Banks Swiss Bankers Association rejects Federal Council's UBS regulation proposal
The Swiss Bankers Association (SBA) rejects the UBS regulation proposed by the Federal Council. Instead, it is calling for proportionate and internationally coordinated rules.
12.01.2026, 09:14
SDA
The proposed full deduction of foreign shareholdings from common equity tier 1 capital CET1 - especially in combination with other capital measures in the overall package - would additionally and recklessly tighten Switzerland's already strict requirements, the industry organization announced on Monday.
An overall view of all planned capital measures is now needed: "Responsible regulation requires a comprehensive analysis of all measures and their interactions," said Roman Studer, CEO of the SBA, in a press release. "Only with an overall view can duplication, misguided incentives and unnecessary burdens be avoided."
In particular, the Bankers Association is calling for a "careful examination" of alternatives to the planned full capital backing of UBS's foreign subsidiaries. In its statement on the consultation, the industry association opposes the exclusion of Additional Tier 1 (AT1) bonds as a capital alternative.
Location disadvantage feared
According to the Bankers Association, the Federal Council notes that in fact only UBS would be directly affected by the proposed capital tightening. However, the massive measure would have far-reaching consequences: It would lead to higher costs and possible restrictions on international and national banking services and make foreign business more expensive for banks in Switzerland. This would result in a structural locational disadvantage that would not only affect internationally active banks, but also weaken the entire financial center and burden the Swiss real economy.
According to the Bankers Association, "viable" alternatives to the proposed maximum variant should be examined. "The de facto exclusion of a significant capital component in the capital adequacy requirements for foreign participations is incomprehensible," the statement reads. Under current law, both common equity tier 1 capital CET1 and AT1 are considered capital that can absorb losses. The planned exclusion of AT1 is objectively incomprehensible.
Other approaches to the chosen maximum variant would be rejected by the Federal Council solely on the basis of qualitative arguments. The SBA is therefore calling for alternatives to be examined with a complete and quantified cost-benefit analysis and for the examined options to be presented transparently in the dispatch.
