 2005 9:41 pm

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… 

Mar 21, 2005 10:47 pm

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.

Mar 21, 2005 11:27 pm

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.