They want to know that you can systematically design a client acquisition strategy. Who you would seek out, how you would get their contact information, how you would initiate contact, what your "value proposition" would be and what types of products you would sell.

What they want to hear is that you would approach small business owners, that you would do this through a combination of targeted cold calling and networking, that you would offer 401k, personal financial planning and investment management, eventually ESOP programs and estate planning services. Key man insurance too. They will want to hear that you will intend to market managed money and mutual fund wrap programs with a focus on asset allocation. They also want to know that you will intend to work 60-80 hours a week. A strategy for community involvement will help.

From what I understand, the culture is changing. There are some excellent people there, but Paine Webber was always a bit more of an aggressive, pushy firm - very entrepreneurial, but it was not as much of a planning, relationship-oriented firm as SB or ML. Some of the smartest retail brokers I have ever met are there and it was always a place that people who found the other firms too restrictive tended to look at. There was a lot to like, but the ethics were so-so and the environment was a little TOO competitive and sales-oriented. UBS has brought many changes and there has been a dramatic changing of the guard from a management perspective. The new management (like most firms) is young and a product of training programs that emphasize financial planning and relationship. What I think you will find is a substantial difference in the brokers that have been there for 20 years and those who have been there for five. I think the new guys are going to be a little more likely to tow the company line and that there is probably the perception that the company is much more compliance-oriented that it was previously. I would be sure to consider ML and SB as well before I made a decision.

Good luck.

If you don't work for UBS how in the world would you know what to expect in a UBS interview?

For that matter, suppose I'm about to interview you.  Unless you're me how in the world can you predict what I am going to ask you?

How valuable is advice that is generic?  "They're going to want to know how you plan to build your business."

Well, no schidt Sherlock.

[quote=ChicagoBroker]

Hi everyone,

I am relatively new in this forum and want to know if anyone out there had experience interview with UBS for an FA position.  I am on the second round and was asked to present a business plan.  What exactly they are looking for? and what should I included in my business plan?

Also I want the culture is like at UBS from any current and former/ex UBS people.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

ChicagoBroker

[/quote]

So, tjc45, is your idea of a business plan to cut and paste somebody elses?

If the young man or woman doesn't have a business plan of their own how will they know if what somebody posts on this forum is a good one or not?

Don't you think it's better to go into an interview situation being yourself rather than trying to pretend you're somebody from an internet forum who had a plan?

Why not just show up and say, "Well, my plan is that my brother will transfer his business to me.  He's the pension fund manager at Home Depot" and sit back and see what happens next.

After you're hired you can tell the boss that the business is coming any day now--you ought to be good for a year at least during which time you can develop a real plan.

[quote=ChicagoBroker]

Hi everyone,

I am relatively new in this forum and want to know if anyone out there had experience interview with UBS for an FA position.  I am on the second round and was asked to present a business plan.  What exactly they are looking for? and what should I included in my business plan?

Also I want the culture is like at UBS from any current and former/ex UBS people.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

ChicagoBroker

[/quote]

SFB hit it on the head, mostly. Paine Webber was late to the planning cookie cutter advise for a fee biz. However, they have now embraced it. What they want to hear is that you are a true believer in the fee biz. They want to hear that  you will spend 169 hours a week developing and working propecting channels that will bring in fee paying clients. Popular channels include networking, referrals, cold calling and direct mail.

As for the compliance issues of older UBS reps, not true. In my years there there was no greater number of reps with problems than at my wife's former firm Smith Barney. Both offices were about the same size. Interestingly, of the three guys I saw get the boot for breaking the rules two were rookies with less than 3 years LOS. The vet was the firm's second largest producer, who got pink slipped for parking stock, a definate no no. The SB office, lost three or four reps to compliance issues over the same time period, as did the local Janney office.

UBS is a good firm with a somewhat confused identity. After the UBS merger they assured reps of no major changes but then started focusing on high net worth clients at the expense of sub seven figure clients. For example they came out with a minimum new account rule that set the minimum at $100K. That cuts out many small business owners who may have millions to invest but aren't going to risk a 100K on an unproven advisor. Many of the new offerings were exotic hedge fund vehicles aimed squarely at the HNW client.

