the situation you described is like the 3rd page of Security Awareness 101 in every financial services company’s onboarding training, right after the “don’t share your password with your coworkers” and “lock your computer if you leave your desk”.
But alas, they are also people… 
Yep, fully agree. But maybe she just thought that I look like someone who understands nothing, so she felt safe - even though I don’t think she has verified if there is anyone on nearby seats 
It doesn’t shock me. People are sometimes so immersed in their work that they don’t even notice the outside environment.
I could share a similar experience in a hospital where a doctor was dictating his appointment with a patient in the waiting room, surrounded by other patients.
Also had a similar thing in the UK about 10 years ago on a train. Guy sat opposite me having TC discussion in German from Deutsche Bank, thought no one understood. I wasn`t really listening until he mentioned Ben Bernanke (for those not old enough, former US Fed chairman), then I was all ears!!
To note, too, that there are 4’002’158’062 of those CHF 1.something shares outstanding. The price of a share can be fixed almost arbitrarily by issuing more shares or buying some of them back, I’d focus on the valuation of the company as a whole, in regards to their future prospects, or at the very least on a neutral value that can be compared with other companies in the same industry, like earnings per share (not dividends per share, those can be fixed pretty arbitrarily too).
Bought 100 shares of CS through Yuh today.
Owning 100 shares of such a large international bank feels pretty strong. 
off-topic:
Are you sure the client wanted to illegally evade taxes, rather than just legally avoid them, i.e. optimise?
As far as I know, the U.K. allows for so-called „remittance basis“ taxation on foreign income of non-domiciled residents (yeah…). Which will, I believe, only be taxed once it‘s remitted to the U.K. That Israeli-U.K. customer may very well have been eligible for it and able to legally avoid British taxes - even though a conversation on that may have sounded very „fishy“ to our worldwide taxed ears.
There are also reverse splits. It is helpful for making penny stocks look better.
For example this company…
…after some trouble in 2002 and a few capital hikes, did a 10:1 reverse split around 2007.
A 10€ price looks so much better than 1€ !
According to the Financial Times, Swiss authorities are pressing UBS to buy CS. I guess that would be a relatively good solution (because I currently do not see customers gaining confidence in CS again), but also a huge hit to the Swiss banking sector.
what do you think could bring them upwards?
I see a lot of things that can bring them to zero
That said, I’ll probably jump in around 1 CHF and will try to forget I did for the next 5-10yrs
Isn’t the swiss retail business worth more than the current market cap? That might be an argument
From https://www.ft.com/content/85f6768d-0a01-41a3-8925-1c636d3f7dbc
Analysts estimate that selling off the Swiss unit could raise up to SFr15bn — nearly twice the bank’s current market value of SFr7.7bn
Honestly, I don’t know, but it was so unprofessional that it doesn’t matter… Swiss banking secrecy 
Any reliable source to share ? I am very interested to read about the “authorities are pressing UBS to buy CS” as I didn’t find anything like this on any Welsh newspaper.
I think the only source is FT itself and everyone just took it from there: UBS in talks to acquire Credit Suisse
Article is paywalled, the text is:
Swiss authorities press for merger to stem crisis of confidence in country’s banking sector
UBS is in discussions to take over all or part of Credit Suisse, with the boards of Switzerland’s two biggest lenders set to meet separately over the weekend to consider Europe’s most consequential banking combination since the financial crisis, according to multiple people briefed on the talks.
The Swiss National Bank and regulator Finma are orchestrating the talks in an attempt to shore up confidence in the country’s banking sector, the people said. Their intervention comes days after the central bank was forced to provide an emergency SFr50bn ($54bn) credit line to Credit Suisse.
However, this failed to arrest a slide in its share price, which has fallen to record lows after its largest investor ruled out providing any more capital and its chair admitted that an exodus of wealth management clients had continued.
UBS has a market value of $56.6bn, while shares in Credit Suisse closed on Friday with a value of $8bn.
Swiss regulators told their US and UK counterparts on Friday evening that merging the two banks was their “plan A” to arrest a collapse in confidence in Credit Suisse, a person familiar with those discussions told the FT.
A number of different options are under discussion between the two banks, another person told the FT, who added that both sides are trying to evaluate regulatory constraints in different jurisdictions. This person added that UBS is also analysing the potential risks a deal could have for its own business.
The focus from the central bank is to agree on a simple and straightforward solution before markets open on Monday, one of the people said. There is no guarantee a deal will be reached.
Credit Suisse declined to comment. UBS declined to comment, as did the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. The Swiss National Bank did not respond to requests for comment.
