UBS - Critical accounting policies

Basis of preparation and selection of policies

We prepare our Financial Statements in accordance with IFRS, and provide a reconciliation to generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (US GAAP). The application of certain of these accounting principles requires considerable judgment based upon estimates and assumptions that involve significant uncertainty at the time they are made. Changes in assumptions may have a significant impact on the Financial Statements in the periods where assumptions are changed. Accounting treatments where significant assumptions and estimates are used are discussed in this section, as a guide to understanding how their application affects our reported results. A broader and more detailed description of the accounting policies we employ is shown in Note 1 to the Financial Statements.

The application of assumptions and estimates means that any selection of different assumptions would cause our reported results to differ. We believe that the assumptions we have made are appropriate, and that our Financial Statements therefore present our financial position and results fairly, in all material respects. The alternative outcomes discussed below are presented solely to assist the reader in understanding our Financial Statements, and are not intended to suggest that other assumptions would be more appropriate.

Many of the judgements we make when applying accounting principles depend on an assumption, which we believe to be correct, that UBS maintains sufficient liquidity to hold positions or investments until a particular trading strategy matures – i.e. that we do not need to realize positions at unfavorable prices in order to fund immediate cash needs. Liquidity is discussed in more detail in the Treasury Management chapter of the Handbook 2006 / 2007.

Fair value of financial instruments

Financial assets and financial liabilities in our trading portfolio, financial assets and liabilities designated at fair value and derivative instruments are recorded at fair value on the balance sheet, with changes in fair value recorded in net trading income in the income statement. Key judgments affecting this accounting policy relate to how we determine fair value for such assets and liabilities.

Where no active market exists, or where quoted prices are not otherwise available, we determine fair value using a variety of valuation techniques. These include present value methods, models based on observable input parameters, and models where some of the input parameters are unobservable.

Valuation models are used primarily to value derivatives transacted in the over-the-counter market, including credit derivatives, and unlisted securities with embedded derivatives. All valuation models are validated before they are used as a basis for financial reporting, and periodically reviewed thereafter, by qualified personnel independent of the area that created the model. Wherever possible, we compare valuations derived from models with quoted prices of similar financial instruments, and with actual values when realized, in order to further validate and calibrate our models.

A variety of factors are incorporated into our models, including actual or estimated market prices and rates, such as time value and volatility, and market depth and liquidity. Where available, we use market observable prices and rates derived from market verifiable data. Where such factors are not market observable, changes in assumptions could affect the reported fair value of financial instruments. We apply our models consistently from one period to the next, ensuring comparability and continuity of valuations over time, but estimating fair value inherently involves a significant degree of judgment. Management therefore establishes valuation adjustments to cover the risks associated with the estimation of unobservable input parameters and the assumptions within the models themselves. Valuation adjustments are also made to reflect such elements as deteriorating creditworthiness (including country-specific risks), concentrations in specific types of instruments and market risk factors (interest rates, currencies etc), and market depth and liquidity. Although a significant degree of judgment is, in some cases, required in establishing fair values, management believes that the fair values recorded in the balance sheet and the changes in fair values recorded in the income statement are prudent and reflective of the underlying economics, based on our established fair value and model governance policies and the related controls and procedural safeguards we employ. Nevertheless, for valuations derived from models we have estimated the effect that a change in assumptions to reasonably possible alternatives could have on fair values where inputs are not market observable. To estimate that effect on the Financial Statements, we recalculated the model valuation adjustments at higher and lower confidence levels than originally applied. A similar approach was used for valuations other than those based on models. For all financial instruments carried at fair value which rely on assumptions for their valuation, we estimate that fair value could lie in a range from CHF 1,038 million lower to CHF 955 million higher than the fair values recognized in the Financial Statements. In 2005 the estimate of that range was CHF 1,094 million lower to CHF 1,176 million higher than the amounts recognized on the balance sheet.

