WEBVTT - Surveillance: CS CEO Koerner Urges Patience

0:00:05.080 --> 0:00:08.440
<v Speaker 1>This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane, along

0:00:08.480 --> 0:00:12.280
<v Speaker 1>with Jonathan Faroll and Lisa Abramowitz. Join us each day

0:00:12.320 --> 0:00:16.800
<v Speaker 1>for insight from the best and economics, geopolitics, finance and investment.

0:00:17.239 --> 0:00:22.040
<v Speaker 1>Subscribe to Bloomberg Surveillance on demand on Apple, Spotify and

0:00:22.239 --> 0:00:26.560
<v Speaker 1>anywhere you get your podcasts, and always I'm Bloomberg dot Com,

0:00:26.600 --> 0:00:30.280
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App. We can

0:00:30.280 --> 0:00:32.440
<v Speaker 1>now head over to London to catch up with France,

0:00:32.440 --> 0:00:35.520
<v Speaker 1>Saint Laqua and the kratiswee Thank you so much, John.

0:00:35.560 --> 0:00:37.840
<v Speaker 1>We are delighted to be joined by of course Aldrich

0:00:37.880 --> 0:00:40.280
<v Speaker 1>Corner of the the Kurti Sweet, chief executive officer. Thank you

0:00:40.320 --> 0:00:42.599
<v Speaker 1>for joining us. It's a difficult day, another difficult day

0:00:42.600 --> 0:00:44.839
<v Speaker 1>for Krati Sweeze. What can you tell us about the

0:00:44.880 --> 0:00:48.479
<v Speaker 1>outflows in the wake of SEB so as we be

0:00:48.600 --> 0:00:52.440
<v Speaker 1>As you know, it's a very recent saying which happened

0:00:52.520 --> 0:00:56.720
<v Speaker 1>up a weekend and yesterday. So far it's pretty calm

0:00:57.120 --> 0:01:01.520
<v Speaker 1>even so material good influence yesterday still Also, you know,

0:01:01.640 --> 0:01:03.640
<v Speaker 1>I had a client meeting which was very positive on

0:01:03.680 --> 0:01:06.080
<v Speaker 1>their one. So so far it's kind but I think

0:01:06.080 --> 0:01:08.520
<v Speaker 1>it's early days to look at the calm. Are you

0:01:08.560 --> 0:01:11.640
<v Speaker 1>suggesting that you could also actually get inflows. We got

0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:14.480
<v Speaker 1>them yesterday, which is a positive sign, I would say,

0:01:15.440 --> 0:01:17.880
<v Speaker 1>and you know, for us, and that is maybe a

0:01:17.920 --> 0:01:20.039
<v Speaker 1>little bit if I may say so, unseeing in comparison

0:01:20.080 --> 0:01:22.360
<v Speaker 1>to SVB. It's a very different situation. You know, we

0:01:22.400 --> 0:01:26.080
<v Speaker 1>are GCIP as you know, we are following materially different

0:01:26.080 --> 0:01:29.080
<v Speaker 1>and higher standards when it comes to capital funding, liquidity

0:01:29.120 --> 0:01:31.120
<v Speaker 1>and so on. And that's why we said, you know,

0:01:31.160 --> 0:01:33.840
<v Speaker 1>we gave I think this situation is important. We gave

0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:37.759
<v Speaker 1>r capital ratio of like one hundred and forty forty

0:01:38.120 --> 0:01:39.720
<v Speaker 1>at the at the end of Q four, which is

0:01:39.760 --> 0:01:43.200
<v Speaker 1>strong ratio, which has improved as we went through this

0:01:43.280 --> 0:01:46.080
<v Speaker 1>quarter to like hundred and fifty on average and spot

0:01:46.160 --> 0:01:50.600
<v Speaker 1>being even high on that. But so outflows have not reversed,

0:01:50.760 --> 0:01:54.800
<v Speaker 1>but they've actually lowered. Are they reversing? Look, they have

0:01:55.000 --> 0:01:58.000
<v Speaker 1>significantly moderated, as I put it. We gave an update

0:01:58.040 --> 0:01:59.760
<v Speaker 1>on February nine in terms of where we are on