The most important factor in your success will be the branch manager of the office you chose. Pick a good manager who knows how to work with trainees, is/was a SUCCESSFUL broker before moving to management and will support you in your efforts to build a business. You want to find a manager who will help you reach the next level, not an excuse making rock in the road who will derail your career. UBS is as good a firm as any to find that person.

Lastly, in this business we're having our own identity crisis. We call ourselves, Financial Consultants, Financial Advisors, Financial Planners, Wealth Managers ,and Financial Brokers. Don't let this confuse you as it is all positioning and image building. We are first and foremost salesman. Very smart, and well paid, but salesman, just the same. If anyone you talk to in this business doubts that, focus on this, nothing happens until somebody buys something. You don't get paid until the client/prospect buys. Whether it's a perfectly allocated seperate account program or a tax free bond, no sale equals no pay. Fail to sell and you'll find yourself on the outside looking in. That makes us salesman. And that's OK.

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

So, tjc45, is your idea of a business plan to cut and paste somebody elses?

[/quote]

Sorry about that, fumble fingers, i hit the send button too soon.

San Fran Broker,

Thanks for the advice.  That was very helpful.  I actually also interview with ML.  SB never called me for an interview even though I've expressed my interest months ago.  From what I understand, presenting a business plan for ML is totally different from UBS and other wirehouses.

My former life was an attorney with an MBA and I am looking to jump ship, at least for a couple years.  Do you know UBS's compensation package for trainee.  I have absolutely no experience in the securities industry.  They told me that trainees will be paid a base salary + bonus, though they don't expect big production numbers from trainees.

A break down would be greatly appreciated, i.e., base + bonus percentage.

Chicagobroker

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

If you don't work for UBS how in the world would you know what to expect in a UBS interview?

[/quote]

Well... You seem to occasionally insert a legitimate question in your usual litany of hateful invectives, so I'll answer.

Lets see. I think that's what a UBS branch manager wants to hear  because:

1. Small business is a natural market for UBS. You and your branch gets paid for loans. It's the focus of every bank-associated brokerage firm these days. SB, ML, BAC, etc, all have significantly expanded their plaforms for catering to these people in the last few years - bolstered by the capital from their size and base of deposits. Small business owners have needs for loans, and a firm like UBS, with lending capability will have a substantial competitive advantage over firms like whatever sleazy little bucket shop you work for, Big. It's a natural tool to initiate a relationship. ML has "led with lending" for some time and been VERY effective at it.

2. UBS is now focused, like ML, MS, SB and the banks, on clients with accounts north of $1 million (really, all the products that are cool are for people with more than $5 million). You are expected to bag at least a few of these in your first few years and, eventually, they only want you working with these clients (whether that dream becomes a reality is anyone's guess - there just aren't THAT many people with that kind of money nationally..) This means business owners, elite professionals and corporate executives.

Corporate executives are essentially the target of the special corporate & venture services groups that have very strong influence in the company - they even have separate dedicated branches, training programs and mandates in the system.

UBS is much more strict than other firms about non-solicitation of IBD and corporate services clients and has the stock plan or is seeking banking business for many of the companies that you would be expected to call on. From a branch manager's perspective, it's just not realistic to think that a trainee was going to build his business around this group for those reasons alone. But, also, as the last few years have demonstrated, corporate executives without a current relationship (VP-level types) are likely to only have wealth concentrated in stock and options. They are unlikely to have very much liquidity.

Execs were great clients during the bull market - you could make lots of money creating synthetic collars for their concentrated equity positions and advise them on the greation of GRATs and CRTs and GST Trusts - sell the stock at $0.12/share and then roll it into money managers at 1.5% a year. But, without rapidly increasing stock prices, they are generally less wealthy - the business of creating synthetic derivatives is much more competitive, restrictive and common and execs a nasty compliance risk with all of that Rule 144 and such... To a branch manager, a corporate exec is a potential compliance problem. Everyone went after executives in the late 1990s and there is no shortage of heavy hitting (and hungry) teams that "specialize in serving the needs of corporate executives."

