Over the course of just a few years, Mercuria has become one of the biggest commodity trading companies in the world with a current turnover of $100 billion. The men behind the company's success are Marco Dunand and Daniel Jäggi, both Swiss. They put paid to the myths surrounding commodity trading.

Interview: Gerald Hosp and Jean-Pierre Kapp

Mr. Dunand, Mr. Jäggi, how did you come to start Mercuria, one of the biggest commodity trading companies in the world?

Marco Dunand: We are both Swiss, one from Western Switzerland and one from German-speaking Switzerland, which is quite unusual in our industry. We both have the usual family backgrounds. Daniel's father worked for a multinational, and my father was a conductor of classical music. We went to ordinary schools. We met at university in Geneva.

Daniel Jäggi: We had opposing ideological positions at the time.

Dunand: I was left, he was right. I had longer hair in those days; his hair is still the same today as it was then.

Jäggi (laughing): One of us remained true to his convictions. The other one sold out.

Dunand: Be that as it may, we were normal students. If you wanted to have a career in the Switzerland of then, in Geneva, then one of the main options was with the multinationals. But in order to learn about the financial markets, you had to go to London. In the Europe of 30 years ago, that was the place in Europe to learn the industry from scratch. Not just the technical side of things, but also in order to understand the Anglo-Saxon culture. If we hadn't spent those 15 years in London, we would never have been able to achieve what we created in Geneva. In the early days, we both worked for the commodity trader Cargill in Geneva. Then we went to Goldman Sachs. That was when the commodity trade was being developed. Then we went to Salomon Brothers and Phibro. There were two schools for the commodity trade: the Marc Rich school with Glencore and Trafigura, which is obviously successful, and then there's the investment bank school, which has more of a risk approach. Phibro is probably the only company whose parents came from the different schools. Marc Rich once worked for Phibro. But when we were there, Phibro belonged to the Salomon Brothers investment bank. The culture was really varied. And that's the setting where we learnt the trade. We set up a trading subsidiary for the American company Sempra. Over time, though, we started to feel a little dissatisfied. And we could have carried on complaining, or we could have set up on our own. So in 2004, we started Mercuria in Geneva. Today, our turnover is in the region of $ 100 billion, and we have around 35 offices all over the world.

In your first year, 2004, the turnover was $5 billion; in 2012 it was just under $100 billion. Why did Mercuria grow so quickly - including in comparison with other traders?


Dunand: The other traders started their businesses in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They have decades of history. We're the youngest of all the major companies. Our rapid growth is partly down to good fortune; we were in the right place at the right time. One example: "back in the day", it was quite easy to obtain a credit facility. It would be more difficult today. You also have to have more infrastructure today than used to be the case. In our office in Geneva, we employ 220 people in about 40 different jobs. One person, for instance, deals only with weather forecasts. This person has to estimate the number of sunny days and the wind strength, which provides information on electricity generation. Being globally active today calls for a high level of work division. When we started 9 years ago, things were less sophisticated. Today there are lots of rules and regulations, and entry barriers are high. So why were there so few companies at the time that grew successfully? It's not so easy to answer that question. Our timing was good. And I had always been interested in China. At the time, China was still a commodity exporter. As China grew, we grew with it.

So it was more of a coincidence that you were interested in China?

Dunand: I'd like to say I had a vision.

Jäggi: The rapid increase in turnover also has a price effect. When we first started, the price for crude oil was $28 a barrel and it quickly rose to $40. Later on, it rose to a staggering $150. The effect on turnover is self-evident. The quantities that we traded also increased, as did the scope of traded commodities. We started trading in everything to do with the energy complex - crude oil, natural gas, coal, CO2 emissions and so on. However, price volatility also means that mistakes can be very expensive. This affects risk management, which in turn creates entry barriers for newcomers.

Did profitability also increase?

Dunand: Profitability per unit declined. The competition and costs increased. We were able to maintain the profit level by increasing volumes; all thanks to diversification of our activities.

How do you think development will continue?

Dunand: We are trading in more and more commodities. In the early days, we didn't handle the full range of commodities. We were conservative and developed the company "the Swiss way". We wanted to make money first and then be a little more risky. Any profit we made we put back into the company so it would grow. This meant we were able to trade in more and more commodities. Today we also trade in petrochemical products and industrial metals. We think it's a good additional business. We have 35 offices; if your turnover is higher, then the costs per unit go down. It's more likely that we will grow through the trade in commodities, and less through increasing the volume on markets where we are already active.

