When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Switzerland

How UBS Can Cash In After Its $2.3 Billion Debacle

Analysis: After last week’s arrest of a rogue trader accused of fraud that cost the Swiss bank $2.3 billion, UBS shareholders could actually wind up benefiting from a new structure that splits off the investment banking from the commercial business. But t

(twicepix)
(twicepix)

ZURICH - It is time for UBS to rethink its business model. More precisely, it needs to get rid of its investment banking operations, the business that makes it easy to lose in seconds what an entire crew of asset managers and consultants have earned from a hard day's work. After last week's arrest of Kweku Adoboli, 31, charged with fraud and false accounting dating back to 2008 that racked up $2.3 billion in losses, even the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, a Swiss paper known for its sobriety, asked, "Splitting Off Investment Banking Wings: The Solution To Uncontrollable Proprietary Trading?"

The argument is as follows: It simply isn't right that the more stable commercial banks – or God forbid, the taxpayers – should make up for the billions squandered away by traders in London and New York. Especially when the soaring profits the traders make merely flow back into their own salaries. Discontentment is growing, even within the banks themselves. "It's the investment bankers," says a wealth manager at UBS Zurich, "they ruin everything."

The pressure on banks has been growing for years, and increased significantly after the financial crisis forced the Swiss state to take UBS under its wing. Nevertheless, the bank has yet to abandon its integrated model. "The reason is simple," say banking expert and author René Zeyer. "A separation would be good for shareholders but bad for the traders themselves." They would have to carry their own risk. And the top managers at the commercial bank would have to accept more regular, but significantly lower bonuses.

Even Konrad Hummler, managing partner at Wegelin & Co, pointed out that the high wages in the investment banking groups has influenced the rest of the industry. "The direct impact for us is a higher salary expectation in the financial industry," he said. There is little incentive for bank managers to separate from the risk-intense business.

Lower returns, higher shares

However, a study conducted by the JPMorgan Research Department suggests that investors are likely to benefit from a split within the bank. The investment banking business , according to market observers, contributes little to the long-term value of the bank; and a split, which would lower both risk and capital gains, would also increase the price of UBS shares.

René Zeyer predicts the same. He calculated the potential for returns without the investment banking group at around five percent – significantly lower than UBS Chief Oswald Grübel's fantasy of 15 percent. "It would be an honest and sustainable growth," said Zeyer. He is convinced that investors would have great confidence in a bank that chose to leave the current circus of the financial industry. "This bank's stocks would be as prized as the Matterhorn (mountain peak)," he said, "and their value could double."

Defenders of investment banking argue that their sector provides important services to the bank. After all, the group does more than just high-risk proprietary trading. The consultants also put together and sell packages that enable the funding of mergers or expansions. A large Swiss company, for example, can turn to investment bankers to obtain new bond money for a buyout in India.

UBS could continue its investment banking activity, and simply let go of its proprietary trading. Or it could look for new, independent investment banking services. This would have the advantage of forcing investment bankers to convince more asset managers of their performance before they invest large amounts of client money. "Because of cheap financing from retail banking and wealth management," we have taken on too much risk, says Hummler. Separating the investment bank would make transactions more expensive, but it would also make them safer.

Read the original article in German

photo - twicepix

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

Utter Pessimism, What Israelis And Palestinians Share In Common

Right now, according to a joint survey of Israelis and Palestinians, hopes for a peaceful solution of coexistence simply don't exist. The recent spate of violence is confirmation of the deepest kind of pessimism on both sides for any solution other than domination of the other.

An old Palestinian protester waves Palestinian flag while he confronts the Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the village of Beit Dajan near the West Bank city of Nablus.

A Palestinian protester confronts Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the West Bank village of Beit Dajan on Jan. 6.

Pierre Haski

-Analysis-

PARIS — Just before the latest outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, a survey of public opinion among the two peoples provided a key to understanding the current situation unfolding before our eyes.

It was a joint study, entitled "Palestinian-Israeli Pulse", carried out by two research centers, one Israeli, the other Palestinian, which for years have been regularly asking the same questions to both sides.

The result is disastrous: not only is the support for the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine side by side — at its lowest point in two decades, but there is now a significant share of opinion on both sides that favors a "non-democratic" solution, i.e., a single state controlled by either the Israelis or Palestinians.

This captures the absolute sense of pessimism commonly felt regarding the chances of the two-state option ever being realized, which currently appears to be our grim reality today. But the results are also an expression of the growing acceptance on both sides that it is inconceivable for either state to live without dominating the other — and therefore impossible to live in peace.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest