Different name, fashion's the same: Styledash is now the StyleList Blog!

AOL Money & Finance

When it comes to auction rate securities, UBS stands for U've Been S@$#ed

The New York Times reports that Massachusetts secretary William Galvin has subpoenaed some revealing e-mails from UBS AG (NYSE: UBS) that illustrate its decision to stick retail investors with its worthless ARS inventory.

I've been following the $330 billion ARS market since February when the weekly auction market for resetting their yields seized up. Since then 4,852 comments have been posted from individual investors whose money is frozen in ARS limbo.

The e-mails reveal that UBS's corporate customers did not want to buy the ARS on UBS's books. So UBS tried to unload the worthless securities onto its individual customers. Absent dumping the ARS, UBS would need to take the hit itself. Rather than do that, UBS decided to let those foolish enough to fall for the ARS sales pitch to take the losses. The Times illustrates this decision clearly in an e-mail from Joe Gallichio, a managing director in the municipal finance department at UBS, on February 21, after the ARS market had frozen.

Here is the e-mail:

As things change they also remain the same. What we face now in the firm as related to muni short term is classic Wall Street. In its core, it is trading versus sales, risk management versus client franchise.

As a firm we tell people we are client focused. So if the client is always right, then we should fix the problem this product has created in WM. [UBS's wealth management unit, which includes retail investors.] To let WM and the firm as a whole go through costly litigation, the loss of investor confidence and significant assets, the cost in management time, legal and compliance, IT spend, the total distraction from our core growth strategy and overall employee morale - will certainly be in excess of the multibillion-dollar hit to balance sheet we would take by just buying the rest of the assets from WM. I just don't get it.

Gallichio's e-mail really says it all. After reading it, I wonder why anyone would ever deal with a stock brokerage. Is there really that big of a need to pay a commission to a brokerage to unload its biggest financial mistakes onto you, the customer?

Let's hope that UBS ends up paying for its conduct.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in UBS securities.

Related Posts

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.

Symbol Lookup
IndexesChangePrice
DJIA-344.6511,188.23
NASDAQ-74.692,259.04
S&P 500-38.151,236.83

Last updated: September 05, 2008: 06:10 AM

BloggingStocks Exclusives

Hot Stocks

BloggingStocks Featured Video

TheFlyOnTheWall.com Headlines

WalletPop Headlines

AOL Business News

Latest from BloggingBuyouts

Sponsored Links

My Portfolios

Track your stocks here!

Find out why more people track their portfolios on AOL Money & Finance then anywhere else.

BloggingStocks Partners

More from AOL Money & Finance