Swiss senators vote to make UBS hold $16bn more capital against its foreign arms

On 23 September 2026 the Council of States, the upper house of the Swiss parliament, voted 29 to 16 to require UBS to back its foreign subsidiaries with Common Equity Tier 1 capital equal to 90 per cent of their value. UBS has put the additional requirement at about $16 billion of CET1 held at the Swiss parent company. The vote is part of the legislative response to the collapse of Credit Suisse in 2023 and the emergency takeover that followed.

How the figure landed at 90 per cent

The federal government’s original proposal was full backing, at 100 per cent. UBS argued for an alternative that would have let it use Additional Tier 1 bonds for part of the cover, and senators rejected it. The 90 per cent figure is a modest easing of the government’s position and a substantial tightening of the rules the bank operates under today. Finance minister Karin Keller-Sutter has defended the plan as the way to keep the country’s largest bank standing in a crisis and to keep the Swiss state out of another rescue.

UBS was blunt in response, saying the outcome was not a compromise and did not address what caused Credit Suisse to fail. Reports since the vote have UBS returning to the question of where the group is domiciled, though the bank has made no such decision.

The Swiss National Bank has come out in support. Its vice-chair, Antoine Martin, said the following day that 90 per cent is a workable solution, while noting that on financial stability grounds alone the central bank would have preferred 100 per cent, Bloomberg reported.

The bill is far from finished

The legislation now moves to the National Council, the lower house. A final decision is expected no earlier than the end of this year and more plausibly during 2027, and the two chambers still have to reconcile their positions. Anything a family office reads about the cost to UBS is therefore an estimate of a rule that does not yet exist in final form.

What it means for family offices

Two things follow, neither of them immediate. The first is pricing. Capital held against a balance sheet has to earn a return, and the parts of a private bank that consume it most visibly for wealthy families are Lombard lending, structured products and large custody relationships. If the 90 per cent rule survives the second chamber, families borrowing against portfolios at UBS should expect the cost of those facilities to be reviewed rather than left alone.

The second is concentration. Since the Credit Suisse takeover, a great many European families have found that two of their banking relationships became one, and the Swiss regulatory debate is now a single-name risk for them rather than a diversified one. That is a reason to check how much of a family’s cash, custody and credit now sits behind one balance sheet, and to know what a change of domicile would mean for the booking centre their assets are held in. It is not a reason to move anything this quarter.

Sources: Anadolu Agency; Bloomberg; Reuters.