0:01:59.880 --> 0:02:01.880
<v Speaker 1>the passts and addu ascess and so on. We will

0:02:01.880 --> 0:02:04.800
<v Speaker 1>give next update with the first quarter result. But this

0:02:04.960 --> 0:02:07.040
<v Speaker 1>is also very clear. You know, if and we talked

0:02:07.040 --> 0:02:10.200
<v Speaker 1>about that. What has happened in like Furce quarter. You know,

0:02:11.320 --> 0:02:13.920
<v Speaker 1>we are fully focused on it, turn it around, but

0:02:13.960 --> 0:02:16.880
<v Speaker 1>that takes longer than like just two months. But then

0:02:16.919 --> 0:02:19.799
<v Speaker 1>you do you have this material weakness today? What happened there?

0:02:19.880 --> 0:02:23.280
<v Speaker 1>There's concerned that actually almost every day there's some kind

0:02:23.320 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 1>of bad news and you have your share price at

0:02:25.360 --> 0:02:28.000
<v Speaker 1>a record low like that can't be a comfortable position, no,

0:02:28.160 --> 0:02:30.920
<v Speaker 1>But we published our report today as we have seen

0:02:30.919 --> 0:02:33.360
<v Speaker 1>the financial result. I think that's a key message. The

0:02:33.400 --> 0:02:38.240
<v Speaker 1>financial result is unchanged for twenty twenty two and previous years.

0:02:38.840 --> 0:02:41.040
<v Speaker 1>We delayed the reporters you have seen a couple of

0:02:41.160 --> 0:02:46.400
<v Speaker 1>days to appropriately deal with you know, questions the SEC

0:02:46.600 --> 0:02:49.480
<v Speaker 1>had and we did, and that is part of an

0:02:49.639 --> 0:02:53.440
<v Speaker 1>longer ongoing dialogue. And we acknowledge that we have a

0:02:53.480 --> 0:02:57.720
<v Speaker 1>material weakness in the financial in the financial reporting control,

0:02:57.800 --> 0:03:01.520
<v Speaker 1>which we are addressing and immediating forcefully. How are you

0:03:01.520 --> 0:03:04.040
<v Speaker 1>addressing that? So? Is that an auditor problem had PwC

0:03:04.200 --> 0:03:07.000
<v Speaker 1>on the case? Is it their fault? No, it's absolutely

0:03:07.000 --> 0:03:09.679
<v Speaker 1>not their fault. That is obviously you know that cause

0:03:09.760 --> 0:03:12.600
<v Speaker 1>higher hand in hand as you work together with your auditor,

0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:15.080
<v Speaker 1>but it's a collective fining and we are addressing it.

0:03:15.120 --> 0:03:17.800
<v Speaker 1>We have remediation planner. We are addressing it. So you

0:03:17.880 --> 0:03:20.720
<v Speaker 1>have an anchor investor that put one point five million

0:03:20.760 --> 0:03:23.560
<v Speaker 1>in the bank, Now their share value has gone down

0:03:23.600 --> 0:03:26.200
<v Speaker 1>by one third. Will they have to inject more? What

0:03:26.280 --> 0:03:29.000
<v Speaker 1>kind of conversations are you having with them? Well, look,

0:03:29.080 --> 0:03:31.880
<v Speaker 1>nobody's pleased devolve the SHAPERCE development, you know, but we

0:03:31.919 --> 0:03:34.239
<v Speaker 1>match what we can match. And this is the execution

0:03:34.320 --> 0:03:36.480
<v Speaker 1>of our plan. That's a white strategy. This is a

0:03:36.560 --> 0:03:39.560
<v Speaker 1>white plan. We are executing at pace and even ahead

0:03:39.600 --> 0:03:41.720
<v Speaker 1>of the plan. And I think I'll sharel to see

0:03:41.760 --> 0:03:44.520
<v Speaker 1>that as well. That's an unpleasant situation. Chap Price or

0:03:44.560 --> 0:03:47.200
<v Speaker 1>Dotcom match CHAPERCE. I can match the execution and I do.

