New UBS rules: what are they and when will they come into force?
ZURICH, June 6 (Reuters) - The Swiss government on Friday published its proposals for stricter regulation of UBS (UBSG.S), opens new tab, setting varying timelines for the introduction of rules that will have far-reaching consequences for the lender and its business model.
UBS will need to find up to $26 billion in additional core capital, while there are also new proposals to make it easier for banks to access central bank liquidity, to give the regulator more powers and to introduce bonus "clawbacks".
Some of the proposed rules, which are designed to make the banking system safer, will need to go through parliament in a process set to take years; other changes can be introduced directly by the governing Federal Council.
Following is an overview of the proposals and when the finalised rules could come into force:
* UBS must hold 100% of the capital in its foreign units at the parent bank, up from 60% currently, with parliament given the final word on the rule.
* UBS to get at least 6-8 years' transition period for new capital rules, the government proposes.
* The government will send a draft bill for formal consultation with political parties, business associations and other interested groups by autumn 2025.
* In 2026, the Federal Council plans to adopt the bill and submit it to parliament, which could modify the legislation.
* Final legislation will be passed in 2027 at the earliest and not come into force before 2028, the Swiss finance ministry said.
OTHER RULES EXPECTED IN 2027
* Stricter provisions to apply to the valuation of assets not sufficiently recoverable in a crisis, like software or deferred tax assets.
* These proposals are on the ordinance track, meaning the Federal Council can enact them directly after a feedback period.
* Final rules are expected to come into force in 2027.
* The government proposes to make it easier for banks to access liquidity from the Swiss National Bank.
* Lenders will need to have collateral prepared in advance, with a minimum amount set for systemically important banks.
* Barriers to the transfer of collateral to the SNB will also be removed.
* Announcements that banks have accessed central bank liquidity may be deferred to minimise damage to lenders.
* The Public Liquidity Backstop proposals remain unchanged.
* Government to consider covered bonds as collateral for access to liquidity at a later date.
* These liquidity measures to be addressed at both legislative and ordinance levels.
* FINMA to get new powers to fine legal entities.
* The regulator should be able to intervene more easily and to issue fines to non-compliant institutions.
* Requirements for recovery and resolution plans to be increased and FINMA should be able to order measures to address deficiencies in recovery planning.
* These measures are on the longer legislative track, meaning final rules will not come into force before 2028.
* The government proposes to introduce a senior managers regime. Banks will need to assign clear responsibility to individuals, making them more accountable for breaches of duty.
* This should make it possible to claw back variable remuneration, cancel bonuses or withdraw recognitions from financial regulator FINMA, the government said.
* The government favours "effective clawbacks" for systemically important banks.
* Introducing a cap on bonuses is not seen as appropriate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
It's no wonder that the middle classes are fleeing Rachel Reeves's anti-wealth island
A brain drain is coming. We need to talk about emigration. Yes, you read that right, emigration – not just immigration. You heard the warnings during the Brexit wars – business and investors will leave for Paris, Frankfurt, Milan (and the Earth will stop spinning...) unless we remain in the customs union – and back then it was largely a load of hot air. But hear me out. This time, it's actually happening. Entrepreneurs and businesspeople are fleeing in their droves. In the past year alone, more than 10,000 millionaires have left the UK. Only China saw more high net-worth individuals leave. European countries are now stealing our lunch, with Italy and Portugal styling themselves as destinations for investor flight with attractive low-tax regimes. It wasn't Brexit that did it, but an economically illiterate tax regime determined to squeeze the juice dry. The best-paid 1 per cent already paid about a third of all income tax collected: those with the broadest shoulders were – and still are – bearing the greatest burden. But the Chancellor viewed successful investors and risk-taking entrepreneurs as criminals to punish, rather than assets to court. The non-dom tax changes may have polled well in focus groups, but they've backfired – and the public will now pay the price. Who is going to fund increases in defence, healthcare and transport spending? Yet again, it will fall to the middle classes to bridge the gap left. The Chancellor's ineptitude means further tax rises on working people in the autumn are now inevitable. The social contract with the middle class hasn't simply frayed – it's been shredded. They have been disproportionately targeted to fund a record tax burden while their quality of life has remained largely stagnant. They're paying more than ever to get less than ever in return. The public services they use are crumbling, the streets they walk feel less safe, and the town centres they visit are hollowed out by petty crime and boarded-up shopfronts. In France, discontent leads to riots; in Britain, it seems to dissipate into despair. The very real risk now is that Brits vote with their feet and simply pack up and leave en masse. A recent poll showed that nearly a quarter of UK adults are considering moving abroad in the next five years. These are highly skilled professionals who are the bedrock of any country: 48 per cent of those in the IT industry are considering emigrating, as are 30 per cent of those in the healthcare sector. And it's not just white-collar workers, either – when I speak to tradesmen, they think they would have far better prospects in countries such as Australia and Canada. This is no longer an issue of investor flight, but a full-on brain drain. In the 1970s, a high-tax and anti-business environment led to Britain experiencing a net loss of 500,000 people. Half a century later, history could well repeat itself. Even my generation, now pushing into our 40s, who didn't feel like we had it particularly good entering the jobs market in the 2000s, and with the massive house-price boom of that period, had it so much better. When I speak at universities, I am struck by how many are contemplating opportunities abroad. And who can blame them? Young graduates today pay more than ever to live in tiny bedrooms in shared flats. The