Elite professionals (attorneys, Doctors, etc) are decent group to go after and their needs are generally similar to small business owners. It seems like a group that is better suited to a member-turned-broker, though. The high-end lawyers and management consultants have been pretty dominated by private banks over the last few years, modeled after Citibank's very effective profession-specific platforms, AYCO-types and wealth management boutiques that sell their financial planning services to their firms - which treat it as an employee benefit. However, this group has some potential at UBS. However, Lawyers could also be a scary target market for obvious reasons.

So this leaves us with business owners, a group that was more or less ignored until pretty far into the bear market. They have lots of needs (lending, investment, banking). They are less likely to have a current relationship than a rich lawyer or corporate executive. And they are likely to have current investments (retirement plans) AND future liquidity (sale of business, ESOP). (Depending upon what statistics you read, many say that this represents the majority of the HNW.) There are multiple forums to meet them (chamber of commerce, etc) and they are a less-pretentious lot that are likely to accept working with a guy that's brand new to the profession. The wirehouse broker and the small businessmen are likely to have much in common - somebody probably gave them a chance once too. 

3. I have personally discussed this subject with the branch management at my local UBS.

What I would not do is lie and act in a manner that suggests you aren't serious about this job (i.e. "Well, my plan is that my brother will transfer his business to me.  He's the pension fund manager at Home Depot" - any respectable branch manager will just laugh and tell the story many times - after he's politely told you that he doesn't think his office is the place for you).

I would act professionally and part of acting professionally is writing a business plan. This type of advice is coming from a person who is not particularly interested in helping you out (mainly Big's just interested in venting his sad frustration about something - what it is, I don't know and don't care).

[quote=ChicagoBroker]

San Fran Broker,

Thanks for the advice.  That was very helpful.  I actually also interview with ML.  SB never called me for an interview even though I've expressed my interest months ago.  From what I understand, presenting a business plan for ML is totally different from UBS and other wirehouses.

My former life was an attorney with an MBA and I am looking to jump ship, at least for a couple years.  Do you know UBS's compensation package for trainee.  I have absolutely no experience in the securities industry.  They told me that trainees will be paid a base salary + bonus, though they don't expect big production numbers from trainees.

A break down would be greatly appreciated, i.e., base + bonus percentage.

Chicagobroker

[/quote]

With regard to the lack of interest at the SB office - I would keep calling into the office, asking to speak to the branch manager. Don't act like a total jerk, but be polite and very persistent - like 2 times a day, every day. You will get an interview.

I can't speak with any degree of confidence regarding the current pay issue. My GUESS is that it's like a base of $40-50k and you could make (realistically) as much as $120k your first year (but you probably won't). From what I understand ML is willing to pay as much as $90k base for new hires.

It is my impression that the best training is at ML and that SB and UBS are at about the same level. tjc45 is totally right - all of the platforms and brands are about the same, so really it has to do with your branch manager. I started in 2001 and never would have made it had it not been for the best Sales Manager ever! (He was terminated / transferred in 2004 - they discovered he was a human.) His replacement would have had me out the door in 6 months. My current manager is the best guy in the world - if you are a 5th year with decent numbers - I would hate him if I was a 25 year transactional broker doing $450k. You should concentrate on finding a "fit" that will work for you. The firms are by no means homogenous - every branch is different. Do your best to find a manager that was a successful broker and who has roots in your community- it won't guarantee that you're relationship will be successful, but it will help to from joining up with some lunatic with unreasonable expectations.  

[quote=san fran broker]

They want to know that you can systematically design a client acquisition strategy. Who you would seek out, how you would get their contact information, how you would initiate contact, what your “value proposition” would be and what types of products you would sell.

What they want to hear is that you would approach small business owners, that you would do this through a combination of targeted cold calling and networking, that you would offer 401k, personal financial planning and investment management, eventually ESOP programs and estate planning services. Key man insurance too. They will want to hear that you will intend to market managed money and mutual fund wrap programs with a focus on asset allocation. They also want to know that you will intend to work 60-80 hours a week. A strategy for community involvement will help.

