I?ve started, so I?ll finish. Oswald Gr?bel, lured out of retirement in 2009 to haul UBS out of its post-crisis funk, at first made good headway. The Swiss banking group soon returned to profit, client outflows ceased and it began to repair the damage done by its subprime losses. UBS remains a work in progress for Mr Gr?bel, who is due to stand down in 2013. But the $2.3bn unauthorised trading loss that the bank reported last week occurred on his watch. It has inevitably led to calls for his head. He should stay put.
As chief executive, Mr Gr?bel rightly accepts that the buck stops with him. UBS?s latest loss has exposed big weaknesses. Its risk management system (which he recently hubristically described as ?one of the best? in the industry) is patently not foolproof. By focusing on pay and not culture, he has so far failed to align the interests of staff, investors and clients in a way that might deter breaches of procedure.
Stepping down now may satisfy the gallery of Swiss regulators and public opinion; but it would neither resolve the crisis nor be in investors? interest. Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, UBS?s biggest investor with a 6.4 per cent stake, has criticised UBS publicly, but not called for his head. Perhaps that recognises that UBS has had enough new chief executives in recent years. Now, more than ever, it needs stability under Mr Gr?bel. Nor does he have an obvious successor. UBS has lined up former Bundesbank chief Axel Weber as chairman from 2013, but has not yet named a CEO-in-waiting.
Much as Tony Hayward was the best person to steer BP through the worst of its Macondo crisis last year, Mr Gr?bel is best qualified to lead UBS back from its latest setback. That must not stop radical action by the UBS board. But its focus should be on structural changes, and not on when or if Mr Gr?bel should go.
? The Financial Times Limited 2011