I don't doubt that he wasn't aware of his wife's transactions. The issue of integrity lies in whether she had become aware of the pending peg from him. In the same way he shouldn't be broadcasting sensitive information to rich and powerful friends, he shouldn't be telling his wife. Or if he does, he should have advised her it would be very bad to use that information for her own gain. (If she did, then she obviously spectacularly stupid).

I understood, albeit from second hand sources that key point was that she told him the day after the trade and still before the cap was announced/ decided.

It makes me wonder would it have been better if he reversed the trade? That would clearly be acting on insider knowledge of course ( assuming she didn't know before the trade) but would have prevented accusations of personal gain I wonder if he took it to SNB legal then and was advised to leave it? Or was he just terrified of domestic discord.

Everything looks clear now:

Felix Scheuber, a relationship manager at Sarasin, said Hildebrand told him to “consider increasing his USD exposure,” though he would “leave it up to his wife Kashya to so decide,” according to a document titled “Client Contact Report,” dated Aug. 15, 2011. Later that day, Kashya Hildebrand instructed Scheuber to buy $504,000.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that it is impossible for me to provide final, definitive proof that my wife carried out the transactions without my knowledge,” Hildebrand said yesterday.

He did actually take it to the head counsel, who told him that it is within the limits of the snb's regulations.

As to not reversing the trade, he admitted that not doing so was an error.

easy. do not divulge sensitive information to family which they may (be tempted to) trade on.

I worked on a number of M&A transactions in 2004-2006. My then wife only heard about the name of the company in each case from the TV/press reports. Not because I did not trust her. But because many in her family and friends circle were bankers/traders and she was liable to blabber ...

if she did know and all she did was place a straight vanilla trade (rather than play the options), then she was a rather dumb currency trader...

Bullseye

Good for Eveline Widmer Schlumpf

About "do not divulge sensitive information to family which they may (be tempted to) trade on."

Problem is if a family member does coincidentally trade without your sensitive information; how do you ever prove that you did not give this sensitive information?

Coincidentally for half a million Dollar?
Pardon my scepticism, but regardless of how much money they have...half a million is not a small amount, even for rich folks.

Well, to be fair was it not exactly rocket science at the time to predict that the Euro will go down more...

Blocher's secret list has been leaked into the press.

Blocher & Weltwoche or should we say Weltblocher:

What tabloid readers really like doing is SPECULATING on everything and anything except whats known as the facts. i.e. she could have done this, she could have done that therefore she is innocent etc etc.

What you suggest above implies CRIMINAL intent.

Nobody here is saying that she couldnt make more money had she so wished - thats not the issue. Actually we dont really know if other trades elsewhere/offshore where made either!! i.e. they could have also told a number of family members not directly related to either. But the court has already deemed the action as not illegal - so why bother speculating!

There was probably/possibly NOTHING untoward about her actions at all - i.e. she had no information and didnt intentionally buy US currency to make a trade on inside info period. The fact is NOBODY knows except for HER. But also nobody is naive enough to think that there isnt a slim chance of untoward actions either i.e. the almighty elitist belief that because its not illegal then it must also not be unethical which makes the person untouchable - and that IS THE POINT.

So lets stick to the facts we do know:
- Banking in itself is already at its lows in Switzerland.
- The Central bank have ALREADY been the centre of attention in the last decade and all for the wrong reasons.
- The job he has is incredibly sensitive - it affects inflows and outflows of funds in CH, it affects businesses, is fueling a property bubble at hotspots, it affects the money supply and affects the wealth of Swiss citizens.
- To put it simply - this persons decision/s can affect the wealth of Switzerland in the future i.e. can assist or damage CH economically - a point many seem to overlook.
- The position demands a lot of trust because it carries with it a lot of useful market information
- The actions of his wife were not illegal but they were definitely stupid and that stupidy has ruined her husbands trust among the swiss public.

If he would remain then each time the SNB would raise the EUR CHF exchange rate - we would all laugh, rolling, and in stitches. Hildebrand and his wife would be the butt of jokes next to every water fountain. Is this the sort of image the SNB should portray? An image that is already quite tainted? Probably NOT i would imagine.

His reputation in touching the swiss franc was over. A resignation would have been warranted with any central banker - and at least he had the guts to fall on his sword relatively quickly. I only wish the sword could have been the inflation that in my belief his actions on euro intervention will create (not for this thread though).

Your second point! Well thats PART 2 - the continuation of the Hildebrand saga. I'll just wait for the new Blick.

You have a lot of very valid points, but the core is this one and we disagree here: I believe that it is not the Swiss publics bloody business what Mrs Hildebrandt does with her money. She deserves the same banking secret everyone else has. That she did not foresee somebody telling the SVP who in turn would tell the Weltwoche details about her private trades is not stupid but absolutely normal.

If you make a trade, and every banker has the right to trade as everyone else, you should disclose to your bank or in this case the SNB what you do in order to make sure that you don't abuse insider knowledge. The Hildebrandts did so and apparently didn't break any rules.

Yes, his press conference was a bit weird. And aparently do you not agree to his policies. But that is not enough to kick him out.

On the "Swiss bankers have to have more ethics": Anyone remembers the Mannesman case where Ackermann managed to buy him self out of a conviction? And then continued to head the DB as if nothing happened... that's how much ethics bankers have. Hildebrandt was definitely not a particularly bad or greedy example.

[QUOTE=Treverus;1453582]She deserves the same banking secret everyone else has. [QUOTE]

Some would say that banking secrecy shouldn't exist and everything should be transparent and above board.

[QUOTE=nigelr;1453617][QUOTE=Treverus;1453582]She deserves the same banking secret everyone else has.
Seems Blocher has joined that group!

Sure. So why does Mr Blocher not lead by example?

an article in CNN

Why the SNB chief had to go

I'm sure there are some skeletons in Mr Blochers' closet. However it needed somebody 'powerful' to bring this out otherwise it would have been hidden away somewhere.

The point is that wrong doing has been done (morally or legally) and it needed somebody of Mr Blocher's stature to bring it out. Whether he is a fan of banking secrets or not isn't really the point.

And I don't think it is correct that only people with 100% records morally/legally etc have the right to complain about somebody elses' wrongdoings.