UBS YES Loss Recovery Options

The investor rights lawyers at Goldman Scarlato & Penny have filed a second case in arbitration on behalf of UBS YES investors who lost money invested in the UBS Yield Enhancement Strategy (“UBS YES”) trading program. 

According to the recently filed case, UBS advertised its YES program as a low-risk, low- reward strategy designed to enhance the return on UBS’ client’s portfolios. To participate in the program, UBS investors were required to commit a certain amount of their portfolio – called a “Mandate” – to UBS YES program. UBS described the YES program as an option-based investment strategy that builds layered portfolios of multiple index options on the S&P 500 Index.  

As alleged in the claim, the objective of the UBS YES program was to generate investment income primarily by selling, or “writing,” both a call option and a put option on the S&P 500 index, and protect against losses by buying corresponding calls and puts with strike prices further out of the money. This trading strategy is also known as the Iron Condor.

Should the SPX’s price remain relatively stable, the premiums collected for selling the options, less the price of the corresponding calls and puts that are bought, generate a profit. However, if the index’s price changes significantly, either by increasing or decreasing, the investors are exposed to substantial potential risks and losses.

As alleged in the claim, since the purchased options have a different strike price from the written options, they do not fully protect investors against losses; they merely stand to cap the losses. The strategy is most profitable when the S&P 500 Index remains range bound (within the strike prices of the two written options). However, the claim alleges that if the Index is more volatile, and the S&P Index does not remain range bound, losses will occur. Depending on how wide or narrow that range is set, and how volatile the Index might be, investor losses may be substantial. UBS YES investors started seeing significant losses in their portfolios in 2018.

UBS YES investors who are working with the Goldman Scarlato & Penny lawyers have expressed serious concerns about the direction of their portfolios and the trading strategy. In the newly-filed case on behalf of the UBS YES investors, the Goldman Scarlato & Penny securities attorneys are seeking compensation for the investors’ losses in view of the trading strategy and risk disclosures surrounding the YES program, among others. The claims focus on important issues, such as whether the UBS Yield Enhancement Strategy fully and adequately disclosed important and major risks associated with the YES program to investors, whether the actual trading strategy was consistent with the strategy the UBS YES sales team claimed, and whether UBS failed to properly supervise the UBS YES sales team.

This is the second case filed against UBS on behalf of UBS YES investors by securities attorney Alan Rosca and his colleagues at the Goldman Scarlato & Penny law firm. Attorney Rosca and the Goldman Scarlato & Penny investor rights lawyers, in consultation with a financial markets specialist are working with other UBS Yield Enhancement Strategy investors and are preparing to file additional claims on their behalf to seek compensation for their losses. They take the UBS YES cases on a contingency fee basis, require no money down, and only get paid for their fees and case expenses if and when they recover money for the investors.

Please see our dedicated website at https://yieldenhancementlosses.com for update on the cases.

Investors who believe they lost money invested in UBS’ Yield Enhancement Strategy may contact attorney Alan Rosca or his colleagues, Paul Scarlato or Doug Bench, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of their recovery options, at 888-998-0530 or via email at rosca@lawgsp.com.

© Goldman Scarlato & Penny 2019. Attorney advertising. Visit https://investorlawyers.org/ for important disclosures.

filed under: Investigations

Tags: , , , ,

In our legal system, every person is innocent until and unless found guilty by a court of law or a tribunal. Whenever we reference “allegations” or charges that are “alleged,” such allegations or charges have not been proven, and are merely accusations, not findings of fault, as of the date of the blog. We do not have, nor do we undertake, a duty to continue to monitor or follow cases about which we report, and/or to publish subsequent updates regarding various developments that may occur in such cases. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research regarding any such cases and any developments that may or may not have occurred in such cases. Also, the brokercheck report linked to some of our blogs is the up-to-date version as of the date of posting. Visitors may check the most recent version of each brokercheck report at www.finra.org.