$2 trillion must include assets under custody, though I did think UBS had 3-4 trillion under custody, which is smaller than some of the biggest names, BNY Mellon, State Street, JP Morgan, Citi, Euroclear.
Under custody absolutely does not mean under management. Oversee is true: Their corporate governance is trusted to ensure these assets are held in safe keeping and administered for example for tax. It does not mean actively invested.
$1.5bn (managed by quants) is still a small number. My second job, at 24, was on a team of 5 people (total) that actively managed $6bn; the team was remarkably lean.
This includes their wealth management division. The relationship between customer and their wealth manager can range from very stringent "Buy AAA bonds and index funds for my account, rotate quarterly to harvest tax losses, always keep 5% in cash" to "Maximize my gains by taking various bets that might or might not be associated with UBS".
On the trading side they would have a variety of instruments (hedge fund is probably the most convenient and easily understood wrapper for various "miscellaneous" financial activity, but there are also private REITs, MLPs, CEFs, etc.) which would then try to attract funds. The funds would bring money from various sources, such as firm's own money, partners' personal capital, as well as wealth managers, some of which could be associated with UBS. This is the actual money available to quants.
$2 trillion must include assets under custody, though I did think UBS had 3-4 trillion under custody, which is smaller than some of the biggest names, BNY Mellon, State Street, JP Morgan, Citi, Euroclear.
Under custody absolutely does not mean under management. Oversee is true: Their corporate governance is trusted to ensure these assets are held in safe keeping and administered for example for tax. It does not mean actively invested.
$1.5bn (managed by quants) is still a small number. My second job, at 24, was on a team of 5 people (total) that actively managed $6bn; the team was remarkably lean.