From what I understand, the culture is changing. There are some excellent people there, but Paine Webber was always a bit more of an aggressive, pushy firm - very entrepreneurial, but it was not as much of a planning, relationship-oriented firm as SB or ML. Some of the smartest retail brokers I have ever met are there and it was always a place that people who found the other firms too restrictive tended to look at. There was a lot to like, but the ethics were so-so and the environment was a little TOO competitive and sales-oriented. UBS has brought many changes and there has been a dramatic changing of the guard from a management perspective. The new management (like most firms) is young and a product of training programs that emphasize financial planning and relationship. What I think you will find is a substantial difference in the brokers that have been there for 20 years and those who have been there for five. I think the new guys are going to be a little more likely to tow the company line and that there is probably the perception that the company is much more compliance-oriented that it was previously. I would be sure to consider ML and SB as well before I made a decision.

Good luck.

[/quote]

The one accurate statement you made is that the culture is changing.
It's a great place to be if you can't get into Merrill but you want to go to a firm that imitates Mother Merril's every move.  Personally I do not prefer either environment, but if you're going to go that route at least go for the real thing.

TJC is correct.  They told us the acquisition was all upside and none of the good stuff-particularly the entrepreneurial spirit-was going to change.  Man what a tall tale that was!

Management is a bunch of policitical hacks, compliance rules the roost, and cost controls reign supreme unless you happen to already be a seven figure producer.  They also really love to push their loan programs.  I could say more but I'll leave it at that.

One of my favorite quotes from a friend: "The Swiss are really nothing more than uptight Germans in short suede overalls....."

Look, it's better than Gunn Allen or Ameriprise, but based upon my experience and that of many friends, I can't recommend the place.

Then again, that's my opinion and your mileage may vary.  Good luck.

One thing that must always be remembered is people who are successful where they are do not complain.

The whining is always eminating from the direction of the also rans in any environment.

Visit a branch and talk to the stars.  You'll hear that the firm is a fantastic asset, that the support is superb and the statements are easy to read.

Now go talk to the mediocre producers and you'll hear that the main reason they're not stars is because they get no support from the firm, the branch manager is a ego maniac prick and the statements are so confusing that the customer's are leaving because of them.

You look around to make sure you're in the same place, and sure enough you are.

Now visit an "indy" office.  It's difficult to cut through the BS, very often the guy or gal is actually lying to themselves so the chances that you'll get a straight answer are slim to none.

Ask about how it was going before they went Indy.  You'll hear that they were doing "just fine" or "I was doing OK, not great but OK."  That is self protecting code for "I was barely making it, and the attraction of this place is that I get to keep a lot more of my gross."

Ask about the support. "Well, that's the joy of being Indy you get to do a lot of things for yourself."  That's akin to saying, "I used to have somebody to clean my toilets but I actually enjoy doing it myself."

Ask if they're surprised by the expenses they had not thought about.  You'll hear a variation of, "That's the beauty of being Indy, you can buy only what you need to have."  Guys who used to "take" a box of pens and some yellow pads home for the kids suddenly realize that office supplies are not free after all.

Ask if they were surprised that clients balked at the idea of following them and you'll  hear, "It's no different than moving from one wirehouse to another wirehouse if you control the relationship."  The harsh reality is that "X" percentage of clients stay where they are.  You think they're doing business with you, but the reality is they think they're doing business with Smith Barney (or wherever.)

Remember, most of the guys who are leaving are mediocre producers.  They always talk a lot about "controlling the relationship" which is gobblety gook that is supposed to mean that they're some sort of Pied Piper.

You'll hear things like, "Well, I'm still working on a few of them" or "The ones that didn't come with me weren't worth having anyway."  Is that right?  Clients are not worth having?  Isn't it all about assets under management?

Ask about compliance and you're likely to hear something like, "They were a bunch of Nazis at UBS, but that's not the case here.  Is that right?  Are you saying that an Indy broker/dealer is less focused on the rules than a wirehouse?  Don't bet on it buddy boy.

What you're experiencing is a self awareness of compliance. For the first time in your life you're thinking, "Schidt if I don't toe the line I could be in serious trouble" so you toe the line.  But get in trouble and see if your Indy firm is as willing (call it eager) to pick up the legal tab.  When you're working for a wirehouse it's very easy for the system to decide the broker/dealer failed to properly supervise so the B/D picks up the legal tab so the broker has a vested interest in not wandering off the reservation.

