Talk:UBS/Archive 1

Improvement Drive
The article Grameen Bank is currently nominated to be improved on This week's improvement drive. Support this article with your vote.--Fenice 17:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Asset Management Vs. Wealth Management
The article separates asset management and wealth management early on in different sections. Yet, source #17, which is used to back up a statement in the asset management section looks to be better suited to support this sentence in the wealth management section: "Until 2009, UBS was considered the largest wealth manager globally." Also the article of the source no longer exists, so we only have the title of the article to go on now.

UBS US Headquarters
Under what section would you include information about UBS's headquarters in Stamford? Info like the Stamford Gateway Project, tax abatements, UBS being the largest tax payer in Stamford and second largest employer in Stamford.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6D6173EF933A1575BC0A9669C8B63

Diversity paragraph unnecessary
The whole 'workplace' section is like a press release, not serious, helpful information about the company. If someone want to join the firm, they can find this out on their website. If someone is doing research, this is no help at all.

How about incorporating the fact about the 'best working mothers' award into the intro, and cutting the rest out?

Legal terminology
In the "Controversies" paragraph, should "adverse influence" read "adverse inference"? The latter seems to make more sense in the context.

Nazi collaboration
I'm surprised this article doesn't mention anything about UBS's biggest controversy. Nutmegger 06:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate...? --Buyoof 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was moved to the Union Bank of Switzerland article, since it technically pertains to the predecessor as opposed to UBS, the Newco entity. Additionally, it wasn't Nazi collaboration but rather issues remitting the property of undocumented Jewish holocaust survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonteCarloGenerator (talk • contribs) 14:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UBS Logo.svg
Image:UBS Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Kuriosa? 10.6.2008
194.66.226.95 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Statt bei 0,49 Franken lag er drei Minuten lang nur bei 0,05 Franken. Schnäppchenjäger nutzten diese Gelegenheit und kauften innerhalb weniger Sekunden 93 Mill. Bezugsrechte"
 * http://www.handelsblatt.com/News/Unternehmen/Banken-Versicherungen/_pv/_p/200039/_t/ft/_b/1441344/default.aspx/schrecksekunde-bei-der-ubs.html

Tax Fraud
Why doesn't the page say much of anything about their aid to clients in tax evasion? Or Birkenfeld? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.94.143 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

List-Like
This article, as a whole, seems like a list of facts about the company rather than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia pages should look like pages of Encyclopædia Britannica, not like the CIA World Factbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacdude9 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Operating Income
Hi ! I think we have a confusion considering operating income. What UBS publishes as "operating income" is what wikipedia considers as "operating revenue". However, what UBS calls "operating profit before tax" is what wikipedia calls "operating income". Which one should we take into account in the infobox ? 92.104.63.101 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

UBS Board of Directors and Reference 42
This article makes a statement that "UBS Board of Directors routinely failed in their duties" there is no link or externally verified source or statement and is therefore opinion.

There is no valid analysis or discussion of this issue.

