NYSE Regulation fines UBS $49.5 million
NEW YORK – The New York Stock Exchange regulatory arm (NYSE Regulation) has slapped a $49.5 million fine on Swiss Bank UBS for failure to supervise deceptive market-timing activities engaged in by its brokers, failure to establish appropriate procedures for supervision and control, and failure to maintain adequate books and records.
The regulator said half the penalty would be payable to the State of New Jersey. Of the remaining $24.75 million, $18 million would be placed in a distribution fund to compensate injured customers of UBS who, during the relevant period, invested long-term in the same mutual funds that were the subject of market-timing; a $5.75 million penalty will be paid to the NYSE; and credit was given for $1 million being separately paid to the State of Connecticut as part payment in a matter relating to improper market-timing.
Any remaining amount in the distribution fund after compensating UBS customers will then be distributed to other investors who were not UBS customers but who invested in these affected mutual funds. Any unused portion will revert to NYSE Regulation after three years.
"When a brokerage firm permits a hedge fund or any other market participant to trade deceptively and gain an unfair advantage over other investors, it has violated the trust that forms the foundation of our capital markets," says Richard Ketchum, chief regulatory officer, New York Stock Exchange. "UBS's failure to have adequate controls in place led to this unfortunate occurrence."
"A broker-dealer must respond swiftly and effectively when misconduct is detected that places any of its customers at risk," says Susan Merrill, chief of enforcement, NYSE Regulation. "Our order is focused upon getting money back into the hands of injured investors."
Beginning in January 2000 and continuing through December 2002, brokers in at least seven UBS branch offices engaged in deceptive market-timing to benefit their customers, typically hedge funds, to the detriment of the affected mutual funds and their non-market-timing shareholders. The brokers used deceptive trading practices to conceal their identities, and those of their customers, to enable them to trade in mutual funds that sought to limit or curtail their market-timing.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
BoE’s Ramsden defends UK’s ring-fencing regime
Deputy governor also says regulatory reform is coming to the UK gilt repo market
Credit spread risk: the cryptic peril on bank balance sheets
Some bankers fear EU regulatory push on CSRBB has done little to improve risk management
Credit spread risk approach differs among EU banks, survey finds
KPMG survey of more than 90 banks reveals disagreement on how to treat liabilities and loans
Bowman’s Fed may limp on by after cuts
New vice-chair seeks efficiency, but staff clear-out could hamper functions, say former regulators
Review of 2025: It’s the end of the world, and it feels fine
Markets proved resilient as Trump redefined US policies – but questions are piling up about 2026 and beyond
Hong Kong derivatives regime could drive more offshore booking
Industry warns new capital requirements for securities firms are higher than other jurisdictions
Will Iosco’s guidance solve pre-hedging puzzle?
Buy-siders doubt consent requirement will remove long-standing concerns
Responsible AI is about payoffs as much as principles
How one firm cut loan processing times and improved fraud detection without compromising on governance