• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Temasek Holdings laughs last | UBS makes profit

red amoeba

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
feeling smug liao, i am sure those buggers r...

UBS posts 1b franc profits despite rogue trade losses


ZURICH: Swiss banking giant UBS said Tuesday that its third-quarter net profit reached 1.018 billion francs (831 million euros, US$1.16 billion) even though it had to take a 1.849 billion franc charge due to a rogue trading scandal.

When the bank first announced the discovery in mid-September of massive fraud perpetrated by 31-year-old trader Kweku Adoboli, it warned that it might have to report a loss for the third quarter. It later said it would report a "modest net profit."

In its third-quarter earnings statement, the bank said an own credit gain as well as returns from the sale of treasury-related investments helped it to offset the losses. It also recorded an income tax benefit of 40 million francs.

In addition, it managed to bring in 4.9 billion francs worth of net new money.

UBS acknowledged that current economic conditions would likely continue to create "headwinds for growth in revenues and net new money" but noted that its funding positions were solid.

"We have every reason to remain confident about our future," it added.

UBS announced the massive trading scandal on September 15, shortly after one of its traders, Adoboli, was arrested in London.

He has been remanded by a London court, and will have to face a higher court in November on two charges of fraud and two of false accounting over three years at the banking giant.

On Tuesday, UBS said that it has found that "certain internal controls were not effective on December 31, 2010."

In particular, it found a failure in the control mechanism that requires bilateral confirmation with trading counterparties for settlement dates that are greater than 15 days.

When changes were made to such trades, the related controls to ensure that they were valid were also not operating effectively.

In addition, checks to ensure that internal transactions were recorded accurately in its books failed.

"We have taken and are taking measures to address these control deficiencies," assured the bank, adding that investigations were ongoing.

The trading scandal was another blow to the bank, which has been struggling to rebuild its reputation after the financial and economic crises when it lost colossal sums and was forced to turn to the state for a rescue package.

In 2008 and 2009, the bank was also embroiled in a serious tax evasion spat with the United States.

It was forced to hand over 300 client names and pay a 780-million-dollar fine in a first case, before a second wider case in which it finally agreed to hand over data on 4,450 American clients.
 

borom

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
NOVEMBER 5, 2011
.Why Wall Street Can't Handle the Truth........

By MIKE MAYO
................ for about the past decade, especially the past five years or so, most big banks haven't been good investments. In fact, they've been terrible investments, down 50%, 60%, 70% or more...........

told the Senate Banking Committee in 2002 that financial analysts "are on the front lines of holding corporations accountable." However, he says, they haven't always upheld this trust with investors..........

Over the years, I have pointed out certain problems in the banking sector—things like excessive risk, outsized compensation for bankers, more aggressive lending—and as a result been yelled at, conspicuously ignored, threatened with legal action and mocked by banking executives, all with the intent of persuading me to soften my stance............

It started in 1999, when I was managing director ......at Credit Suisse First Boston. At the time, what gave me the biggest concern was a sense that stocks within the banking sector were likely to turn downward...........

For my 1,000-page report on the entire banking industry, with detailed reports of 47 banks, I wasn't just going to go negative on a few main stocks but the entire sector. This was completely the opposite of what most analysts were saying, not just about banks but about all sectors.....................
I laid out my case again: declining loan quality, excess executive compensation and headwinds for the industry after five years of major growth driven by mergers .................

I was still negative on the sector in 2001, when I moved over to Prudential, and I initiated my coverage with nine sell ratings. This was a tough stance to take at the time because bank stocks were on the rise............

As the financial crisis started rumbling in 2007, I was working at Deutsche Bank and went on CNBC in November to air my concerns. I said the total cost of the crisis could approach $400 billion...........
I was summoned to a meeting on an upper floor of the building with a senior manager at Deutsche Bank. He said that the firm did not like to be seen as publicly negative on the U.S. banking sector at a time when it held certain short positions..........The firm ended up losing about $4.5 billion overall, far less than most big banks, in part because of its aggressive short positions on the U.S. housing market......

***
To fix the banking sector, should we rely more on government regulation and oversight or let the market figure it out? Tougher rules or more capitalism? Right now, we have the worst of both worlds. We have a purportedly capitalistic system with a lot of rules that are not strictly enforced, and when things go wrong, the government steps in to protect banks from the market consequences of their own worst decisions. To me, that's not capitalism.....................

The more effective solution would come from letting market forces work. That doesn't mean no rules at all—a banking system like the Wild West, with blood on the floor and consumers being routinely swindled. We need a cultural, perhaps generational, change that compels companies to better apply accounting rules based on economic substance versus surface presentation.

Even in 2011, some banks were woefully deficient in detailing the amount of their securities and loans that are vulnerable to the ravages of the European financial crisis. The solution is to increase transparency and let outsiders see what's really going on.

What we need is a better version of capitalism. That version starts with accounting: Let banks operate with a lot of latitude, but make sure outsiders can see the numbers (the real numbers). It also includes bankruptcy: Let those who stand to gain from the risks they take—lenders, borrowers and bank executives—also remain accountable for mistakes..............

A better version of capitalism also means a reduction in the clout of big banks. All of the third-party entities that oversee them need sufficient latitude to serve as a true check and balance. My peer group, the army of 5,000 sell-side Wall Street analysts, can help lead the way to provide scrutiny over the markets. Doing this involves a culture change to ensure that analysts can act with sufficient intellectual curiosity and independence to critically analyze public companies that control so much of our economy.

—Mr. Mayo is managing director at Credit Agricole Securities. Adapted from "Exile on Wall Street: One Analyst's Fight to Save the Big Banks From Themselves" .............

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...354571908.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

What the highest paid ministers/MP's and father of Patrick Tan did not seem to know.
By the way can red amoeba enlighten us on UBS's exposure to Portugal,Itay,Ireland, Greece and Spain?
How much loan loss provisions have UBS made on its exposure to the PIIGS?-more than the 50% haircut I hope!
 
Last edited:

tonychat

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Care to make a list of the losses to profit of all its investment history? Then you know the whole picture.
 

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
TH management will get bonus...

The lower ranked staffs will be stuffed 'turkeys' for Christmas, this November, they will receive pink notices, saving the bank money. That is why they occupy wall street.:p
 

flkyflky

Alfrescian
Loyal
Banks are dying. If UBS made any exception that means they gamble in the currency or stock market and had luck. Or they forfeited and cheated fucking Gaddafi's funds that's all it can be. Otherwise they will be just dead bank.
 
Top