The Swiss parliament is preparing to discuss the capital requirements that UBS must hold for its foreign subsidiaries.
As many as 12,000 jobs at UBS in Switzerland could be at risk if the bank is forced to comply with stricter capital regulations, according to the Swiss Bank Employees Association (SBPV).
In a letter to lawmakers published on Saturday by the NZZ am Sonntag, the SBPV stated that UBS could face the loss of 10,000 to 12,000 of its approximately 34,000 jobs in the country if it chooses to relocate, sell, or merge.
This letter, which was also reviewed by Reuters, categorized this outcome as a “worst-case” scenario. It follows job cuts the bank has already enacted during its integration of Credit Suisse, another bank it acquired in 2023.
UBS has consistently expressed its desire to remain in Switzerland but refrained from commenting on the SBPV’s job loss estimate. A spokesperson indicated that the bank aims to minimize job reductions linked to the Credit Suisse merger.
UBS anticipates approximately 3,000 layoffs in Switzerland due to this integration, planning these layoffs over several years primarily through natural turnover, voluntary retirements, and internalization of previously outsourced roles.
The SBPV’s warning comes as a committee in the Swiss parliament’s Lower House readies to debate how much capital UBS should be required to maintain to support its foreign divisions.
Last month, the Upper House suggested that UBS should hold 90 percent Common Equity Tier 1 capital to back these subsidiaries.
UBS argued that this level is excessive, with Chairman Colm Kelleher cautioning that the bank would need to reassess its future in Switzerland if regulations are overly burdensome.
Some bank shareholders have even suggested that UBS consider relocating outside of Switzerland, prompting the bank to draft potential plans for moving its headquarters or merging with another institution.
The SBPV’s letter, which emphasized UBS’s obligation to remain committed to its Swiss roots, called on legislators to seek a “viable compromise” that wouldn’t unduly strain the bank.