Recognition of deferred Day 1 profit and loss

A closely related issue to determining fair value of financial instruments is the recognition of deferred Day 1 profit and loss. We have entered into transactions, some of which will mature in the long term, where we determine fair value using valuation models for which not all inputs are market observable prices or rates. We initially recognize such a financial instrument at the transaction price, which is the best indicator of fair value, although the value obtained from the relevant valuation model may differ. Such a difference between the transaction price and the model value is commonly referred to as "Day 1 P / L". We do not immediately recognize that initial difference, usually a gain, in profit and loss because the applicable accounting literature prohibits immediate recognition of Day 1 profit. The accounting literature does not, however, address its subsequent recognition prior to the time when fair value can be determined using market observable inputs or by reference to prices for similar instruments in active markets. It also does not address subsequent measurement of these instruments and recognition of subsequent fair value changes indicated by the model.

Our decisions regarding recognizing deferred Day 1 profit are made after careful consideration of facts and circumstances to ensure we do not prematurely release a portion of the deferred profit to income. For each transaction, we determine, individually, the appropriate method of recognizing the Day 1 profit amount in the income statement. It may be amortized over the life of the transaction, or deferred until fair value can be determined using market observable inputs, or realized through settlement. In all instances, any unrecognized Day-1 profit is immediately released to income if fair value of the financial instrument in question can be determined either by using market observable model inputs or by reference to a quoted price for the same product in an active market.

Changes in fair value after Day 1 resulting from changes in observable parameters or otherwise indicated by the model are recognized immediately in the income statement independently of the release of deferred Day 1 profits.

Special Purpose Entities and securitizations

UBS sponsors the formation of Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) primarily to allow clients to hold investments in separate legal entities, to allow clients to jointly invest in alternative assets, for asset securitization transactions, and for buying or selling credit protection. In accordance with IFRS we do not consolidate SPEs that we do not control. In order to determine whether we control an SPE or not, we have to make judgments about risks and rewards and assess our ability to make operational decisions for the SPE in question. In many instances, elements are present that, considered in isolation, indicate control or lack of control over an SPE, but when considered together make it difficult to reach a clear conclusion. When assessing whether we have to consolidate an SPE we evaluate a range of factors, including whether (a) the activities of the SPE are being conducted on our behalf according to our specific business needs so that we obtain the benefits from the SPE's operations, or (b) we have decision-making powers to obtain the majority of the benefits of the activities of the SPE, or UBS has delegated these decision-making powers by setting up an autopilot mechanism, or (c) we have the rights to obtain the majority of the benefits of the activities of an SPE and therefore may be exposed to risks arising from the activities of the SPE, or (d) we retain the majority of the residual or ownership risks related to the SPE or its assets in order to obtain the benefits from its activities. We consolidate an SPE if our assessment of the relevant factors indicates that we control the SPE.

SPEs used to allow clients to hold investments are structures that allow one or more clients to invest in an asset or set of assets, which are generally purchased by the SPE in the open market and not transferred from UBS. The risks and rewards of the assets held by the SPE reside with the clients. Typically, UBS will receive service and commission fees for creation of the SPE, or because it acts as investment manager, custodian or in some other function. Many of these SPEs are single-investor or family trusts while others allow a broad number of investors to invest in a diversified asset base through a single share or certificate. These latter SPEs range from mutual funds to trusts investing in real estate. The majority of our SPEs are created for client investment purposes and are not consolidated.

SPEs used to allow clients to jointly invest in alternative assets, e.g. feeder funds, for which generally no active markets exist, are often in the form of limited partnerships. Investors are the limited partners and contribute all or the majority of the capital, whereas UBS serves as the general partner. In that capacity, UBS is the investment manager and has sole discretion about investment and other administrative decisions, but has no or only a nominal amount of capital invested. UBS typically receives service and commission fees for its services as general partner, but does not, or only to a minor extent, participate in the risks and rewards of the vehicle, which reside with the limited partners. In most instances, limited partnerships are not consolidated under IFRS because UBS's legal and contractual rights and obligations indicate that UBS does not have the power to govern the financial and operating policies of these entities and concurrently does not have the objective of obtaining benefits from its activities through such power.

SPEs used for securitization. SPEs for securitization are created when UBS has assets (for example a portfolio of loans) which it sells to an SPE, and the SPE in turn sells interests in the assets as securities to investors. Consolidation of these SPEs depends mainly on whether UBS retains the majority of the benefits or risks of the assets in the SPE.

