[Mr_250]

I like how the article says "But UBS, which is still going through a restructuring that will cut payroll by 10,000 jobs, wouldn't confirm if any jobs are moving to Stamford." Sooo, what does that mean?!

[FILF]

Originally Posted by dec38

Also, the layoffs are worldwide, so I don't think they should lead to an inference on way or the other about Connecticut.

Layoffs yes, but I guess the World's largest trading floor being almost empty because they moved most traders back to NY can be taken as a very good sign.

[JayCT]

The articles are pretty clear. Even though UBS is laying off people, they still employ a lot and need offices for them. They are consolodating these people to the 6th Avenue building and to Stamford. What happens in 2017 is anybody's guess. Jay

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Comp625

You're right in that four years is a long time with most things in life. But in the corporate world of office restructuring, they always have five and ten year plans. That said, I think UBS returning to Manhattan is inevitable, but the plan could be to maintain both their NYC and Stamford locations (and lease out office space in their Stamford location to other companies). Who knows...

Does anyone know if their general and operational costs of are cheaper in Connecticut as compared to Manhattan? I'd assume so, but I don't know the specifics about # of employees, the tax breaks they are getting, etc.

No what I'm saying is that compared to even a couple of decades ago, 5 and 10 years plans are somewhat useless. In this world of instant communication and electronic everything, things just progress a lot faster and there's no way to tell how different things will be in 2017.

Go back just 10 years......a lot of people didn't have cellphones yet, let alone what has essentially become a "handheld PC or Mac" and all the ways we can instantly get news and information. In fact, I'd say almost half of people didn't even have broadband Internet and were either strictly relying on newspapers and TV or "dialing up" to check email and do little else.

Because of this revolution in communication and information gathering, I honestly think that trends emerge and change in politics, the economy, etc. much faster that they did in say 1960 or 1980.

Based on the information and links that others have given on here, I'll attempt to take my guess on it this time around:

1) Both their NYC and Stamford presence will be smaller, but they will not ditch Stamford completely.

2) However, I think since 9/11 most financial firms want an "emergency backup" to their main Manhattan operations that's not TOO far from Manhattan. This alone will keep SOMETHING in Stamford (though to use my argument about "rapid change", since 2017 will be almost 2 decades since 9/11, maybe that notion will be "forgotten").

3) Since they seem to be focusing on lower real estate costs, that too would keep some presence in Stamford (Stamford's certainly not "cheap" compared to most of the US, but compared to NYC itself).

[CTbrooktrout]

For now Stamford will most likely gain due to consolidations. I walk by the building everyday, it seems to be a bit busier recently. I remember UBS having difficulty recruiting "top talent" however I heard it's more due to their lackluster pay compared to rivals earning them the name "Ur Bonuses Suck."

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by CTbrooktrout

For now Stamford will most likely gain due to consolidations. I walk by the building everyday, it seems to be a bit busier recently. I remember UBS having difficulty recruiting "top talent" however I heard it's more due to their lackluster pay compared to rivals earning them the name "Ur Bonuses Suck."

And people that earn tips have an acronym for their employees. U Big Stiffs.

[AntonioR]

Originally Posted by FILF

Layoffs yes, but I guess the World's largest trading floor being almost empty because they moved most traders back to NY can be taken as a very good sign.

Its the second largest trading floor, because the biggest one is across the street in the Royal Bank of Scotland's North American headquarters. That's why that stretch of Washington Boulevard is informally known as the Wall Street of CT.

[FILF]

Originally Posted by AntonioR

Its the second largest trading floor, because the biggest one is across the street in the Royal Bank of Scotland's North American headquarters. That's why that stretch of Washington Boulevard is informally known as the Wall Street of CT.

I thought RBS built a bigger one but wasn't completely positive and didn't want to get flamed here.

I work in the Washington blvd towers and I disagree, I think UBS foot traffic is much lighter these past couple months. I had a couple friends that were traders at UBS, a couple were moved to NY and the others were laid off. They say that 2nd largest trade floor is virtually empty.

[AntonioR]

I have friends that work at UBS. I'll ask them in the next few days to see what's the inside scoop.

[sickofnewyorkcity]

Originally Posted by AntonioR

I have friends that work at UBS. I'll ask them in the next few days to see what's the inside scoop.

I consulted for UBS and the said it was due to the inability to recruit top talent so the left CT for NYC. Most of the front office people went to NYC.

I also did hear about a lot of bankers complaining about their bonuses.

I think a lot of businesses are getting out of NYC as it is too expensive. The company I work for now has been shifting people to Baltimore. They are only keeping people in CT to comply with the deal they had signed with the state about how many employees they would have in CT.

It is disappointing as the 6th avenue building sucks due to lack of cafeteria. The Stamford building had a great cafeteria with many different food stations to choose from.