Reference 42 in the article refers to a page on the companies website, it no longer exists, should it be tidied up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.7.71 (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move to UBS. I have also attempted to clean up the history after an apparent cut/paste move by in January 2009. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NCCORP. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or UBS (disambiguation) to UBS? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out what you did here. It appears you moved the dabpage to UBS, which reversed (speaking from vague memory, I didn't examine the edit history in detail) a move from, I think it was mid to late May, then you moved it back. I was going to mention in my initial RM entry that "UBS" was just a redirect to "UBS AG", but I figured it was superfluous to mention it. At any rate, the "AG" clearly falls foul of NCCORP and none of the other entities at the dabpage are anywhere near as notable as the bank, so equal disambig would be inappropriate. Hence, primary dab. Miracle Pen (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think clearly the page UBS should be reserved for the bank - it is far and away the most common usage of those letters and if you referred to UBS in conversation you would almost certainly be referring to the bank unless you specified otherwise. I am sympathetic to the idea of dropping the AG although I am unclear whether AG is closer to "Corp" (i.e. part of the name) or "inc." (i.e. purely a suffix).  In either event the list of alternate meanings should be at UBS (disambiguation), however I could go either way on whether the article on the bank should be at UBS or UBS AG |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 03:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think UBS should stay for the bank. --KurtR (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Urbanrenewal: I think you've misunderstood WP:NCCORP. You seem to be under the impression that "Corporation" is necessarily an integral part of a company's name (if it indeed has "Corporation" in its name), whereas "Inc" is always a suffix. NCCORP is clear that the suffix (Corp, Inc, Ltd, AG, GmbH etc) is irrelevant, the relevant fact is whether or not the suffix is an integral part of the company's name. NCCORP gives the pertinent example of Deutsche Post AG. Miracle Pen (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, I rarely misunderstand anything. These are the most relevant questions from WP:NCCORP:
 * "Corporation may also be a key part of the company's name in common usage, rather than simply as a designator of its official legal status"
 * When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate
 * I don't have a strong opinion whether the AG stays or goes - like i said it probably shouldn't be there but i would defer to someone who knows the company better |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 11:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here in Switzerland we only speak UBS not UBS AG. --KurtR (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support In accordance with Naming conventions (companies).  Skinsmoke (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Look, nothing in Naming conventions (companies) requires the article to be at UBS.  In fact the current title is completely acceptable since UBS is ambiguous.  The issue is, is this the primary use?  I don't see that case having been made.  This needs to be clear and convincing proof since this is a TLA.  For the record, while I know of the financial services company, UBS triggers United Blood Services for me. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. UBS is obviously primarily used to refer to the Swiss bank. I gave up on the 30th page of the Google News archive for "UBS", after finding no hits to any other meaning. The other meanings are dwarfed by this one. Vegaswikian's parochial interest in a western US blood service shouldn't have a bearing on this. UBS got 6000 hits in May, UBS (disambiguation) only got 350. UBS AG got 22000 hits in May; the closest to that are Internet in New_Zealand (2200 hits, and not a likely target for UBS...) and United States of Belgium (2300 hits, and USB is a more likely abbreviation than UBS). Ulaanbaatar Broadcasting System got 280 hits, Union Broadcasting System got 360, United Bible Societies 620, United Blood Services 240, United Building Society 120, University18 Business School 120. And UBS already redirects to UBS AG, so we've already accepted that this is the primary use! (p.s. I fixed the history of UBS, it had got moved to another page's history). Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the first time that I have heard of the UBS bank. If the UBS bank has many Google refs, that is likeliest because financial types put many long wordy pages on the WWW, rather than the amount of times people look at the Wikipedia page about the bank, rather than other pages listed in UBS (disambiguation). Let plain UBS be the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is honestly the first time you have heard of the bank UBS then I don't think you have any basis to render your opinion on this discussion. It is one of the largest banks in the world.  The other items on the disambig page are far less notable.  However, I am fine leaving the situation as is.  UBS redirects to UBS AG which is kept at its current location. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 05:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Anthony, but you've got to stop using your own knowledge to decide article names. Your comments on page moves are too often idiosyncratic and based on personal opinion; they come across as rather clueless. Both reliable sources and Wikipedia page views show the bank is far and away the primary topic, as I showed above. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this really the first time you have heard of UBS?  It's the second largest bank in Europe, as the article points out.  In other words, larger than Royal Bank of Scotland Group.  This is clearly the prime topic.  Skinsmoke (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major cleanup
I am nearing completion of a major cleanup with an eye toward getting the article to WP:GA or WP:FA status and have spent some time building out the universe of related articles (See: Union Bank of Switzerland, Swiss Bank Corporation, Paine Webber, Bank in Winterthur, Toggenburger Bank, Interhandel, Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst & Co., Brinson Partners, O'Connor & Associates, Jackson & Curtis, Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., Mitchell Hutchins and Union Securities) Any feedback or suggestions would be helpful at this stage. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with removal of the controversies section that was well sourced and covered. the removal of such section paints a portrait of a pro-UBS stance in which a person with interests to the the bank (stockholder, CEO, etc.) is removing the information to benefit the bank. This is censorship. I have re-added the section and modify changes to it the fit the article. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Start of losses in 2000s
"Over the next four years [2003-2007], UBS consistently ranked in the top 4 in the global fee pool and had established a track record of 20 consecutive quarters of rising profits. [para & section break] The bank's losses continued to mount in 2008 ..." (my emphasis). Shouldn't this say something like "The bank's losses started to mount in 2008"? The present wording doesn't make sense to me. Nurg (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Acquisition history
The graphic illustrating all of the different companies/takeovers that have gone on to create the modern group is very good but it looks to me the wrong way around. As a history it reads from right to left when it should read from left to right. Perhaps it's just a personal idiosyncrasy but I find it more difficult to navigate it this way around. d a n n o 01:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good luck with that one. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 03:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Curtailment
The 'Curtailment' section of the page is out of date and states inaccurate information in reference to an outdated Reuters article published in 2012. I would like to suggest that it is re-written to reflect a more recent article from Reuters as follows: 'On October 30, 2012 UBS AG announced an acceleration of its strategy to transform the investment bank to reduce costs. It announced that the investment bank would focus on its traditional strengths and exit certain businesses within fixed income that are not economically profitable. The bank is expected to reduce headcount by around 10,000 jobs across all its divisions, of which 2,500 will be in Switzerland, followed by the United States and Great Britain. The 15-percent staff cut will make overall staff become 54,000 from current 63,745. The peak employees level in 2007 before financial crisis 2008 is 83,500.' Ref. http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2013/04/30/new-ubs-is-starting-to-work/ Whileworth (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

edited "gold key" under picture
A gold key is totally fictional, It's not in the right place in this UBS article. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_key — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.114.11 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)