We do not consolidate SPEs for securitization if UBS has no control over the assets and no longer retains any significant exposure (for gain or loss) to the income or investment returns on the assets sold to the SPE or the proceeds of their liquidation. This type of SPE is a bankruptcy remote entity – if UBS were to go bankrupt the holders of the securities would clearly be owners of the asset, while if the SPE were to go bankrupt the securities holders would have no recourse to UBS.

SPEs for credit protection are set up to allow UBS to sell the credit risk on portfolios, which may or may not be held by UBS, to investors. They exist primarily to allow UBS to have a single counterparty (the SPE), which sells credit protection to UBS. The SPE in turn has investors who provide it with capital and participate in the risks and rewards of the credit events that it insures. SPEs used for credit protection are generally consolidated.

Allowances and provisions for credit losses

Financial assets accounted for at amortized cost are assessed for objective evidence of impairment and required allowances are estimated in accordance with IAS 39. Impairment exists if the book value of a claim or a portfolio of claims exceeds the present value of the cash flows actually expected in future periods. These cash flows include scheduled interest payments, principal repayments, or other payments due (for example from guarantees), including liquidation of collateral where available.

The total allowance for recognized financial assets and credit loss provision for off-balance sheet obligations consists of two components: specific counterparty allowances and provisions, and collectively assessed allowances and provisions. The specific counterparty component applies to claims evaluated individually for impairment and is based upon management's best estimate of the present value of the cash flows which are expected to be received. In estimating these cash flows, management makes judgments about a counterparty's financial situation and the net realizable value of any underlying collateral or guarantees in our favor. Each impaired financial asset is assessed on its merits, and the workout strategy and estimate of cash flows considered recoverable are independently approved by the Credit Risk Control function. Collectively assessed credit loss allowances and provisions cover credit losses inherent in portfolios of claims with similar economic characteristics where there is objective evidence to suggest that they contain impaired claims but the individual impaired items cannot yet be identified. In assessing the need for collective loan loss allowances and provisions, management considers factors such as credit quality, portfolio size, concentrations, and economic factors. In order to estimate the required allowance or provision, we make assumptions both to define the way we model inherent losses and to determine the required input parameters, based on historical experience and current economic conditions.

The accuracy of the allowances and provisions we make depends on how well we estimate future cash flows for specific counterparty allowances and provisions and the model assumptions and parameters used in determining collective allowances and provisions. While this necessarily involves judgment, we believe that our allowances and provisions are reasonable and supportable.

Further details on this subject are given in Note 1a10) to the Financial Statements and in the Risk Management chapter of the Handbook 2006 / 2007.

Equity compensation

IFRS 2, Share-based Payments, addresses the accounting for share-based employee compensation and was adopted by UBS on 1 January 2005 on a fully retrospective basis. The effect of applying IFRS 2 is disclosed in Note 1b) to the Financial Statements, and further information on UBS equity compensation plans, including inputs used to determine the fair value of options, is disclosed in Note 32.

IFRS 2 requires that share options awarded to employees are recognized as compensation expense based on their fair value at grant date. The share options we issue to our employees have features that make them incomparable to options on our shares traded in active markets. Accordingly, we cannot determine fair value by reference to a quoted market price, but we rather estimate it using an option valuation model. The model, a Monte Carlo simulation, requires inputs such as interest rates, expected dividends, volatility measures and specific employee exercise behavior patterns based on statistical data.

Some of the model inputs we use are not market-observable and have to be estimated or derived from available data. Use of different estimates would produce different option values, which in turn would result in higher or lower compensation expense recognized.

Several recognized models for the valuation of options exist but none can be singled out as the best or most correct. The model we apply has been selected because it is able to handle some of the specific features included in the options granted to our employees. If we were to use a different model, the option values produced would be different, even if we used the same inputs.

Using both different inputs and a different valuation model could have a significant impact on the fair value of employee share options, which could be either higher or lower than the values produced by the model we apply and the inputs we have used.