UBS- Impact of case on US Wealth Management?

None.

Maybe waking up the ones with their heads in the sand that U an Us might not be the best place to be right now

I think that the case will be settled on Sunday. As part of the settlement UBS will have to sell PaineWebber.

secretknowledge you have been pretty accurate in the past, how confident are you in this prediction?

I think that the case will be settled on Sunday. As part of the settlement UBS will have to sell PaineWebber.

I have been a RIF victim of UBS and they are very set on thier agenda of selling this sh*tt…firm before the U.S. Justice Dept. siezes all thier assets.

Also UBS is going to sell Paine Webber(what a great firm that was…right Don Sutton and Joe Grano) at the bottom. But in typical bank fashion they did buy Paine Webber at the top in 1999 or early 2000.  Then they bought Piper(what a mess) Jaffrey at another top of the market in 2006.  Now they are selling some branches to SF at the bottom and probably the rest as well at a bottom for far less than they paid. Why do clients and producers stay witlh the Swiss henchmen? 

Clients stay with the advisor not the firm. All of the firms have there own issues.

DOJ has no case.   

your right they will probably settle for a few billion  after all what’s a few more dollars to a firm who’s lost north of 60 billion in the last 2 years.  It is the UBS way to spend thier way out of sh*t rather to spend money to repair thier tarnished reputation by really caring about clients and employees.

WorldPeace:



I disagree. DOJ has great case, UBS already admitted guilt in SEC deferred prosecution.



It does make sense to sue them. Company doing business on U.S. soil helps U.S. citizens break the law. In fact, each of these individuals committed perjury if they signed tax forms and indicated that they did not have a foreign account. Last time I looked Swiss law did not apply to acts that are committed on U.S. soil and vice versa.

These “numbered” accounts were in Switzerland, not US Wealth Managemnt.

Its a game of chicken.  

Secretknowledge, what now? (delay just announced until Aug. 3rd, then earnings…)



Read that any fine will only reduce tier 1 cap by a small margin and bank has capital…



How do they stay competitive going forward and who are the potential suitors if a sale at this time? Barclays? JPM was mentioned, but…



Comments from anyone?

a stay because DOJ has nothing

UBS is spun off with no capital markets business. Grano and Sutton come back to run.



OR



JP Morgan buys.



I think that a new head, spinoff and settlement are all tied together.



They can not let this keep on going forever as it will be bad for U.S. Wealth management business

I find your NAZI quote offensive. Maybe you can post a rational thought or scenario instead. Do you have thoughts like those?

yikes  powerful.   pls stop

WSJ update… as many have stated here… settlement in the works…  It would seem it’s just a question of how many account holders will be deemed fraudulent? Wonder who get’s to decide that. Will UBS sell out some of their own?

WSJ article excerpt… "AG and the governments of the U.S. and Switzerland are deep in talks
to settle a major tax-evasion case that could require the Swiss bank to
reveal some – but not all – of the 52,000 or so account-holder names
the U.S. has sought, according to people familiar with the matter.

On Monday, a Miami federal judge agreed to postpone tax evasion hearings against UBS to allow time for a possible settlement. The high-stakes hearings had been set to begin Monday.

It's the latest twist in a long-running investigation that is prying open the centuries-old tradition of strict secrecy at Swiss banks -- sending shivers among account holders. Earlier this year, the unfathomable occurred when UBS agreed to disclose some 250 account names."

Obama’s Nazi’s seems to me to be accurate.  

It’ll be interesting to see how this settles out. The WSJ hammered UBS unusually hard yesterday.

Do you know anyone with a Swiss bank account? I don’t, which is probably no surprise since the whole point is secrecy. But evidently there are plenty of Americans who do—at least 52,000 at UBS alone—whose identities the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice are trying to learn.

In light of this highly publicized investigation into tax evasion, I’ve been wondering just why anyone needs or wants a Swiss bank account. For African dictators, international arms traffickers and terrorists, the answer is pretty obvious. And there are certainly citizens of countries whose own banking systems are so precarious, and the risks of persecution for any number of reasons so great, that a Swiss bank account may provide welcome security.

