OK, it is only a rumour, but the Guardian reports this morning that:
UBS could move the headquarters of its investment bank to London to avoid tough capital requirements being planned by the Swiss authorities, according to reports in the US.
A move to London from its Zurich headquarters would allow the bank to minimise the capital it keeps to protect against a repeat of the near collapse it suffered in 2008.
Now I won't jump up and down with excitement - because for a start this makes clear that UK regulation is not tight enough. But, such a suggestion, and the fact that it can even be made, calls the bluff of all those banks who say they want to leave the UK. Their credibility is shot, although most of us already knew that.
Two things do, however, follow. The first is that the demand for better, tighter regulation in the UK is enhanced. It is obvious that we are still the light touch regime, and that is not good enough. Second, the idea that London is indeed the tax haven capital of the world is in a very real sense also enhanced. Why else would a Swiss bank want to move here? And that in turn means that much more effort is needed to crack open the secrecy of the City of London, and to hold our companies to account before they do untold damage to our economy, again.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The presence of the banking industry in The City is a two-edged sword. Historically, some would argue that it has allowed us to punch much above our weight. My colleagues in Positive Money are carrying out a detailed analysis of our banking structure and they have concluded that banking operates in the UK at a net cost to the taxpayers. For more details see http://www.positivemoney.org.uk
John
Do you have a 2 pager that shows that?
Richard
Richard – I have emailed you separately on this subject.
John. can you point out where Positive Money says that they “have concluded that banking operates in the UK at a net cost to the taxpayers”, please?
I can’t find any such statement anywhere!
Isn’t this great news for the UK – more jobs?
And isn’t it a case of regulation in different countries being, well different rather than better or worse?
Vive la difference!
“A move to London from its Zurich headquarters would allow the bank to minimise the capital it keeps to protect against a repeat of the near collapse it suffered in 2008.”
It it safe to assume then that the City of London will be able to get around the new capital requirements for the banks? If so, then how will they be able to do this legally?
“A move to London from its Zurich headquarters would allow the bank to minimise the capital it keeps to protect against a repeat of the near collapse it suffered in 2008.”
So the near collapse would have been more easily avoided if it had LESS capital ? What a load of nonsense
I think you will find that this is nothing more than looking for leverage with the Swiss authorities. Even if they wanted to move to either Singapore, Hong Kong, London or NY, they wont. The cost is too high and will take ages to achieve.
Dream on!
So they’re not telling the truth then?
Never trust a Swiss banker
Is that what you’re saying?