I doubt that the state will pump in more money - rather issuing more shares!

As for the merger with DB - I hardly believe that... more likely to be taken apart and sell the parts they don't want or can't hold for now...no?

what a wonderful, interconnected world we live in ...

The US pumps in 85 billion into AIG, ostensibly to save it. AIG turns around and pays over 23 billion of that to Goldman, MS, SG and others who had placed reckless bets with it. (I assume these banks in turn somehow 'save' Mr. Paulson ..?? Wait for the announcement of his Chairmanship of a major financial institution, with a $100 million salary)

The US saves Citi by buying up half of its garbage equity. They then ostensibly tell Citi and others to behave. NO MORE BONUSES, okay ?? So what does Citi do? They raise their salaries... Simple

Don't be ridiculous, such a salary would be outrageous. I'm sure he'll get a much more reasonable few million...

...With a $90 million "minimum bonus".

Mr. Ackermann was almost at the top of CS. He moved to DB after not getting the top job at CS. Unaware that he ever worked for SBG or UBS.

Big bank mergers are out of fashion because of the "systemic risk". Mr. King says "too big to fail, is too big!"

Jesus ****! That was said with keener 20:20 hindsight than Alan Greenspan's admission that he "made a mistake". Stupid cunts.

Issuing more shares sounds nice, but you need to have buyers of these shares ! And so, the Swiss National Bank may be the most important buyer of many of the new shares.
-
Selling parts they don't want will be difficult as nobody wants to buy chunk ! This is the reason why Mr Villiger, his C.E.O. and Mr Merz are totally against this idea.

Sorry, checked it up. He started in the SKA/CS, not SBG. Amazing is that the new CEO of UBS is ex-chief of CS.

Am I right that government is not only not injecting but even withdrawing from Big ones:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aWraJF2H5Cjk

Do you see this news positive or negative? May it lead to smaller but more efficient corporations?

In this article there is a quote "
“We’ll be one of the first countries without any government involvement,” Leuthard said in an interview at her office in Bern yesterday. “UBS is on a good track.” "

Ahem, & the 50/60 billion of toxic assets Madam? who do they belong to? I am happy to take them away if it is a problem, just throw them on the back of my truck.

Marton

When Mr Merz met Mr Villiger last time, many people without close knowledge of the banking world, which means people like me, expected that they would announce the union to sell off its stake in UBS. It was amazing to see that in the end, they both announced that everything would continue as before.
-
Whenever Mrs Leuthard feels the pressure from the SVP now, Mr Merz is the Minister of Finance still.

-
How can you ask such questions ? Mrs Leuthard is Minister for positive spirits and good humour, and most of all a positive mood. Not however the one to answer awkward questions !

Now the newspapers are talking about the US charging UBS a 10Billion fine!
If other countries follow this approach then maybe UBS is not so safe as I thought?
Marton

no, they just pull out of the US all together, nothing the US can do about it then

I don't think it is quite that easy... a fine like that might just break the banks back or leaves it at least heavily damaged in funds and reputation for years to come... The only thing they could try is to sue everybody else trying to get some money out before they have to pay - not that I would know a single reason why or how right now..

I anticipate UBS settles with the IRS out-of-court. UBS has several thousand employees in the USA. Surely, the US Government would not want them jobless after UBS is chased off. And when UBS is broken, then the IRS gets nothing. No use killing the goose ...

Could they not just "take over" the US branches and keep them going until they found a suitable Bank to take them in?

I'm still not sure if they want more or anything other than the 52'000 names and account details...

The USA has no shortage of bad banks. Do they want 1 more?

That is what the NatWest guys thought

Marton

They want money. "Names" do not pay the bills or reduce the deficits.

Also they want to frighten Swiss banks from serving US investors. That has succeeded. No Swiss bank wants US clients.

If UBS could sell its Network of US Branches to a willing investor (?) the cash resulting could be used to make a deal with the IRS / settle the dispute finally.

It would reduce UBS in size - making it leaner & fitter - hence a good bet in buying shares in - as the US Dollar is looking more and more, as if it will become the 'outsider' in any thoughts of a Global Economy.

Think China / UAE / Saudi / Korea / Russia et al.
All are punting for the pivotal job - of using their currency in a World leading role.

It's pure conjecture (the above) but could leave UBS in a far stronger position,down the line ?

Yes - I am thinking of investing in their shares