13 mai 2026 | Interventions
FINMA, Public Communication in Crisis
and Lessons Learned
13 mai 2026 | Interventions
FINMA, Public Communication in Crisis
and Lessons Learned
AFBS/BNP Paribas, Zurich
The interaction between banks and FINMA, the role of public communication in crisis situations, and the practical lessons that institutions should draw from recent Swiss enforcement cases.
One of the most striking starting points is the difference between how the public sees banks as a sector and how clients see their own bank. According to the latest Swiss Bankers Association Banking Monitor, 93% of the Swiss public regard banks as one of the country’s most important sectors, 82% report strong interest in economic issues, and 83% say they are satisfied with their own primary bank, while only 53% view the sector positively overall.
That gap matters: people clearly distinguish between “the banks” and “my bank,” and in a crisis the central challenge is to keep your institution on the right side of that divide.
The interaction with FINMA should therefore not be seen only through the lens of enforcement. It is an ongoing supervisory relationship, and the quality of that relationship matters most when things go wrong. In practice, that means institutions need to invest in credibility long before a crisis arises: by being transparent, responsive, and serious about remediation.
A particularly important point is that information duties towards FINMA are broad, and cooperation is not optional. At the same time, banks must understand that information shared with FINMA can have consequences beyond the immediate supervisory context, including in parallel proceedings or interactions with other domestic and foreign authorities.
Public communication adds another layer of complexity. FINMA’s default position is protective, but publication is more common than many assume, especially in matters involving market conduct, insolvency-related measures, or already public proceedings.
Once a matter becomes public, communication can either preserve confidence or accelerate reputational harm.
The interaction between banks and FINMA, the role of public communication in crisis situations, and the practical lessons that institutions should draw from recent Swiss enforcement cases.
One of the most striking starting points is the difference between how the public sees banks as a sector and how clients see their own bank. According to the latest Swiss Bankers Association Banking Monitor, 93% of the Swiss public regard banks as one of the country’s most important sectors, 82% report strong interest in economic issues, and 83% say they are satisfied with their own primary bank, while only 53% view the sector positively overall.
That gap matters: people clearly distinguish between “the banks” and “my bank,” and in a crisis the central challenge is to keep your institution on the right side of that divide.
The interaction with FINMA should therefore not be seen only through the lens of enforcement. It is an ongoing supervisory relationship, and the quality of that relationship matters most when things go wrong. In practice, that means institutions need to invest in credibility long before a crisis arises: by being transparent, responsive, and serious about remediation.
A particularly important point is that information duties towards FINMA are broad, and cooperation is not optional. At the same time, banks must understand that information shared with FINMA can have consequences beyond the immediate supervisory context, including in parallel proceedings or interactions with other domestic and foreign authorities.
Public communication adds another layer of complexity. FINMA’s default position is protective, but publication is more common than many assume, especially in matters involving market conduct, insolvency-related measures, or already public proceedings.
Once a matter becomes public, communication can either preserve confidence or accelerate reputational harm.
