SKN | UBS Gains a Capital Compromise as Switzerland Reconsiders Foreign-Unit Rules

Key Takeaways:

• UBS could avoid the Swiss government’s proposed 100% CET1 requirement for foreign subsidiaries under a parliamentary compromise.
• The proposal would allow UBS to use AT1 capital for the remaining 50%, reducing the immediate pressure on its highest-quality equity capital.
• A proposed 11% CET1 trigger would restrict dividends, share repurchases, and variable compensation if UBS’s capital position falls below the threshold.
• The compromise could reduce UBS’s capital burden, but higher AT1 funding costs would create a different form of pressure on the bank.

UBS has secured a potentially more manageable path through Switzerland’s post-Credit Suisse capital reform debate, after an upper-house parliamentary committee backed a compromise on how the bank must capitalize its foreign subsidiaries. The proposal represents a meaningful shift from the federal government’s demand for full backing with Common Equity Tier 1 capital.

A More Flexible Capital Structure for UBS

Under the committee’s proposal, UBS would be required to cover 50% of the capital backing for its foreign subsidiaries with CET1. The remaining 50% could be satisfied using Additional Tier 1 instruments, allowing the bank to reach the required level of capitalization without carrying the entire burden through common equity.

For UBS, the distinction is strategically important. CET1 is the highest-quality form of bank capital and directly strengthens the balance sheet’s ability to absorb losses. AT1, while designed to absorb losses under stress, can provide a less equity-intensive route to meeting regulatory requirements.

The Cost of the Compromise Is Tighter Capital Discipline

The proposal is not simply a relaxation of the rules. Swiss lawmakers want UBS to operate with a new capital trigger around an 11% CET1 ratio. If the bank falls below that level, it would have to suspend investor distributions and share repurchases.

Variable compensation would also face restrictions unless UBS restored its capital position within a specified period. This effectively makes the additional reliance on AT1 capital more consequential: UBS could retain greater flexibility in its capital structure, but it would face stronger restrictions if its core capital buffer deteriorates.

Committee president Erich Ettlin emphasized that the proposal should not be viewed as a victory for UBS, but as a solution intended to protect Switzerland’s financial system while preserving the competitiveness of its largest bank.

What the Compromise Means for UBS

The Swiss government has argued that UBS should hold approximately $20 billion more in CET1 capital following its emergency takeover of Credit Suisse in 2023. UBS has opposed that approach, warning that excessive capital requirements could weaken its competitiveness and create broader consequences for Switzerland’s financial center.

The committee’s proposal therefore gives UBS greater flexibility without eliminating the underlying regulatory objective. However, Ettlin noted that the increased use of AT1 capital would itself carry a cost, meaning the compromise shifts part of the burden from balance-sheet equity requirements toward funding expense and distribution discipline.

The Regulatory Decision Is Still Unfinished

The committee approved the package by 10 votes to two, with one abstention. It will now move to the upper house before being reviewed by the lower house, where stronger opposition could emerge. A final decision could arrive by the end of 2026, although 2027 appears more likely.

For global wealth clients, the key issue is not simply whether UBS must hold more capital. The more important consideration is how the final framework could influence the bank’s capital allocation, shareholder distributions, funding costs, and long-term capacity to deploy balance-sheet resources. The regulatory architecture surrounding UBS remains unfinished, making the final parliamentary outcome an important point to monitor.

For a confidential discussion regarding your cross-border banking structure, contact our senior advisory team.