In 1994, UBS set off municipal warfare when it announced its decisions to move from its two Manhattan locations, one in Midtown and the other in the Financial District, to the comparatively quieter suburb of Stamford. Some experts speculated that financial firms no longer needed to be headquartered in the outrageously expensive and cramped locations in Manhattan, due to growth of computerized trading and telecommunications platforms such as Skype and Zoom. To lure in UBS, Connecticut presented a $120 million package of tax breaks and interest free loans, although it was later realized that the actual value of the incentives was substantially less. With over 5,000 computer monitors, the Swiss Bank erected the largest trading floor ever built, spanning the size of two football fields.

In 2011, however, there were reports that UBS was beginning to regret this move. The suburban location hindered talent acquisition efforts to hire the best and brightest bankers and traders, who would much rather live in Manhattan and Brooklyn than a “sleepy” suburb, or who didn’t want to endure the 1.5 hour Metro North commute when there were hundreds of financial services firms right at their doorstep. The firm also realized it would be better to be located closer to major clients, who were still mostly in the city. In June 2011, the New York Times published an article claiming that UBS was seriously considering a “reverse migration” that would bring its investment banking division and up to 2,000 bankers and traders back to Wall Street in lower Manhattan, at a new skyscraper in the rebuilt World Trade Center.

Mayor Michael Pavia and then-governor Dannell Malloy stated they were “committed” to keeping UBS in Stamford. Connecticut’s economic development commissioner, Catherine Smith said: “We just want to make sure that Connecticut has a fair shot. We love having them in the state and hope they’ll stay. But you don’t always win these competitive battles.”

In trying to woo UBS, New York City landlords have tried to capitalize on Connecticut’s decisions to raise taxes to help balance the state’s budget. Yet, the tax raises do not appear to be a major reason for Connecticut’s move, as executives were contemplating the relocation issue long before tax increases were announced state-wide.

Shortly thereafter, in August of 2011, Dannell Malloy announced $20 million worth of incentives to keep UBS in the state. The deal would give $20 million to UBS in a forgiveable loan if it maintains at least 2,000 jobs in the state for the next 5 years. Larry Cafero, the state’s republican leader, said that this approach was too short-sighted, as the state already gave UBS public money in the early 1990s to convince them to move their North American headquarters to Stamford, and now it may just leave anyway.

That was in 2011. In 2018, UBS has seen its employment numbers drop for the 3rd year in a row, now reporting an average of 1,330 employees statewide, as compared to 2,157 in 2014. Despite the dwindling headcount, UBS has already received $10.8 million in loan forgiveness, and could receive another $6.5 million in loan write-offs. If it averages between 1,750 and 2,000 jobs in the state in the next 4 years.

Nonetheless, officials in former Governor Dannell Malloy’s administration say that this modified deal is still a solid investment. “We were looking at a situation where they could have completely exited the state,” Catherine Smith, the state’s economic development commissioner, said in a recent interview. “They still have hundreds of employees here. I think the incentives have done what we expected them to do.”