What's the Deal with UBS?

We've been hearing for some time that UBS might be shuffling employee to NYC and then that yes indeed they are officially moving employees out of Stamford. The building is still full of UBS employees (for now), and there's some small comfort in knowing their lease runs to 2015, but that will be here sooner than you think.

So why exactly are they thinking of leaving altogether? The New York Times quotes one landlord who has spoken with UBS as saying "They just can’t hire the bankers and traders they need."

But are we really the problem?

There's a great article on the topic on Dealbreaker that says:

The bank, which has not been doing too hot of late, seems to believe that leaving Stamford would be a panacea for all its woes which, according to UBS, boil down to no one wanting to work in Connecticut (rather than no one wanting to work at a place that doesn’t pay and yells at you when you ask if this month’s check will clear).

In addition, what leaves me scratching my head is how the "we can't hire new talent argument" jibes with the FINS article noting that "UBS will slow its investment bank hiring as it responds to weakened business conditions" and that the company is "responding to the 'challenging environment' and will refrain from 'mass recruiting.'" Huh?! Kinda odd that UBS is breaking up with us because we're not giving it something it doesn't want anyway. That plus several sources indicate that UBS will be eliminating hundreds or even thousands of jobs.

So I wonder if we're a convenient excuse for other company failings and those of the economy. Hope they stay, but if they go, hope they know why they're really leaving.