The arranged marriage of UBS Group AG and Credit Suisse Group AG would create the biggest bank Switzerland has ever seen, with some wondering if the superbank might be too big for its own good.
The deal struck late on Sunday prevented the collapse of the country’s second-biggest lender by folding it into the largest.
Even before last week’s dramatic events, the two firms were already among the 30 around the world deemed of strategic importance to the global banking system and therefore too big to fail.
Photo: Bloomberg
Some in business, industry and politics are not convinced that one even bigger bank would turn out for the better.
“Credit Suisse was really the bank of the economy and industry,” said Philippe Cordonier, managing director of Swissmem, the Swiss national association representing the engineering industry.
For exporting companies, Credit Suisse offered a range of services essential for international transactions, “payments abroad, credits, leasing or currency hedging,” he said.
“This is where the question arises of what skills will be kept,” Cordonier said, adding that the profiles of the two banks, although close, are not identical.
So far, many questions remain unanswered.
Such a takeover would normally need months of negotiations, but UBS only had a couple of days, under some serious arm-twisting by Swiss authorities.
UBS chief executive officer Ralph Hamers told an analysts’ conference that he did not yet have all the details of the takeover.
Cordonier said the alternative could be to turn from the national banks to Switzerland’s 26 cantonal banks.
However, many do not have the skills to help companies export to far-off markets such as Asia, and would have to develop them.
The other option is to turn to foreign banks, although they would not possess “in-depth knowledge” of the Swiss market, Cordonier said.
“If there is only one major bank that has the capacity to work abroad, this will restrict the choice of solutions for companies,” he said, adding that he is also concerned about the repercussions on costs “if there is less competition.”
Founded in 1856 by Alfred Escher, a central figure in developing Switzerland’s railways, Credit Suisse was closely linked to the country’s economic development.
The bank financed the expansion of the rail network, the construction of the Gotthard Tunnel beneath the main ridge of the Alps, and the start-up of Swiss companies that went on to become leaders in their sector.
“Twenty-five years ago, there were four big Swiss banks,” said the Swiss Federation of Companies, which represents small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
The banking sector has already seen major convergence in 1998 when Swiss Bank Corp merged with the Union Bank of Switzerland to form the modern UBS.
“The concentration into a smaller number of banks reduces competition and makes it more difficult to obtain good financing conditions for SMEs,” the federation said in a statement.
The orchestrated takeover has also triggered virulent criticism among Swiss political circles, of all stripes.
Politicians have called for the further tightening of regulations — which are already strict in Switzerland — in the face of this new giant, which would dominate the nation’s banking sector.
A partial nationalization could “at least” have been considered, the Berner Zeitung daily quoted University of Zurich economic history professor Tobias Straumann as saying.
Carlo Lombardini, a lawyer and professor of banking law at the University of Lausanne, said the UBS takeover “was surely the only swift and feasible solution.”
However, he would have preferred another outcome, such as a takeover “by a foreign bank,” he said. “But a large foreign group doesn’t do acquisitions in a weekend.”
The other solution would have been to nationalize Credit Suisse “to enhance the good bank” and consolidate the poor assets into a “bad bank” to be liquidated, he said.
However, it is too late for such what-ifs, Lombardini said.
“It’s like wondering what would have happened if Napoleon had not lost at Waterloo,” he said, referring to the French emperor’s loss in the 1815 Battle of Waterloo in modern-day Belgium. “The real problem is we are going to have an even more too-big-to-fail bank.”
Three experts in the high technology industry have said that US President Donald Trump’s pledge to impose higher tariffs on Taiwanese semiconductors is part of an effort to force Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電) to the negotiating table. In a speech to Republicans on Jan. 27, Trump said he intends to impose tariffs on Taiwan to bring chip production to the US. “The incentive is going to be they’re not going to want to pay a 25, 50 or even a 100 percent tax,” he said. Darson Chiu (邱達生), an economics professor at Taichung-based Tunghai University and director-general of
‘LEGACY CHIPS’: Chinese companies have dramatically increased mature chip production capacity, but the West’s drive for secure supply chains offers a lifeline for Taiwan When Powerchip Technology Corp (力晶科技) entered a deal with the eastern Chinese city of Hefei in 2015 to set up a new chip foundry, it hoped the move would help provide better access to the promising Chinese market. However, nine years later, that Chinese foundry, Nexchip Semiconductor Corp (合晶集成), has become one of its biggest rivals in the legacy chip space, leveraging steep discounts after Beijing’s localization call forced Powerchip to give up the once-lucrative business making integrated circuits for Chinese flat panels. Nexchip is among Chinese foundries quickly winning market share in the crucial US$56.3 billion industry of so-called legacy
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co (鴻海精密) is reportedly making another pass at Nissan Motor Co, as the Japanese automaker's tie-up with Honda Motor Co falls apart. Nissan shares rose as much as 6 percent after Taiwan’s Central News Agency reported that Hon Hai chairman Young Liu (劉揚偉) instructed former Nissan executive Jun Seki to connect with French carmaker Renault SA, which holds about 36 percent of Nissan’s stock. Hon Hai, the Taiwanese iPhone-maker also known as Foxconn Technology Group (富士康科技集團), was exploring an investment or buyout of Nissan last year, but backed off in December after the Japanese carmaker penned a deal
WASHINGTON POLICY: Tariffs of 10 percent or more and other new costs are tipped to hit shipments of small parcels, cutting export growth by 1.3 percentage points The decision by US President Donald Trump to ban Chinese companies from using a US tariff loophole would hit tens of billions of dollars of trade and reduce China’s economic growth this year, according to new estimates by economists at Nomura Holdings Inc. According to Nomura’s estimates, last year companies such as Shein (希音) and PDD Holdings Inc’s (拼多多控股) Temu shipped US$46 billion of small parcels to the US to take advantage of the rule that allows items with a declared value under US$800 to enter the US tariff-free. Tariffs of 10 percent or more and other new costs would slash such