Jäggi: There's also a portfolio effect. A commodity may bring better profits at some times more than others. If you trade in the whole spectrum, it's easier to achieve a balance. Our model is arbitrage; we utilise inefficiencies.

Can you give us an example?

Jäggi: There are, for instance, inefficiencies on the American natural gas market. Lots of natural gas has been discovered in the USA in recent years. However, it's difficult to transport this gas to other places in the world. Over the coming years, the USA needs to find out how to use this gas efficiently. Natural gas is used in industry and for the production of electricity. However, this gas then displaces another energy source. What is being displaced? Coal. It means that less coal has to be produced, but this is something that can't happen overnight. Or it has to be shipped to somewhere else. And if you trade only in gas, you might have realised that gas is going to be a very cheap energy source in the USA. But that doesn't help us if you can't help to increase efficiency. For instance, you need capital to convince coal producers to move their surplus coal from one region to another one, where it is needed. And suddenly you're a trader.

Dunand: The coal producer wants his money straight away, as otherwise he won't have any capital to mine the coal. However, it could be another seven weeks before the coal is sold. So you have to finance in advance.

Jäggi: The possibilities are constantly changing, and it's difficult to say what tomorrow will bring. However, you have to be able to understand these inefficiencies in order to commit your limited resources to these areas.

What other possibilities do you see at the moment apart from the natural gas and coal market?

Jäggi: We can see quite a few, but we don't want to see them printed in a newspaper!

Dunand: Considering the biggest difference in energy prices at the moment, it has to be the different prices in the USA and Asia or Europe. Cheap energy is giving the USA a big push. Natural gas costs at least four times as much in Asia as it does in the USA.

Because American natural gas can't be exported - the USA has given only a limited number of companies the opportunity to export - a number of companies in the petrochemical industry are going to the USA. This provides opportunities for by-products from extraction such as liquid gases. So the liquid gas has to be separated, and perhaps sold to Asia. It is necessary to move more deeply into the value-added chain. It used to be simply a trading transaction, but now what we do consists of trading and also of logistics, finance, investments, debts. You have to have a certain amount of expertise in every area. And you have to have the instruments. The relevant questions are: where are the bottlenecks? Where is the surplus coming from? It's basically about creating value. Trading is a very fast business; sometimes you have to react within hours.

Turnover in 2012 was a little under $100 billion. Are you expecting further growth for this year and next?

Dunand: We are expecting volumes to increase. Turnover will then be determined largely by commodity prices. The price for crude oil was a little lower in 2012 than in the previous year. Metal prices were also weak. With regard to volume, we have remained stable on the markets where we are strong, and have grown on the new markets.

Jäggi: We haven't got a crystal ball.

However, the year is almost over.

Dunand: I never really ask our CFO about our turnover. I'm more interested in profits. You can't compare one trading company's turnover with another's. Mercuria, for instance, is on the list of the ten biggest companies in Switzerland, but that doesn't really mean anything. We can buy commodities and sell them at a loss, and still have a big turnover.

Jäggi: Turnover isn't a good indicator of profitability.

Will you be able to increase your profitability? 2012 wasn't the best year for trading companies.

Dunand: The companies that have already published their figures for 2013 have all said that the year was more challenging than 2012. We had a very good year in 2012, but that was also due to an asset sale. Our trading business was more profitable in 2013 than in 2012, but due to the one-off effect of the previous year, I think that profits will be down a little this year.

More and more commodity traders are buying production facilities, refineries and fuel stations. You are more reserved than other companies. Are you a more traditional trading house than the others?

Dunand: You have to look at it differently. A traditional trader was usually strong in physical goods such as crude oil, the Marc Rich model. From this position of strength, he moved towards infrastructure. Vitol and Trafigura, for instance, sold distribution networks in Africa, while Gunvor and Vitol bought refineries in Europe. We don't see ourselves as industrialists. If we invest in infrastructures, we do so with partners. Such as the Chinese with the Chinese energy group Sinopec at Vesta, a company for port and warehouse facilities. Our approach is more from the financial market side. We are less of a traditional trader; we combine the physical markets with the financial ones. We prefer to work with partners. However, that also means that we give up some of the control. But some companies want to keep it.

Jäggi: You could divide our business as follows: there are trade transactions, and there is a kind of private equity or venture capital activity. And then there's the logistics and infrastructure business. If we use our capital, it will always be in one of these fields. Our approach is: Does it go with our basic business, trading? We don't think it's our job to build a vertically integrated company on the energy market. We are focused.

Dunand: Are we better than Shell, BP or Total at operating refineries in Europe? Not really. If we were to buy a refinery in Europe, it would have to be for the strategic reason that we believed we would make money with it. And we don't think so. Or there would have to be a competitive advantage to justify our presence on this market.

Jäggi: If we want to gain a position on the market, we can do it by purchasing a particular commodity or by investing in an asset that is linked to this commodity. In some cases this could mean buying a share in a quoted company or a bond. We're agnostic in this regard. We'll give ourselves as many instruments as possible.

You are looking for strategic investors for up to 20% participation in Mercuria. You said once that this would be achieved by the end of the year. How far have you got with your search?

Dunand: We have identified someone that we think would be a good partner for us, and we are currently involved with doing the checks. We're not focusing on a particular date; we just want a well-based contract. There is already an initial agreement, but it will be a few more weeks before it is ready for the final signatures. But the process is well underway.0

You are currently negotiating with only one investor?

Dunand: Yes, we want to start with one. We're talking about a partner, by which we mean someone who should contribute something to our business and vice versa. If it works out with the first partner, we might look around for another one. We've been holding exclusive talks for a little over three months.

Is it a company from the commodities industry?

Dunand: Yes.

Are you looking around in Asia?

Dunand: It is quite likely that it will be an Asian partner.

Jäggi: And Asia is really big. But we don't want to say any more.

Won't having a partner cost you some of your independence?

Dunand: Yes. By definition, decisions have to be shared with a partner. It's part of the process. If someone gets 10% or 15%, then the question arises concerning the rights he should have. The evaluation is usually relatively simple. The devil's in the detail: how much do you have to give to get the partnership? How much independence will you lose?

Will there be a cross-investment?

Dunand: The partners will start by acquiring shares in Mercuria. In the second stage there could be reciprocal investments. But the first step is to buy the shares. The partner will pay cash rather than with shares in his own company.

How will you use the money?

Dunand: It's a cash transaction, rather than a purely financial investment. The question is whether there will be ways of investing together.

Who will sell shares?

Dunand: No one will sell shares. Technically, it's an increase in capital. There will be no dilution.

Jäggi: The choice of partner is based on it being more than a purely financial investment. Which is why we hope it is going to open up new possibilities for us.

Do you want to invest more in infrastructure?

Dunand: We think we are adequately financed, and in fact currently utilise only 60% of our credit lines worldwide. So Mercuria can grow without an investor. However, our partner will help us to invest in areas where we are presently unable to do so ourselves. It's a way of gaining access to markets that we don't have at the moment.

Should this partner receive the whole 20%?

Dunand: No. We prefer to present the optimum case, and then continue our search from there.

The role of information and transparency in trading

Some raw commodity traders buy assets in order to have more options and to obtain better information. Do you follow this argumentation?

Dunand: The question is whether one can only obtain information if one is in possession of these infrastructures. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. However, there are different ways of obtaining this information. And sometimes it can simply be profitable.

Jäggi: Basically, we don't think that we have any particular information advantages. Most of the information is already available 24/7 on the market. It's more about what you do with this information. The discussion about transparency comes under this heading. We believe in very transparent markets and equal competition conditions. It's good if all of the information on pricing is available. We're not interested in buying assets as a way of obtaining information. The world doesn't work like that. Just think about Remit (the EU regulation on increasing energy market transparency and stability) and on the requirements for European energy groups to provide internal information.

Talking about transparency, perceptions differ among the representatives of the industry and parts of the public, respectively the NGOs. One group sees itself as exclusive logisticians, while the other thinks traders are baddies. Why is there such as discrepancy in perceptions?

Dunand: Even without taking NGOs into account, the general public doesn't have a particularly high opinion of commodity traders. Why not? Some of this perception is based on structure. Lots of traders are private companies who are generally not used to communicating with the public or with investors. It's not that people want to hide information, but there isn't always a need to communicate.

Jäggi: Historically, our communication is also aimed at the banks as financing partners.

Dunand: There is also the point that competitors could copy each other's ideas. However, there is also a culture of discretion, and that needs to change. This includes being careful with journalists and with publicity. We come from a different culture, more from the banking side. We have seen how the banks handle communication. Then there is the fact that there have been tremendous increases in commodity prices in recent years. The general understanding is that commodity traders must somehow be responsible for that. There have also been several scandals within the industry. Whenever any problems concerning the environment or corruption were exposed, it was always the negative aspect that was emphasised. There was never anyone in the industry to represent the other side of the story. It is up to the industry to decide whether to communicate. There have been big changes for about a year, especially resulting from the need of the financial markets. It is understood that there is a need for more communication. Because if the general public believes that traders are involved in oil catastrophes, corruption or price increases, it is possible for NGOs to stir up this debate. But it's not a bad thing that discussion is being encouraged. However, the NGOs are also different. Some want more transparency, while others follow a more ideological agenda. We are in favour of more transparency, especially in the price-finding mechanism.

Jäggi: The reason for the secrecy is probably also due to the fact that we don't have copyright or patent protection to the methods. Novartis has patents; we have none. Which is probably what makes our business quite shy.

Dunand: People were surprised when we began to transport crude oil from Poland to China, because up to that point nobody had thought that it could make sense economically. If we could have patented that, we would have done. But then the competition came, and we were forced to look for other places in order to generate added value. We're always trying to find gaps where added value can be created. But if we find one, we're not going to make it public.

Jäggi: The other issue is that we don't publish our quarterly results. This creates an impression of secrecy. Of course, we do have a quarterly exchange with our banks, just like any other company.

Lots of commodities come from crisis regions or poorly governed countries. If the population doesn't benefit from the revenues, then it's called a "resource curse". Commodity traders are also accused of being co-responsible for irregularities such as corruption.

Dunand: We need to differentiate between commodity traders and commodity producers. It's true, though, that some companies do both. I'm not saying that commodity production is a bad thing. To get back to commodity trading, there aren't many countries that sell their crude oil outside the official price frame and so would allow the generation of high profits. These off-market deals do still exist, but they are few and far between. The whole trade has developed tremendously in the past ten years, and has become much more transparent. However, there's now more of a tendency among the commodity countries to take charge of mining and trading themselves.  Five or ten years ago, they would simply have sold their crude oil through one of the major crude oil companies such as BP or Shell or a commodity trader. But now they're creating their own companies. Yet they lack expertise, and other companies can benefit from this chaotic transition period. In the second stage, these countries would then have the necessary expertise and be able to control their markets more successfully.

Shell is currently in the process of selling production sites on the mainland in Nigeria. Are you also interested in that?

Dunand: This process is linked with resource nationalisation. Countries all over the world are pushing international groups to sell participations so that local companies can invest in the resources. It's a global trend. In Nigeria, as in other countries, the government wants more domestic companies to be involved in its natural resources. Some have the financial means to acquire them. Some have to form consortiums. We've invested in a company called Seplat for this. Seplat is one of Nigeria's biggest crude oil producers. We have a 6% share in it. We are helping the company with financing, and with understanding the international markets. We're involved in the process, but not to any great extent.

What is your opinion of the suggestions to disclose financial flows to state departments when purchasing commodities, as is currently being discussed in Switzerland?

Dunand: It's not a bad idea, although the rules would have to apply to everyone; if the rules are not applied by some countries, then this could be detrimental to certain companies. They don't want to make information concerning a competitor's deal accessible if it doesn't apply to the other companies. But again, most of these definitions apply to commodity production where, for instance, licence payments and charges have to be paid to government departments.

How will the new EU regulations on transparency in the commodities sector and the American Dodd Frank Act affect your activities?

Dunand: That's another myth that is being perpetrated by NGOs. It is claimed that the activities of the commodity trading companies are not regulated. We asked the director of our compliance department to find out how many legal and regulatory definitions we need to consider in our business. She got tired of counting when she got to 70 or 80.

Jäggi: We are an internationally active company that has to respect the definitions of and by hundreds of regulatory authorities. If you listen to certain circles, you might think that our sector is acting in an unregulated market environment - and that is not the case. But that's not to say that things can't be improved. Laws can be broken. But anyone who breaks the law should be punished. We believe in transparency and that everyone should play to the same rules. The general trend is moving towards more regulation. The problem is how to coordinate all these national and supranational regulations. Switzerland needs to define its rules for Switzerland as a trading place so that they respect international rules without over-regulating Switzerland as a location at the same time, which could make it less attractive. The activities of the commodities sector add a value to the Swiss economy that needs to be preserved. To this end, we are in regular contact with the Swiss authorities.

Do you think that Switzerland is heading in the right direction, or is it inclined to do too much so that it can't be criticised by the rest of the world, like the banks, and be isolated?

Dunand: The Swiss government is worried about ending up in the same situation as the banking industry. There is therefore a risk of it wanting to approve something quickly that will be accepted internationally. And some NGOs are playing with this fear. But we hope the Swiss government will find a balanced solution.

So shouldn't Switzerland be more active in the international arena in order to influence the process?

Dunand: The problem is that, in the wake of the banking crisis, Switzerland lost meaning and influence in the international arena. Switzerland used to be considered absolutely reliable and professional, but its reputation was damaged by the confrontation with the banks, which in turn has limited its weight in international discussions of this kind.

Do you think the Swiss Public Prosecutor's office is now more open to enquiries from foreign authorities than it used to be? For instance, a while ago there were some enquiries from Nigeria, and recently the rumour arose within the industry that Mercuria's premises had been searched in association with this matter.

Dunand: I can deny that most categorically. Our premises have never been searched. The police have only ever been here once, and that was when an alarm went off.

So you don't think that the Swiss investigating authorities have become more enthusiastic as the result of pressure from abroad?

Dunand: Switzerland has its laws, and they are implemented regardless of pressures from outside.

Pressure from outside exists with regard to the special tax arrangements in Switzerland.

Dunand: It is important that Switzerland remain competitive. I think the suggestion by former Geneva State Councillor Hiler, who proposes the introduction of a standardised tax rate of up to 13%, is very good and supportable. There are now lots of alternative locations. Trading companies don't have to trade from Switzerland. Trading is done by phone, and can be carried out from anywhere. In fact, some traders have already moved their centres from Switzerland to Singapore and other countries, where the tax situation is more competitive.

Is 13 percent the pain threshold for corporate tax?

Jäggi: It isn't going to be a spectacular departure. There isn't suddenly going to be a headline saying how a major company is moving out. There will be a gradual relocation of turnover. All commodity traders have an international infrastructure, and will slowly relocate their turnovers. They are in Geneva, Singapore or Houston. There will be a successive decline of turnover in Geneva. Look at labour costs in Switzerland. A company will consider where it can employ a financial analyst for risk analyses and at what price. With the same level of education and training, labour costs and currency will play a key role here, and this will lead to relocation. Switzerland is a terrific location. I'm Swiss, and I love my country. The tax rate isn't the only thing that counts with regard to competitiveness. Exchange rates play a part, as do education, living standards and so on.

Was Geneva's attractive tax regime only developed for trading companies?

Jäggi: No, not at all; it was offered to all companies with a special statute. This led to an influx of numerous other international companies, such as and including Procter & Gamble. So I can understand that the EU wouldn't want the Swiss tax regime. If Procter & Gamble is making nappies in France and sending the dividend to Switzerland, you can understand that it would lead to displeasure. We do things differently. We buy and sell abroad. Our goods never come to or through Switzerland. It's hard to say where our value adding happens.

How much of the trading companies' turnover has left Switzerland in recent years?

Dunand: It's hard to say. The Geneva Trading and Shipping Association puts the trading companies' contribution towards the Geneva gross domestic product (GDP) at 11%. Hiler said that the banks' contribution to the Geneva GDP is not going to increase because of international problems and changes in American legislation. So if Geneva were to lose another 11% of its GDP, it would be left with clocks and a few other items, but then things would start to get a little tight. Which isn't to say that Geneva should hold on to the other companies come what may, but we need to make sure that the pendulum doesn't start to swing too far in the other direction. To be honest, I sometimes worry more about Geneva than other people. We've got lots of offices, and we can see what skills are also available in other countries. It's true that Switzerland has a high standard of education, but other locations have really caught up when it comes to back-office jobs or controlling. Hear the words emerging nations, and most people think of growing industrial capacities but forget that there has also been a corresponding development in the service sector. There are lots of young people with doctorates looking for jobs who are able to do the jobs we are looking for - at a fraction of the costs in Switzerland. Switzerland can continue to advance professional training, but even that will reach its limits at some point.

Will that also reduce the benefits of the commodities cluster in Geneva?

Jäggi: Yes, clearly. In a levelled world, the opportunities will also balance each other out and erode the advantages of the cluster.

Dunant: Our staff here are extraordinarily efficient and well anchored with a broad knowledge base. That's worth a bonus. But we mustn't forget that the corresponding capacities are increasing rapidly in developing and emerging nations.

Does this mean that your commitment to Switzerland will decrease?

Dunand: My family has been in Geneva since 1407. We're a load of emotional softies. But as an entrepreneur, I also have to consider the economic realities. If my competitor moves some of his activities to Estonia or the Ukraine and halves his costs, that will give me something to think about. There are graduates in Italy, Spain and France who are prepared to work for nothing for a whole year just to gain experience. Show me a Swiss person who would be prepared to work without being paid for it. I'm not saying that we should make people work for nothing, but we do have to face reality. One of the advantages of Switzerland is that the country still manages to make a profit because it is run better than other countries. Furthermore, there is the desire to keep the Swiss franc at a certain level and reduce corporate taxes. This will help to retain the country's appeal as a location in the near future. Neighbouring countries such as Germany, France or the UK aren't going to be able to offer 13% corporate tax in the near future.

Are you trying to convince other locations such as Singapore or Dubai to relocate?

Dunand: A year after we relocated from London to Geneva, we received the first offer from Singapore. And they come back every year. It's no big secret. They go to all the companies once a year and explain what they have to offer. They're not asking us to leave Switzerland, but they do show us what we could have in Singapore. The Genevans and the Swiss government know this. However, you also have to be aware that other companies have come to Switzerland in the past. Switzerland attracted them with interesting tax agreements. The Genevans complained about Merck-Serono leaving Geneva, but forgot that Merck had come to Switzerland from Germany a few years earlier. This caused an uproar in Germany at the time. That's life.

There is a tendency among commodity traders to set up hedge funds. Are you planning to do so?

Dunand: At the moment we are not prepared to accept money from outside and manage it. It is more likely that sooner or later we will be able to work with funding from the private equity sector. If the sector is interested in investing funds in commodities, then we can provide our expertise.

Jäggi: One of the consequences of the Dodd-Frank Act was that banks left the private equity and hedge funds sector. One of the biggest lenders of capital for hedge funds were the Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs. I don't think this is a role we want to assume. However, we could do something in the private equity sector. It could make sense for us if we did. Private equity is looking for revenue, but fund managers don't understand the corresponding markets for commodities, and look for the relevant competencies and partners.

Dunand: By working together appropriately, we will be able to expand our financial base for possible investments in the infrastructure area. We understand how financial markets work, but we prefer to move within our financial structure and provide our opinion there. We're not in the situation where we want to take on even more risks with other parties' financial resources.

Do you engage in proprietary trading? You say you use derivatives for security, but that's an instrument that can also be used for speculation.

Dunand: Yes, of course we sometimes express our opinion on derivatives. For instance, if the gap between crude oil prices in the USA and Europe becomes really big, we think about what could happen. That's not only to secure our own positions.

Do you use substantial funds for this?

Dunand: Compared with our balance sheet total or the market size, the means are modest. The value at risk is between 5 and 6 million US dollars a day.

Jäggi: Obviously we have these options. What we don't do is make big bets; in other words, we don't bet on the market developing in a particular way. That's something that hedge funds or pension funds do, for instance.

Will new possibilities open up for Mercuria now that investment banks such as JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley have opted out of physical commodity trading - or when it happens?

Dunand: Whenever there are departures, there are new arrivals. At the moment people are concentrating on the departures, which is a good story. JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley want to get out because of the Dodd-Frank Act. But Macquarie, the Australian bank, wants to reinforce, as does the Brazilian bank BTG Pactual. Rosneft, the Russian crude oil group, is also holding talks. The myth prevails that when major players depart, the remaining ones will get a bigger slice of the cake. But that's not the case. New ones are always joining the game.

So the competition isn't decreasing?

Jäggi: No, that's never the case. The competition never decreases. It's just that new players come along. What could be is that some of the people from the named banks might be interested in working for us. There has always been the illusion that the departure of major players can leave more room for others. This feeling prevailed after the fall of Enron, the energy trader. But there too, new players came along and filled the gaps. The market works well in this respect.

distributed by