This is a developing story. More to follow . . .
So yeah, not sure how much the authorities are actually pressing. It is mentioned in the intro, but in the text it is then mentioned that it’s apparently their plan A according to someone.
It would still depend on the state of the other parts of the group. If the liabilities require it, shareholders could be wiped out in the restructuring even if the swiss retail business is taken out and operates profitably after a reorganization.
The SNB states they have capital and liquidity that meet or exceed their mandatory requirements but the formulation is very bland, and “meet or exceed” isn’t “far exceed” or any other formulation that would inspire more confidence.
When asked if they would consider taking a bigger stake in the group, their biggest shareholder, the Saudi national bank (also SNB ^^) said “absolutely not”, citing regulatory reasons as “the simplest” reason for that. They could have gone for “we’d like to but are staying put for regulatory reasons” and said regulatory reasons being “the main” reason for them not injecting more capital. They instead went for “absolutely not” and “the simplest reason”. Their money is at stake, they had to know such a non-diplomatic answer would not spark confidence and negatively impact the value of the stock they currently hold but still went for it.
It could just be a political play to, for example, get a message to CS management, try to get something from other actors (could be swiss regulators or authorities) or simply try to take the price of the stock lower to get more for their money, confident CS won’t fail, but it is not reassuring at all.
Bloomberg’s video of the Saudi national bank’s chairman’s answer:
With so many news emerging I think it’s safe to say that CS is going to be sold or broken up in many pieces. What a shame for such an institution that dates back to when Switzerland was one of the poorest countries in Europe, created by an economic leader who shaped Switzerland to wealth and prosperity.
The management (esp. Rohner) of the last 15 years should never be allowed to work in banking or management in general ever again. Both board of directors and management showered in compensation.
Wow as you say, we are living crazy times. I wonder now what will happen with the CS stock Monday morning…
I wonder how these deals are negociated. I don’t see how executives at both banks could decide such a thing, would you need shareholders? Assuming most stay under a 10% stake in the company, getting a majority vote would require at least 5 people. I can see how regulators can force things on an insolvent bank but what if it is solvent, would you need the shareholders of the acquired bank to be on board too and wouldn’t you need approval from the shareholders of the bank doing the acquisition?
Mostly, who calls who to make these happen?
I don’t have the answers, but the SNB gave a “get out of jail for free” card to UBS in 2008 and they probably have some loyalty to call upon if needed.
As for CS, the SNB can force itself to be the majority player for providing the liquidity (by CS issuing more shares and the SNB getting ownership instead of just acting as the lender of last resort… or it’s game over - can’t it?
Either way, it’s gonna be a very exciting time until Monday morning.
The bride is ugly but has a lot of assumed money. Rumors are mentioning ZKB and Raiffeisenbank for the retail branch, DB for Asset Management, UBS for WM. Or UBS for everything. We’ll see what comes with the white smoke.
The shareholders of Credit Suisse will need to agree on a takeover, the shareholders of UBS likely wouldn’t need to be asked, assuming it would be structured as a simple takeover (not a merger) and paid in cash or equivalent (without raising new UBS capital).
So yes, such a deal can be negotiated between the two respective Board of Directors. It will also be guaranteed to legally go through, given that FINMA can basically waive all usual anti-big-merger regulations (like downgrading the competition commission from needing to approve the deal to simply being able to give their opinion), and the fact that the Federal Council has had two extraordinary meetings regarding CS this week (Wednesday and Saturday) strongly indicating that they are willing to create or suspend any regulation needed through their emergency powers, and likely support a deal with state guarantees too.
Now all you need is the announcement of the deal come Monday morning, together with the acknowledgment of CS (or FINMA to save them the embarrassment) that they would be insolvent otherwise (creating the pressure for their shareholders to approve), and a supportive statement of the Swiss government to ensure that no one doubts the strength of the upcoming UBCS monster bank. They can then push all of it through in a about two months or so.
I believe it is either this or nothing. All those rumors regarding a split and who could buy what part are too complicated, the market expects and needs the big-bang solution. Without a deal, the SNB would have to give substantially higher guarantees to regain trust in CS surviving standalone. Edit: Just read in Tagesanzeiger that withdrawals at CS this week amount to another 50 billion, there will definitely be a deal by Monday.
I don’t see how this would be possible, legally speaking. It’s also not needed, as SNB can (and probably should have this week) simply give unlimited liquidity guarantees (as long as capital requirements are met, which they are) which should stabilize CS.
