LTCM chiefs resisted UBS taking stake
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.LONG-TERM Capital Management, the hedge fund which had to be bailed out, turned down repeated requests from UBS to become a direct investor in the fund and only allowed the Swiss bank to take a stake because of the persistence of the bank's top executives.
Bankers involved with the controversial $1bn (pounds 600m) UBS investment say LTCM founder John Meriwether made it clear on several occasions that he did not want UBS as a shareholder. They say he only caved in last year after UBS said it did not want to take any more fees for lending and insisted on payment in shares instead.
Most of LTCM's top staff came from Wall Street and feared losing control of the business to the kind of investment banking operation from which they had sought to escape.
UBS had been involved in lending to LTCM since 1994 and was fully aware that the fund's market exposures may have been as much as 250 times its capital base.
Chairman Mathis Cabiallavetta and three UBS directors quit the bank on 2 October after owning up to $700m losses on the investment in LTCM.
Documents leaked last week confirmed that UBS had been fully aware of the risks in dealing with LTCM. Warnings from the bank's credit department that the huge borrowings LTCM carried as part of its business meant that lending to it would be a clear breach of funding guidelines were overridden.
Sources close to UBS say the overriding of risk control guidelines was not that uncommon in the old UBS before the merger with SBC earlier this year. "That was part of UBS's style, to pay more attention to clients and relationships than risk," said one source.
Other bankers who dealt with LTCM say it is wrong to claim - as some banks have sought to do - that LTCM kept them in the dark. Banks were, they say, taken through details of trades and could get a fair idea of the risk involved. One said: "If UBS knew, so did everyone else."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments