You're watching...
FBN's Charlie Gasparino says bank analyst Dick Bove was told by UBS the Facebook IPO loss was a 'tiny amount.'
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
In the meantime somewhere shocked last week when it was reported at UBS lost some 350 million in the -- IKEA largely because of nasdaq's technical problems.
But is it true and what is UBS telling analyst -- guess.
Story -- I put this in the category of your report you decide sort of analysis.
That British did -- dollar number.
Was pretty outstanding when you know we're it was reported.
By another TV networks and the -- the Wall Street Journal followed up that basically said because of NASDAQ technical difficulties.
UBS lost 350.
Million dollars on that FaceBook IPO by far the largest maybe ten times larger.
Than anybody in the highest numbers that that -- lost.
I personally thought there was a zero -- on -- -- accident.
So I can't -- this is true I can tell you when I called up UBS.
They told us the loss was immaterial so it sounded on true.
So I followed up actually might produce -- at all -- follow up when she followed -- with people day to -- annals of -- UBS.
He called up UBS and here's what they told the 350 million dollar number according to -- -- -- is we UBS told them is not true.
They say they're saying that the amount of that they lost is a tiny amount this is a quote.
And that that we got just got from both -- a tiny amount not meaningful the disclose in the second quarter earnings so they told them.
UBS is telling also also telling the -- the loss is not material it's immaterial.
It's kind of what they put out -- -- statement -- put out along those lines.
They also told me they have no idea with a 356.
Color number came from.
They also told they they they still might sue like everybody else I think that the notion of losing 35 million and it technical difficulty.
Is something that you might see broker dealers sue intermediary sue.
On the on behalf of clients and that's who we are right now I will tell you this and this is what caught me off guard by the story but just a number.
When I put my calls into that the that the usual suspects the people that you would think want this story to be true.
Like the New York Stock Exchange they came out and you know they were just like blown away they do not believe the number the number seems like.
-- it sounds like to me.
Just you know just as an average Joseph not not an expert so to speak in the introduce your average Joseph Charlie Gasparino in in the context of this is the stuff its prettiest of terror when you talk about it treating it.
And and and markets crossing -- all this but it wild stuff I mean I can on the on I don't have to be dangerous so to speak.
But in that concept.
You know I I just I I just couldn't.
Believe that I thought someone might have hit the button kept his her his or her finger on the button -- kept sending new orders -- -- -- ended up to 350 billion.
That would not be obviously nasdaq's -- We don't know exactly how they how this number came about is reported by another network it was.
Supported by congress seems alien and collateralized outright but was it was reported by the very reportable -- Wall Street Journal.
So I can just tell you though that -- a talking to UBS is giving them you've been.
They've given -- a guidance it is not true it's a small amount.
It's the it's the most concrete on the record sort of explanation UBS has given they're not given that on the record to depress.
You might say is UBS line.
This but they get some wrong I would say this if UBS is lying to an analyst -- huge disclosure problem you can you can really be you've you've faced massive.
Regulatory sanctions for that so if they if they aligned to analysts about this they got a huge issue also.
If this is 350 million it would have to be in the second quarter earnings we will see that so.
There it is we report you decide -- angles to the story thanks covering that went okay Charlie.
