UK
Is worth attending an interview when your chance of getting an offer is lower than 10%?
Today, Reuters has an article today suggesting it’s not as easy to get a private banking job as some people suggest.
As oligarchs proliferate, Reuters claims banks are moving some of their “best talent” into private banking. Entry requirements are increasing and investment bankers are queuing up to move into private banking jobs.
Stephen Russell, chief of staff at UBS wealth management in the UK, is quoted as saying UBS has interviewed 140 people this year, but hired only 8. Finding a fit between what UBS wants and what exists in the market, is apparently hard. So, arguably, is taking time out to interview when you have very little chance of success.
In 2009, prop trader Fabrizio Gallo left Morgan Stanley for Brevan Howard. Now he’s leaving Brevan Howard for BAML. (Bloomberg)
UBS has hired a Barclays Wealth veteran for its emerging markets business. (Reuters)
Under new Swiss rules, Credit Suisse would ultimately need to hold as much as 26% in total capital and UBS 23% – which is not good news for their traders. (WSJ)
With a bigger share of salaries now fixed, earnings at European investment banks will become even choppier. This may prompt some investment-banking businesses to move to America. (Economist)
HSBC may be trimming costs, but over 1,000 hires are planned in Singapore. (Reuters)
Just some of the companies that have pulled or postponed plans to list on the London Stock Exchange. (Alphaville)
A fund manager says there are too many advisors working on each UK IPO and that they’re encouraging each other to set prices too high. (Telegraph)
“Pressure on the Justice Department to bring a criminal lawsuit against Goldman is building to a high pitch” (Telegraph)
Goldman shares are down 15% since the start of the year. (Financial Times)
A very large number of ‘industry players’ would like Lloyd Blankfein to resign. (NYPost)
Gordon Brown is earning 70k giving a speech to hedge fund managers in Las Vegas. (Guardian)
Household income to fall back to the level of 2005. (Evening Standard)
The fact that 8 applicants out of 140 were offered a job at UBS means absolutely nothing except that the job market is still very tight. Private bankers are product pushers without any substantial knowledge and I doubt that investment bankers would enjoy working in a purely sales role that requires no technical skills at all. Private banking is a saturated business, there is no organic growth, RMs have to lure away other banks’ clients and RMs are ALWAYS given unattainable acquisition targets (500 M net new assets in 2-3 years) and NEVER enough time to hit those insane targets. These targets do not reflect the realities of the market, they just demonstrate wishful thinking by greedy managers who do not have to acquire a single client. 80 per cent of RMs I knew were fired before the end of their probation period for failing to make those crazy numbers. Who wants to work in a stupid sector like this?
If you interview at McDonalds, you only have a 6% chance of getting the job, hahahaha
This country needs a serious kick up the backside to be perfectly honest.
In my opinion (which is not necessarily correct), Brevan Howard is a giant sausage factory. Fabrizio possibly was found wanting.
8% chance sounds reasonable to me. I’m surprised UBS can afford to be so selective – says a lot about the state of the market that anyone applies to that hire and fire shop
@ ex-pb if you had’nt spent all your time bitching with all the other underperformers then maybe you would have made the grade. Man up.
Nasty, I was not one of those underperformers. I switched to a more creative field.
It is incorrect to say that Private Bankers are product pushers with no substantial knowledge. Of course, there are some private bankers who have wealthy family connections to rise but most are strong knowledge based and enjoy their roles of advising the super wealthy. These are the quiet ones who do not need to jump from one institution to another because they are happy and sitting on large pool of assets and earn solid stable incomes. A Private Banker, IMHO, need not jump every few years which undermines his/her credibility with his/her clients which is the most important aspect of a top adviser. Also, a banker with a solid and credible FI behind him/her is more successful than a banker with no credibile name, since clients also look at the jurisdiction, platform and safety besides advice and knowledge alone.
Finally, targets are based on incomes handed out, so if someone agrees to a million dollar payout, he better generate 2 to 3 million dollar revenue in order to sustain his job/career.
If Private Banking was a ‘stupid’ field and not creative, as mentioned above, then why would there be top banks around the world having thousands of employees in the field?
My 2 cents
why would anyone want to work at UBS PB in the first place ? to market underperforming mandates and useless structured products ? what a soul-less job…
just as well – a dreadful place fo work.
Dubai banker – Targets these days don’t show much correlation with the compensation There are numerous banks which offer a ridiculous 60K base + discretionary bonus (which may or may not be paid) in return for an annual NNA of 50 M. I agree with ex-pb that this is not a creative field and the fact that there are thousands private bankers does not mean they are not dumb. One of the most obvious signs of dumbness is taking up such a role. Like it or not, private banking is a sales job and nothing more. We receive a number of applications from disillusioned RMs but they have none of the skills required for investment banking and some of them look like used car salesmen not top advisors.