ZURICH, March 16 (Reuters) – UBS may have gained a potential advantage in a long battle over Swiss government plans \u200cto raise its capital requirements, some lawmakers said, after \u200ca parliamentary filing showed the proposal has been assigned to its upper house first.<\/p>\n
If \u200bthe government’s bill begins there it is more likely to be softened than in the lower chamber, the lawmakers said. That could help set the tone for what is expected to be a long \u200clegislative process for the \u2060bill.<\/p>\n
The Swiss upper house’s Economic Affairs and Taxation Committee is set to discuss the matter on May \u20604, after the government publishes its proposed banking regulation bill, a move expected before the end of April.<\/p>\n
Other rules at the so-called ordinance \u200blevel \u200bwill be enacted directly by the \u200bgovernment and are expected \u200cto come into force in 2027.<\/p>\n
The law determines how much capital UBS has to hold at home for its subsidiaries abroad. The government has proposed 100%, up from currently 60%, which the bank has said will hurt its competitiveness and with it, Switzerland’s financial \u200csector.<\/p>\n
Three members of the upper house \u200bcommittee, along with a fourth lawmaker from \u200bthe lower house, in \u200bDecember pitched a compromise on capital, which could allow \u200cUBS to partially back foreign \u200bsubsidiaries with so-called \u200bAT1 bonds rather than more expensive Common Equity Tier 1 capital.<\/p>\n
UBS at the time called the compromise “more constructive” than the \u200bgovernment’s approach.<\/p>\n
Separate rules for \u200cbanks that are deemed “too big to fail” will be \u200bsent to a public consultation later this year.<\/p>\n
(Reporting by \u200bAriane Luthi; Editing by Alexander Smith)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"ZURICH, March 16 (Reuters) – UBS may have gained a potential advantage in a long battle over Swiss…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":33107,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[6436,19658,19657,906,17,19659,19656],"class_list":{"0":"post-33106","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-switzerland","8":"tag-capital-requirements","9":"tag-economic-affairs-and-taxation-committee","10":"tag-lawmakers","11":"tag-swiss-government","12":"tag-switzerland","13":"tag-tier-1-capital","14":"tag-upper-house"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@ch\/116239427467090644","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33106","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33106\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33107"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}