With us Live we have Matthias Schranner. He knows how one must negotiate when a lot is at stake.
Mr Schranner, is a deadline any use when ones back is against the wall?
It is not a tactical deadline, but a factual deadline. The stock exchanges in Asia open at 01:00 which means Credit Suisse – CS shares will then be traded. A decision is needed. The deadline is very good as a non-agreement would be negative for CS, for them the consequences are currently not foreseeable. For UBS the deadline is negative because they must make a decision under time pressure without the possibility of a real analysis of the situation. In normal transactions there is a “due diligence” to identify and evaluate all the risks. In this case UBS does not have the possibility to do their “due diligence”.
We have no insight into this negotiation. How does one have to imagine this when negotiations take place on such a high level?
The negotiation is very complicated and complex with many different interests. From a negotiation point of view, it would be important that UBS takes the lead in the negotiations. UBS has the steering wheel in its hands and can make the most demands. Then UBS would have to specify the risks and negotiate. Now it is less of a question whether the share price is negotiated at 25 or 26 Rappen. The art of negotiation for UBS is to name the risks and put a price tag on them. These price tags are then negotiated with the stakeholders.
Hardly any information is reaching the public. It is being said that CS’s reaction to UBS’s offer was “appalled”.
One does not know whether this information comes from the negotiation or from someone outside the negotiation. If it really is genuine information, then an emotional statement like “appalled” would be out of place. One certainly does not need emotional negotiating now.
Is it also possible that misinformation is being spread here?
I don’t think so, it’s too late for that. In normal transactions, it would be normal for certain figures to be released via the media in order to turn the negotiation in a certain direction. In this negotiation there are so many risks on the table. I see it as absolutely unrealistic to enter with misinformation now and increase the risk even more.
Can there be a winner?
Most certainly not. It is not about rising from the negotiating table as a winner. It is about avoiding the worst and minimising the risks as much as possible. Concessions will have to be made by all negotiating partners. There will be negative consequences for all sides. The mistakes were not made today, the mistakes lie in the past and cannot be solved with a skilful negotiation.
Watch the TV interview: