Everything about the PUK's work remains highly confidential, even the publication date. The PUK announced in May 2024 that its report would likely be published before year-end, it is suggested that he might be presented on December 20, though January is also a possibility. Operating autonomously, the PUK leaves no room for external influence, fueling speculation about the report’s recommendations.

Legal Risks for Leaks

Speculating on the report's content is fraught with risk. Members of the PUK—comprising seven members from both chambers of Parliament—and others involved in its sessions could face criminal charges for leaking information. 

 Recent claims by SonntagsBlick suggest the report focuses on the Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), accusing it of failing to act sooner against CS’s mismanagement.

FINMA’s Role Under Scrutiny

The PUK's focus on FINMA aligns with its mandate to evaluate the legality, efficiency, and appropriateness of official actions during the CS crisis. While FINMA issued warnings, initiated investigations, and filed complaints, it failed to effectively challenge CS’s leadership. This has drawn criticism of its enforcement abilities and crisis management.

The prioritisation of the work of the PUK is based on its terms of reference. ‘The main task of the PUK will be to examine the legality, appropriateness and effectiveness of the management of the responsible authorities and bodies in the context of the CS crisis and to report to the Federal Assembly,’ it stated in a statement on 13 July 2023. It is no secret that FINMA did not come across well in the CS debacle. It initiated countless preliminary clarifications, issued reprimands and filed criminal charges, and opened enforcement proceedings – and yet it failed to prevail against the management of the major bank. This speaks volumes.

FINMA not only lacked assertiveness, but also failed to manage the crisis well. In other words, it could have done a better job – even without the additional instruments that the authority is now explicitly and vocally demanding.

Leadership Accountability

FINMA President Marlene Amstad faces mounting pressure, as does the board overseeing the regulator. Similarly, the report is unlikely to fully exonerate Thomas Jordan, the Swiss National Bank's (SNB) president, or Ueli Maurer, the former finance minister. Both are accused of insufficiently addressing the looming crisis. Allegations that Maurer withheld key information from the Federal Council have led to legal action after media reports revealed PUK-related findings.

Beyond Individual Accountability

The PUK report is expected to address systemic issues. It will likely highlight the failure of the «Too Big to Fail» framework to manage the orderly resolution of a globally significant bank. This legislative cornerstone, implemented after the 2008 financial crisis, is now under scrutiny.

Broader Context and Recommendations

The investigation extends to the Federal Council’s actions and mandates external studies, including international comparisons of financial oversight and an analysis of CS’s collapse. Recommendations on enhancing the Too Big to Fail framework, especially in resolution planning, are anticipated. However, the report is not expected to significantly address UBS’s future capital requirements, despite ongoing debates.

Looking Ahead

The PUK report will primarily offer a political analysis, emphasizing lessons learned and systemic reforms. Its findings could shape the Swiss financial system’s regulatory landscape, ensuring greater resilience against future crises. However, speculation about its content should be tempered by the reality that much of its impact will depend on post-publication actions by policymakers.