But the U.S. is not one of those countries. Despite our recent banking woes, the U.S. has plenty of financial institutions with impeccable balance sheets. It has a legal system second to none that provides ample confidentiality and due-process protections. But it doesn’t offer ironclad secrecy in the face of a legitimate, court-sanctioned subpoena, which means it doesn’t lend itself to tax evasion.

That is evidently why California billionaire Igor Olenicoff parked hundreds of millions of dollars with UBS, and subsequently pleaded guilty to a felony count of filing a false tax return. His former UBS banker, Bradley Birkenfeld, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and testified that UBS bankers prospected for wealthy U.S. clients eager to avoid taxes at art shows, musical performances, yachting regattas, golf and tennis tournaments—anywhere “rich people hang out.” They even served as couriers to avoid money transfers that might be detected by U.S. surveillance, according to Mr. Birkenfeld’s testimony.

All of this was met with depressingly great success: Prosecutors say UBS managed $20 billion for U.S. customers. Earlier this year, UBS agreed to pay a fine of $780 million, admitted that it helped U.S. citizens evade taxes and agreed to cooperate with U.S. investigators. But now it is balking at turning over its clients’ names.

UBS says it would violate Swiss financial privacy laws if it complied. In that case, UBS (and its government) should be faced with a simple choice: continue its policy of strict secrecy, in which case UBS should forfeit the right to do business in the U.S.; or compromise, aligning its banking laws with those in the rest of the civilized world.

I have no sympathy for the bank’s plight. Switzerland is a sovereign nation, free to pursue whatever banking laws it deems appropriate. That doesn’t mean the U.S. has to open its borders to the exploitation of its citizens for tax evasion and other nefarious purposes, nor should other countries.

A trade war would be unfortunate, and the Swiss might retaliate by banning U.S. financial institutions there. But the U.S. would have the great advantage of the moral high ground. I think the likely outcome is clear.

Nor do I have any sympathy for those Americans whose identities may be made known, especially those like Mr. Olenicoff, a billionaire who owned a yacht and maintained foreign accounts in multiple so-called tax havens. Those who have accepted an offer of amnesty should count themselves lucky. Paying taxes is an obligation all American citizens share, but somehow tax evasion seems more reprehensible when committed by the rich, who owe their prosperity to this country and could so easily meet their obligations.

With the Madoff scandal still fresh in the public mind, I hope the Justice Department maintains its tough stance. The wealthy need to be reminded that all Americans stand equal before the law.

James B. Stewart, a columnist for SmartMoney magazine and SmartMoney.com, writes weekly about his personal investing strategy. Unlike Dow Jones reporters, he may have positions in the stocks he writes about. For his past columns, see: www.smartmoney.com/commonsense.

By the end of 2009, all things going somewhat smooth, UBS will sell its US assets to either RBC or JPMorgan.  They are out of the US…if you’ve been watching their actions for the last 6 months and the US Gov’ts, you’ll see that the writing is on the wall.

There are many UBS employees who would welcome being sold. Many feel their practice would thrive with a name change. I hope it is not another European bank (HSBC). JP Morgan seems logical. I think Stifel Nicolaus  should buy a few more branches (starting with mine).  I hear they are a nice firm. Who knows. But I think UBS is short lived here in the US.

I agree a sale would probably be a real lift for everyone involved. PRAY that its’ not someone like HSBC as mentioned by BOLIO.  That would be catastrophic from an organizational and cultural standpoint and not worth any amount of retention $.  HSBC swooped into the US over the last decade and has made one strategic disaster after the next. They just closed down and basically walked from their overpriced 6 year investment in consumer lenders Beneficial Finance and HFC (Household) Finance after realizing that it’s probably not a great business plan to paste your global brand on high rate/high cost hard money lending shops in every strip mall throughout America. HSBC’s compensation structure and even their entire compensation philosophy that they push globally is also very “European”; the typical UBS advisor would never stand for it. 

DOJ game of chicken over.

[quote=BOLIO]

There are many UBS employees who would welcome being sold. Many feel their practice would thrive with a name change. I hope it is not another European bank (HSBC). JP Morgan seems logical. I think Stifel Nicolaus  should buy a few more branches (starting with mine).  I hear they are a nice firm. Who knows. But I think UBS is short lived here in the US.