In the Indy relationship the whole concept is based on how little supervision is given or expected.  Get yourself embroiled in an arbitration proceeding and you're quite likely to find that the firm seeks to separate the defendents and claim that not only did they not know what you were doing, they were not expected to know.

That argument has a lot of currency among arbitrators, even the supposedly friendly ones who are mostly wirehouse types such as me.

You cannot worry too much about your exposure.  One pissed off client can ruin most, if not all, of a career.  I know, I know, you're not going to be dragged into arbitration because you're the epitome of honesty.

Clients who take huge hits in bear markets don't care what they have to say or do to get their money back.  You're likely to find yourself talking to a really good friend who says something like, "Don't take it personally, but I've talked to a lawyer who tells me that he will keep 1/3 of what he recovers, so tomorrow you are going to be sued.  I don't blame you, but I have to do something to get my money back."

The lawyer doesn't know you from Jack, and he's going to build a case that portrays you as evil personified.  You had reckless disregard for your friend.  In fact it was because he was your friend that you felt so comfortable screwing him and you need to be taught a lesson.  They'll use the RICO statutes--racketeering.  If you work for a wirehouse your branch manager will be portrayed as if he is a Godfather of sorts, orchestrating massive fraud up and down the hallway.

But if you're an Indy you get to be the Godfather.

The term "siren song" was first used to describe the calls of "Sirens" which were mermaid like figures whose call was so compelling that ships captains ran their ships onto the reefs because they couldn't help themselves.

It may be true that you're not truly free until you're Indy, but there is another adage too. That is, "There's safety in numbers."

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

Ask if they were surprised that clients balked at the idea of following them and you'll  hear, "It's no different than moving from one wirehouse to another wirehouse if you control the relationship."  The harsh reality is that "X" percentage of clients stay where they are.  You think they're doing business with you, but the reality is they think they're doing business with Smith Barney (or wherever.)

[/quote]

Actually BEF, in most cases "X=20%".  Advisors that go indy take an average of 80% of the clients they want to bring with them to their new practice.  If the client believes that they're doing business with the Firm, then it's because they see the Advisor as nothing more than a salesperson.

The reason that there are LPL's/RJFS's and Merrill's/SB's is that some people are happy being employees, and some people prefer to run their own business.  It's not that one is better or worse than the other, it's just a difference in style.

[quote=FreedomLvr]

Actually BEF, in most cases "X=20%".  Advisors that go indy take an average of 80% of the clients they want to bring with them to their new practice.  If the client believes that they're doing business with the Firm, then it's because they see the Advisor as nothing more than a salesperson.

The reason that there are LPL's/RJFS's and Merrill's/SB's is that some people are happy being employees, and some people prefer to run their own business.  It's not that one is better or worse than the other, it's just a difference in style.

[/quote]

What is the benefit of leaving 20% of your accounts on the table?

As for the argument that you're running your own business.  That is specious nonsense.  You can have more freedom to "do your own thing" at Merrill than you can at LPL.  There is not a branch manager around who tells the stars in the office what they can and cannot do regarding anything that is legal.

The indy business model is attractive because you keep more of your gross.  That is understood and appreciated, but presenting it as "running my own business" is a weak argument at best.

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

[quote=FreedomLvr]

Actually BEF, in most cases "X=20%".  Advisors that go indy take an average of 80% of the clients they want to bring with them to their new practice.  If the client believes that they're doing business with the Firm, then it's because they see the Advisor as nothing more than a salesperson.

The reason that there are LPL's/RJFS's and Merrill's/SB's is that some people are happy being employees, and some people prefer to run their own business.  It's not that one is better or worse than the other, it's just a difference in style.

[/quote]

What is the benefit of leaving 20% of your accounts on the table?

As for the argument that you're running your own business.  That is specious nonsense.  You can have more freedom to "do your own thing" at Merrill than you can at LPL.  There is not a branch manager around who tells the stars in the office what they can and cannot do regarding anything that is legal.

The indy business model is attractive because you keep more of your gross.  That is understood and appreciated, but presenting it as "running my own business" is a weak argument at best.

