Britain's financial watchdog fines UBS over trading scandal
UBS AG was fined £30-million ($48-million U.S.) by Britain’s financial watchdog and put under extra scrutiny by its Swiss counterpart over failings that allowed a rogue trader to lose $2.3-billion.
Announcing the fine on Monday, Tracey McDermott, director of enforcement at Britain’s Financial Services Authority (FSA), said the Swiss bank’s risk control systems were “seriously defective.”
Kweku Adoboli, a trader on UBS’s Exchange Traded Funds desk in London, was jailed for seven years last week after admitting trading far in excess of authorised limits.
“Failures of this type in firms of the size and standing of UBS not only damage the firms concerned but also wider confidence in the integrity of the markets and the financial system,” Ms. McDermott said.
In a separate announcement, the Swiss financial regulator Finma said it was examining whether UBS should increase capital to back its operational risks. A Finma spokesman declined to elaborate.
UBS said it had made progress over the past year “reinforcing our position as one of the most financially sound global banks.”
The Swiss regulator said it is appointing an independent investigator to see whether the action UBS is taking to put things right after last year’s trading scandal is proving effective.
UBS said it accepted the regulators’ findings and the penalties, adding it was pleased that the regulators had acknowledged the steps the bank has taken including disciplinary action against staff.
UBS Chief Executive Sergio Ermotti, installed after Oswald Gruebel stepped down over the scandal, announced a major restructuring last month to wind down large, risky parts of its investment bank.
Finma said the bank’s control functions had been based too much on trust and that it had sent misleading signals by awarding bonuses and pay rises to Adoboli, even though he had breached the rules.
UBS said last month its total capital requirements under the Basel III global rules are expected to decline to 17.5 per cent from 19 per cent as it cuts risk-weighted assets and its balance sheet over the coming years.
Fed’s Dudley Signals a Shift Toward Bank Reform
This is now the standard line from Wall Street lobbyists: Don’t worry about “too big to fail” financial institutions because the Dodd-Frank Act fixed the problem.
The implication is that Congress should relax and not push any additional changes, such as capping the size of our largest banks in a meaningful way or forcing them to simplify their legal structures. If regulators lack support on Capitol Hill, they won’t try as hard.
About Simon Johnson
Simon Johnson, who served as chief economist at the International Monetary Fund in 2007 and 2008, is a professor of entrepreneurship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management.
On Nov. 15, resistance to this industry view came from a surprising place: a speech by William Dudley, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That institution isn’t usually associated with strong pro-reform positions, yet Dudley was unexpectedly forceful on three points.
First, he made clear that too big to fail remains with us. Some very large financial institutions receive implicit government subsidies in the form of downside protection (or at least the market’s perception that such protection exists). This insurance is free of charge and allows them to borrow more cheaply, and presumably encourages them to become even larger. Now, whenever someone questions the existence of these dangerous subsidies, I will cite Dudley’s speech.
Second, I was struck by Dudley’s admission that the recently completed first round of living wills -- potential liquidation plans drawn up by major financial institutions --has been far from satisfactory. I encounter industry lawyers who assert that living wills provide a clear road map for winding down systemically important financial institutions. I will also refer these people to Dudley’s speech, in which he confirms that living wills have accomplished no such thing.
“We are a long way from the desired situation in which large complex firms could be allowed to go bankrupt without major disruptions to the financial system and large costs to society,” Dudley said.
Still, the New York Fed president says that living wills are an “iterative process” that will take some time to work. My view is that they are a sham, meaningless boilerplate and box checking.
Third, Dudley is also perceptive on the difficulty of applying to global banks the “orderly liquidation authority” of Dodd-Frank’s Title II. The general idea is simple: Allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to manage the “resolution” of large financial institutions in the same way it has handled the failure of banks with insured deposits since the 1930s.
The insurmountable obstacle -- as critics have pointed out for at least three years -- is that there is no cross-border framework or process for handling the failure of big financial institutions. Different countries have different rules, and powerful people in those countries -- U.K. bankers or French civil servants -- like it that way.
Here’s the heart of the matter with regard to over-the- counter derivatives, as stated by Dudley in the nuanced language of a central banker.
“Certain Title II measures including the one-day stay provision with respect to OTC derivatives and other qualified financial contracts may not apply through the force of law outside the United States, making orderly resolution difficult.”