prospect of homeownership – or starting a family – has never been more distant. Unlike previously, the alternatives to the UK are increasingly appealing. Their money can go further elsewhere, and they can live in more prosperous countries with a better quality of life. In 2007, the average Brit was richer than the average American, Australian, Austrian, Belgian, Canadian and German, to name just a few. Now, they have all overtaken us. And it's not just them. Finland, the UAE, Hong Kong and Israel have all sailed past us when it comes to GDP per capita. A failed policy consensus of the past 20 years has driven this country into decline – and now the consequences are upon us. We won't return to being a country of net emigration anytime soon. Quite the opposite: Starmer's immigration White Paper was a recipe for more mass legal and illegal migration. That means hundreds of thousands more migrants who, over their lifetime, will take out more then they put in – many of whom are from culturally divergent countries. Meanwhile, net contributors are pushed towards the exit. On average, a millionaire leaves the country every 45 minutes, while an illegal migrant enters the country every 15 minutes. It's the most brain-dead migration policy imaginable. I don't just fear for the raw economic consequences. If middle-class flight takes off, the foot will slam on the accelerator driving the dizzying pace of change. Brits who have grown up here and are imbued with our history, heritage, culture, customs and traditions can't simply be swapped like-for-like. Nations, like all good things, take an age to create but are easily destroyed. Many Brits can sense that the country they love is slipping away: at first gradually, then suddenly. I understand why people consider leaving the UK, although I could never, ever imagine it myself. I too despair sometimes, but I care too much to just shrug my shoulders and resign myself to defeat. We have a fight on our hands to turn this country around. But safe streets, cohesive communities, cheap energy, functioning public services, higher wages and a startup culture are never unobtainable. For all our problems, this is a great country – and I'm convinced we can be greater still.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
UK ministers delay AI regulation amid plans for more ‘comprehensive' bill
Proposals to regulate artificial intelligence have been delayed by at least a year as UK ministers plan a bumper bill to regulate the technology and its use of copyrighted material. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, intends to introduce a 'comprehensive' AI bill in the next parliamentary session to address concerns about issues including safety and copyright. This will not be ready before the next king's speech, and is likely to trigger concerns about delays to regulating the technology. The date for the next king's speech has not been set but several sources said it could take place in May 2026. Labour had originally planned to introduce a short, narrowly-drafted AI bill within months of entering office that would have been focused on large language models, such as ChatGPT. The legislation would have required companies to hand over their models for testing by the UK's AI Security Institute. It was intended to address concerns that AI models could become so advanced that they posed a risk to humanity. This bill was delayed, with ministers choosing to wait and align with Donald Trump's administration in the US because of concerns that any regulation might weaken the UK's attractiveness to AI companies. Ministers now want to include copyright rules for AI companies as part of the AI bill. 'We feel we can use that vehicle to find a solution on copyright,' a government source said. 'We've been having meetings with both creators and tech people and there are interesting ideas on moving forward. That work will begin in earnest once the data bill passes.' The government is already locked in a standoff with the House of Lords over copyright rules in a separate data bill. It would allow AI companies to train their models using copyrighted material unless the rights holder opts out. It has caused a fierce backlash from the creative sector, with artists including Elton John, Paul McCartney and Kate Bush throwing their weight behind a campaign to oppose the changes. This week, peers backed an amendment to the data bill that would require AI companies to disclose if they were using copyrighted material to train their models, in an attempt to enforce current copyright law. Ministers have refused to back down, however, even though Kyle has expressed regret about the way the government has gone about the changes. The government insists the data bill is not the right vehicle for the copyright issue and has promised to publish an economic impact assessment and series of technical reports on copyright and AI issues. Beeban Kidron, the film director and crossbench peer who has been campaigning on behalf of the creative sector, said on Friday that ministers 'have shafted the creative industries, and they have proved willing to decimate the UK's second-biggest industrial sector'. Kyle told the Commons last month that AI and copyright should be dealt with as part of a separate 'comprehensive' bill. Most of the UK public (88%) believe the government should have the power to stop the use of an AI product if it is deemed to pose a serious risk, according to a survey published by the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute in March. More than 75% said the government or regulators should oversee AI safety rather than private companies alone.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
TUC increases pressure on Reeves to introduce wealth taxes
The TUC is increasing pressure on the government to introduce wealth taxes amid expectations of spending cuts, with a poll revealing that 54% of the public supports taxes on big corporations and wealthy individuals. TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak urged the government to sustain funding for public services, criticising the current system where the wealthy don't contribute their fair share. Angela Rayner has pressed Rachel Reeves to consider wealth taxes instead of departmental cuts, amidst internal government disagreements over the upcoming spending review. The TUC has criticised the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), suggesting its forecasts may negatively impact spending plans and calling for a review of the OBR's role to allow greater investment flexibility. A TUC poll indicates widespread frustration with the amount of tax paid by the wealthiest, with significant support for wealth taxes, windfall taxes on banks, and raising capital gains tax, including among Tory to Labour switchers and those considering switching from Labour to Reform.