[/quote]

The advantage of leaving some accounts is that the 20% you leave on the table have proved to be either a waste of time, generating little to no revenue over the years, whiners and high maintenance accounts even if they do generate revenue, stagnant accounts that cost more in servicing than they are worth.  Culling the business to reduce the deadwood at the time of transition from one firm to another is a good business practice, just as the cutting off of the slow-pay account receivable clients has been in my husband's business and has helped his bottom line. (not to mention peace of mind)

The running your "own business" model has to do with not just the latitude you have in choosing how to market, what to offer or not offer to your clients.  I imagine that many high level producers in good firms like Merrill have that latitude.  The ability to add various insurance products and even bring on an associate producer who specializes in those products (with an override of course... to me) is something that wasn't available to me before.   I think the biggest perceived advantage of "running your own business" is that when you get ready to retire, you can sell your book of business. It is not a specious argument.  Being Indy, also doesn't mean that we are free wheeling without supervision.  In fact I believe that the compliance paperwork and supervision is even more stringent than it was at my prior broker dealer due to the fact that there is NOT an on-site supervisor. 

Of course there are many downsides to being an Independent.  I don't have a company medical plan, no stock options or ESOP plan, no company sponsored retirement. People who are employed by larger firms will talk about the technology and research advantages.  I can buy technology and subscribe to research information over and above what is already provided by my B/D (which is already much better than I had at my previous B/D)  Those are trade offs that I accept.

I understand the idea of leaving the dead wood in your book behind intentionally, but the comment was that 20% of the accounts you would love to have come with you don't.

There is also always the nagging doubt in the client's mind about the wisdom of continuing to do business with an Indy.

I have heard it hundreds of times so I am assuming there are millions of investors out there who just don't believe that there is no difference between a man or woman running an LPL office instead of sitting in the corner office at Smith Barney.

That is why very, very, few million dollar producers run away from home in search of greener pastures.

[quote=babbling looney]  I think the biggest perceived advantage of "running your own business" is that when you get ready to retire, you can sell your book of business. [/quote]

Interesting, honest and informative post, BL. I would just add that the advantage that you list above is true at most wirehouses as well.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=babbling looney]  I think the biggest perceived advantage of "running your own business" is that when you get ready to retire, you can sell your book of business. [/quote]

Interesting, honest and informative post, BL. I would just add that the advantage that you list above is true at most wirehouses as well.

[/quote]

I should add that the limitation is that it has to be someone at the firm you're with, even if it's someone you brought in for that single purpose. Obviously the ability to sell your book to anyone, anywhere is an advantage for the Indy.

Put,

The bottom line in your argument is that mediocre producers and indies are a bunch of lazy whining underachievers, and to be honest, you're not far from the truth here (although I try not to whine too much).  I know that motivation is probably my weakest personal attribute, and I have to put a conscious effort into overcoming it.  Bottom line is, the major difference between me and a million dollar producer is probaly mostly motivation...I'm confident in my skill set - I just don't make the extra money a high enough priority to put in the extra effort.  I'll happily ramp up to $400-$500K annual production, and look to go no further.  If I make more, it won't be by design, as I have other priorities in my life that I view as more important than the extra money.  You can disrespect that if you like, but frankly, that's the way I'm wired and I'm very satisfied with it.  I'll freely admit that I don't believe I would be a good fit in a wirehouse environment.  I may very well produce more than I do as an indy, but I'm confident that I would be miserable, and probably net less with more production (yes, I enjoy the sounds of the sirens on a regular basis).

I know that I'm where I belong, and I have no regrets.  You've made some valid points on surprise expenses, etc., and yes, I believe that the best wirehouse producers have great freedom within their firms, but I can tell you that it doesn't take nearly as much gross production to have virtually complete freedom in running your business as an indy.  We can argue all day about the pros and cons of the business models, but in the end, it's very much a decision of personal preference, and anyone not satisfied in one channel, should try another or get out of the industry.  Short of dealing with an incompetent, there's nothing worse than having your investments managed by someone who just views this profession as a paycheck.

Big Easy is heading for the airport--then to Provence where he is going to kill a month.

I'll be back to debate this some more, but it's going to be a day or so with time changes and a drive to Annecy.

Later