Would you take a job with AGE even if they pay $30K less than UBS in the first two years but compatible the third year?  This is for a career changer that would need to get full license.  In addition, Does UBS really have a better process to acquire high networth client than AGE?  I am torn with this decision because I do have more freedom with AGE than with UBS. 

Thanks for all the advices.

I would go with UBS even if AGE paid more.

NOVA,  Would you mind elaborate on your comments?  Please share your training experience if you have been trained with them (PM me if you want to be discreet).  I have an impression that UBS is much more agressive than AGE; I am not certain that they would provide the proper training, supports, and tools to do it.  UBS is certainly bigger in size and more beauratic.

Thank you for your advices.

Reading these posts about large firms and the corporate intiiatives
filtering down to the reps, and the idea that the reps need to fall in
line with such initiatives, even if they are not sutable for clients,
bothers me.  We hold certificatons (NASD, CFP, ETC…) that
superceed such corporate pressure.  I have worked for two large
firms in my life, and heave felt pressures at both.  The first,
being a huge bank, was far worse than the large wire I work for
now. 



I suspect UBS and the rest have the pressures but we, as individuals,
need to advise under the roof that really protects us, that of hard
line ethics.  If any firm does not allow for that, leave.  I
cannot imagine UBS or SB not letting someone serve their clients in a
cost effective, ethical way.  99% of the ridiculous stereotypical
comments out here about wires are just one-off’s based on singualr
experiences, experiences which we all can recount as we take on new
clients. 

Second Tier? First Tier?  I don't know.  In Europe it's considered top tier.  Paine Webber, which is now UBS, was never considered anything but top tier.  Here's a few thoughts about UBS (disclaimer - I happily work there).

Largest asset manager in the world.

Very few proprietary products.  There are the some funds put out by UBS Global Asset Management, but these are geared towards larger investors and consultants ($40MM+).  There are also a small handful of proprietary mutual funds, but there is no incentive (financial or otherwise) for any advisor to place a client in them.  It's a non-issue, if not actually an advantage of a wider breadth of offerings.  Also, the derivatives desk can design products for specialty needs, for example, CMT bear yield notes or housing-linked notes.  It's a big deal to have access to a real trading desk when you have UHNW clients who will need sophisticated hedging tools.

Incredible open architecture.  Access to the Carlysle Group at $250k, among other PE and hedgeies. PIMCO as a single manager at $100k.  You're not going find that sort of access many places, and that's an awesome offering for your clients.

As far as NASDAQ goes, with the acquisition of Schwab capital markets, likely the largest NASDAQ market maker in the world.  Probably tied for #1 or #2 on the NYSE with Bear.

#1 underwriter in munis, CMOs, and pass-throughs.  That may not be a concern unless you work with small or middle market institutions. Munis are, of course, a definite need for many wealthy clients, but I agree that they really are a dime a dozen.

UBS really runs the gammit from newbies to extremely sophisticated family offices.  It really depends where you are.  Where I work, outside of New York in CT, you'll find a lot of brokers who are more in-tune with the role of money manager/private banker.  But, there's also a training branch not too far away for folks just getting started.

I wouldn't call it corporate or cold at all.  Perhaps that comes from the Swiss (??).  Each branch has its own flavor; there's no top-down mandated culture.

In a nutshell, the access you have to structured products and non-proprietary money managers at UBS is likely not replicated at many shops.

On the issue of being a non-American bank, this has caused an issue in one case with which I am familiar.  It involved one of the acquired financial entities, WWII activities, and a client who said "no thanks." I gave the client credit for his moral stance, although all large firms have a well-known history, and not all of it is pretty. 

By the way...

The leaders are ML, MS and SB, period. ... UBS is a second tier firm with loads of proprietary products ..."

I don't think house brands are bad one way or another, because often these proprietary funds are earmarked for a specific niche application within a portfolio strategy.  But it is silly to mark this a fault of UBS when the 3 firms you contrast each have excessive prop funds.

I would ask about their hurdles.  Training is going to be similar at all these firms.



Do you believe you have the capability to bring in 6-8 million dollars
each year?  If yes, go with the bigger firm.  If not, go with
AGE.  They only hope for 3-4 million/year out of new brokers.

[quote=blarmston]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… 
[/quote]



Don’t kid yourself kids, blarm is right.  There is plenty of
pressure at UBS to sell prop products that generate greater profits for
the firm.  It is simply more subtle…in the guise of
’information’.