Not all firms can occupy top position

When a senior executive of UBS admits that the bank may no longer aim for the top spot in the rankings of global investment banks he puts the business on a more sensible and realistic footing.
Aiming for the top may be useful to encourage ambition but it can also be destructive if carried too far. Like in sport, there can only be one winner in business and being number 2, 3 or even 10 does not automatically brand you a failure.

Mitsubishi/Morgan Stanley JV loses big on Derivative Bet

One should have thought that the turmoil of the past few years has led managements in all securities units to batten down the hatches and keep to a strict regime of risk management in all trading activities. That two major participants in the global investment banking business have to book a loss of nearly 1 billion dollars on a trading strategy that went wrong beggars belief. The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same....

Size matters - but not in the way the consultants think

A well-known consultant to private banks recently claimed that smaller (Swiss) Wealth Management Banks face a challenging future. The problem with this one-dimensional view is that size does not have to be a valid variable when drafting a path for the future development of any financial institution. If the small banks have no future, the middle gets squeezed and the big ones are too big, who is going to survive? The consultants have a lot of explaining to do as they can not all be right at the same time. Experience and common sense should be the guide as banks in each of these categories can prosper if they make the right decisions.

Employment Contract: Court Judgement

An interesting document for all those interested in the intricacies and potential pitfalls of employment contracts (Source)

CDS - Why not prohibit states issuing debt?

When a professional party politician like the MEP Markus Ferber (he is a charge on Europe's citizens since the tender age of 29!) states that prohibiting uncovered CDSs on government bonds is under serious consideration we see that one thing is certainly represented in the useless European Parliament: ignorance about financial markets! I am critical of Credit Derivatives for a number of reasons as this blog documents but prohibition by the EU and/or its member states would simply drive the business to friendlier shores. The flood of government paper in itself is a sort of uncovered short sale that can only be described as a Ponzi scheme. As the debt level inexorably rises towards a tipping point - close to or above 100 percent of GDP - the political class that is addicted to buy votes by spending other people's money becomes increasingly desperate in the search for ways to extend its spending spree a little further - at least beyond the next election.

UBS CEO raises doubts about London

Oswald Gruebel, CEO of UBS, wants the British government to state its intentions concerning regulation and taxation that will affect the banking sector in the years to come. Gruebel states that it is very difficult to work in a constantly-changing environment and that there may be a point where it becomes preferable to de-emphasise London as a business hub. In my opinion there is a danger that the City of London may suddenly reach a critical 'tipping point' though it is not obvious if the candidates to take over a large part of the business are really an alternative. Zurich would simply not have the capacity and Frankfurt and Paris are not exactly free from regulatory overgrowth. CS may have be a special case as it has a large hub in its Swiss headquarter and the duality of two large centres pose a management problem in terms of duplication and coordination that American or Asian banks coming to Europe do not have when concentrating European activities in London.

Arbitrary Bonus Awards - potential for contentious litigation

A recent court judgement illustrates again that arbitrary bonus awards and redundancy decisions should be avoided at all costs. Not only do they demonstrate poor judgement by the managers responsible but they also put their employers into a bad light. We have argued for a long time that it is just not good enough to make bonus or redundancy decisions on the basis of 'whose face fits in'. The secrecy surrounding bonus decisions is a contributing factor to this problem. Bringing qualitative judgements into decisions which ultimately revolve about hard numbers and money allow abusive practices to flourish. In addition, the revenue potential that an individual employee has is also dependent to a large extent on the client base he is allocated or the product he is assigned to trade (and the dealing limit he is given). It would therefore be much better if a large part of all bonus payment would be allocated on a firm-wide basis (or based on departments). In addition the much maligned percentage basis (related to profits, credits or whatever) would also put bonus decisions onto a more objective (and less contentious) basis.

Profitability of Commodities business disappoints

The headlong rush into the commodities business may not be as profitable as banks and brokers expect. Each commodity requires special skills and it is expensive to support teams in all of these distinct market niches. But the focus of attention shifts from on product to the next and it is tricky to anticipate the next hot market. Playing catch-up is a futile game as a bank may have hired expensive teams only to see the specific sector to cool down and prevent lucrative business from paying for the new hires. There is also regulatory risk as authorities may clamp down on what some describe as a casino that is not serving the real economy as much as investors and speculators. It is quite conceivable that commodities may be declassified as eligible investments and treated more harshly by tax legislation. Business volumes could drop precipitously if that would ever be the case.

Barclays: Protium deal worries shareholders

A look at the longer-term performance of the shares of some of the leading 'universal' banks confirms that shareholders have largely been left out of the party when it comes to sharing the wealth generated by the explosive growth of financial markets during the past two decades. So it should not be a surprise that more than one eyebrow is raised about the cosy deal that was struck between Barclays Bank and a number of its employees when $12.3 billion of toxic assets were sold to the Protium off-balance sheet vehicle in September 2009. It is not obvious why this transaction was necessary as the amount is quite insignificant compared to the Bank's total balance sheet. As is often the case when banks dispose of unwanted assets one has to ask why outside parties should get the upside. Surely the price of any such deal reflects what should be a realistic market price. Why would a bank - once it has accepted market reality - not stick to an asset that has been marked down to a new - and more attractive - price level? The only explanation we can come up with is bureaucratic inertia or intellectual lazyness thus opening an opportunity for outsiders with an eye for value

UK banking regulators: lunatics at the controls?

When 'bank regulators are launching a new type of "stress test" that forces banks to consider unlikely but potentially disastrous scenarios like a flu pandemic or disruptions to the country's food-supply chain' (Wall Street Journal, 11 Feb 2011) one has to ask if regulatory creep has reached the lunatic stage. I wonder when banks are asked to plan for the possibililty of an asteroid impact.