May 2, 2025

Swiss Banking Secrecy Under Pressure From Europe

GENEVA — Now that Luxembourg and Austria have given ground on bank secrecy rules, the spotlight has turned to Switzerland, a country famous for the anonymity it provides in equal measure to the rich, the famous and those who want to hide their money.

More than four years ago, the Swiss made painful concessions to American authorities. But as impatience with tax avoiders spreads to a region where governments are desperate for revenue, the Swiss are bracing for a new onslaught on their cherished bank secrecy rules — this time from nations in the European Union.

The pledges to share more bank account data — offered up first by Luxembourg, then by Austria at a European summit meeting on Wednesday — were made on the condition that countries outside the European Union, notably Switzerland, do so, too. As more traditional havens fall into line with demands for greater transparency, the Swiss have become more isolated than ever. Some analysts say that new concessions by the Swiss may now be unavoidable, though few expect those changes to happen overnight.

The pressures on the Swiss and others have built as governments and the public, weary of austerity, force the issue of tax fairness to the front of European policy debates, casting a critical light on who pays and who does not.

In that landscape, Switzerland still stands out. Swiss banks have been linked to political scandals in France, Greece and Spain recently. Secret Swiss accounts were said to have been used by politicians and the politically connected to operate slush funds, skirt taxes and stash away millions, stoking popular anger as citizens are asked to pay more taxes while accepting cuts to a full range of social services, including pensions, transportation and education.

The recent gestures by Luxembourg and Austria further risk Switzerland’s position as the world’s largest private wealth management center, built up over decades by banks that have relied on the country’s studied political neutrality and legal stability to attract wealthy clients.

“The decision by Luxembourg and Austria is probably the death knell for Swiss banking secrecy, because it really leaves Switzerland without any key ally in the European Union,” said Urs Ziswiler, who was Switzerland’s ambassador in Washington. “The E.U. might soon be in a position to demand as much as the U.S. got from Switzerland.”

The consequences could be devastating if the Swiss do not step carefully, others warned. “Switzerland is now in a very bad position, because it failed to negotiate properly the transition to a new world in which you can’t keep secrecy toward the tax authorities,” said Carlo Lombardini, a Geneva-based lawyer who specializes in banking litigation.

Without any banking secrecy rules, funds under management in Switzerland “could easily shrink 20 to 40 percent,” Mr. Lombardini predicted, which would reduce Switzerland’s financial industry to “what you would expect for a country of its size.”

Still, some Swiss politicians and bankers say they see a silver lining. Other offshore centers and havens have faced the same pressures, as government crackdowns and data leaks have exposed tax evasion at the highest levels.

Last month, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, based in Washington, released 2.5 million files detailing offshore bank accounts and shell companies belonging to wealthy individuals and companies, mainly in the British Virgin Islands, the Cook Islands and Singapore.

“If the tax evasion problem no longer becomes about Switzerland but is instead really seen as a worldwide issue, that could be a blessing in disguise, because Switzerland would no longer stand out as the ugly little duckling that it has been portrayed to be,” said Christian Lüscher, a lawyer and member of the Swiss Parliament.

Until now, Switzerland offered cooperation with judicial investigations into money laundering, while also negotiating some tax deals bilaterally with the European Union’s member states. But as consensus builds within the bloc for greater transparency, that piecemeal approach may be difficult.

For the Swiss, “the main aim has always been not to give up anything before others,” said Luc Thévenoz, director of the Center for Banking and Finance Law at the University of Geneva.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/business/global/swiss-banking-secrecy-under-pressure-from-europe.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Philanthropists Start Requiring Management Courses to Keep Nonprofits Productive

But as philanthropists, both are handing out human resources advice along with the money they give to nonprofit groups, a strategy that underscores concerns by donors and even some organizations’ leaders about the management of nonprofits.

“Pretty early on, I realized that when I asked these organizations about management, the response I usually got was, ‘That’s business and we’re not a business,’ ” Mr. Lewis said. “I told them baseball teams have managers, too, but that seemed to have little impact on their opinion.”

Human resources is, in fact, the nonprofit version of “eat your peas,” according to a study done last fall of some 3,000 leaders of smaller charities by CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and the Meyer Foundation. Those nonprofit executives, none of whom were from universities, hospitals or large national nonprofits, ranked human resources the most challenging and least satisfying part of their jobs.

Only a few said personnel management was “energizing,” while more than half said it was “somewhat depleting” or “depleting.” Marla Cornelius, senior project director at CompassPoint, said: “There’s no such thing as a period of time when you’re not challenged by staff issues as the leader of a nonprofit. And since many nonprofits don’t have a dedicated human resources staff person, managing personnel just sucks you in and takes over your life.”

The Omidyar Network, through which Mr. Omidyar supports both commercial and nonprofit ventures, found that charities set goals that often did not match their employees’ skill sets, lacked succession planning and were led by executives stretched too thin.

In 2006, Mr. Lewis set up a nonprofit called the Management Center to provide human resources and other consulting services to groups to which he and others donated.

He has tangled with prominent organizations like Case Western Reserve University and the Guggenheim Museum over what he considers bad management, but he said he had intended the Management Center to work primarily with the fledgling progressive groups he was underwriting then. “They weren’t so interested, so I finally had to say, ‘I won’t give you any more money until you learn this stuff,’ ” Mr. Lewis said. “I don’t have that kind of leverage with the Guggenheim and those big organizations.”

Nonprofit leaders are notoriously prickly about allowing major donors to get involved in how they manage their organizations, but officials of groups that have used the services provided by Mr. Lewis and Mr. Omidyar say they were enormously beneficial.

“Many donors say they provide value beyond financial resources, but in reality that’s quite rare,” said Tim Hanstad, chief executive of Landesa, which works to ensure land rights to the rural poor. “But frankly, I could easily make the case that the nonfinancial resources we got from Omidyar were as equally beneficial as the money they gave us.”

Landesa received executive coaching, advice on a compensation structure and help in recruiting three senior executives.

Mr. Omidyar’s background as a young entrepreneur struggling to manage eBay’s explosive growth provided him with experience he wanted to pass on as he became a philanthropist.

So after establishing the Omidyar Network, he hired Sal Giambanco, an executive who oversaw human resources at eBay and PayPal. Mr. Giambanco and his team have worked with 47 nonprofits, more than half the network’s charitable portfolio. “The dynamics of a Silicon Valley start-up are not that different from a nonprofit — both tend to have charismatic founders, both are more passionate about what they’re doing than about how they’re going about doing it, both tend to be organizationally flat,” Mr. Giambanco said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=b6e5673d3f8d71949d14a4032db08fd7