0:03:47.600 --> 0:03:50.640
<v Speaker 1>So you don't think you're getting pressure from shareholders. You're

0:03:50.680 --> 0:03:53.440
<v Speaker 1>not getting pressure from you know, certain big shareholders to

0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:55.360
<v Speaker 1>do more and actually to have all options on the

0:03:55.360 --> 0:03:58.000
<v Speaker 1>table now. As I said, they are obviously they're obviously

0:03:58.040 --> 0:04:00.680
<v Speaker 1>not pleased with the development. I'm not please developed the

0:04:00.760 --> 0:04:03.560
<v Speaker 1>first hand, obviously, but you know, we are executing and

0:04:03.640 --> 0:04:05.640
<v Speaker 1>once we are executing step by step, and we show

0:04:05.680 --> 0:04:07.480
<v Speaker 1>the market and this is exactly why we said it's

0:04:07.480 --> 0:04:10.560
<v Speaker 1>a three years process and we are executing and that

0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:12.600
<v Speaker 1>is you know, the market will acknowledge that and the

0:04:12.600 --> 0:04:15.680
<v Speaker 1>share process will follow. Do you think all options should

0:04:15.680 --> 0:04:17.520
<v Speaker 1>be on the table? What about breaking up the bank?

0:04:17.560 --> 0:04:19.839
<v Speaker 1>If you look and I know understand your frustration with

0:04:19.920 --> 0:04:21.920
<v Speaker 1>the share price and saying, look, you're just executing. But

0:04:21.960 --> 0:04:24.360
<v Speaker 1>when you look at the share price ninety seven percent

0:04:24.839 --> 0:04:27.880
<v Speaker 1>below that two thousand and seven high, like how do

0:04:27.920 --> 0:04:30.479
<v Speaker 1>you regain from that now? But that you can can't

0:04:30.480 --> 0:04:33.360
<v Speaker 1>compare as you know, but you know, as I said,

0:04:33.480 --> 0:04:37.600
<v Speaker 1>it's a right Swagi and fully fully convinced off the Swagi.

0:04:37.839 --> 0:04:40.200
<v Speaker 1>We are executing at past. We have the right team

0:04:40.680 --> 0:04:42.880
<v Speaker 1>and you know that's why we said in October it

0:04:42.920 --> 0:04:46.080
<v Speaker 1>needs radical change. You know, the bank needs to be changed,

0:04:46.360 --> 0:04:48.320
<v Speaker 1>and we said it's a three years transformation and you

0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:51.000
<v Speaker 1>can't come after two months and Salo, why is not

0:04:51.080 --> 0:04:54.080
<v Speaker 1>everything done? But radical change could be splitting off the bank.

0:04:54.200 --> 0:04:56.279
<v Speaker 1>Is it something that you're you're valuing? Oh? Look, the

0:04:56.360 --> 0:04:59.120
<v Speaker 1>new Creates visa is focused on the course lengths of

0:04:59.160 --> 0:05:01.679
<v Speaker 1>the bank. This is welds management. The swis spend persons

0:05:01.720 --> 0:05:04.520
<v Speaker 1>asset management. What we put the market either trading and

0:05:04.560 --> 0:05:09.279
<v Speaker 1>sales business that makes entirely sense, entirely different risk profile,

0:05:09.760 --> 0:05:13.039
<v Speaker 1>will be very profitable and we reward shareholders. And I

0:05:13.040 --> 0:05:15.800
<v Speaker 1>think the sheilds understand it. When will you be able

0:05:15.839 --> 0:05:18.640
<v Speaker 1>to say, like the worst is really behind us? But

0:05:18.800 --> 0:05:21.320
<v Speaker 1>we said it's three years transformation. We said we are

0:05:21.360 --> 0:05:24.440
<v Speaker 1>going to make a loss unfortunately this year because you know,

0:05:24.480 --> 0:05:26.440
<v Speaker 1>and this is something which you need to understand, a

0:05:26.480 --> 0:05:29.640
<v Speaker 1>lot of the restructuring courts, you know, baked into the

0:05:29.760 --> 0:05:33.080
<v Speaker 1>transformation are coming in twenty twenty three before we see

0:05:33.120 --> 0:05:36.240
<v Speaker 1>a lot of benefits out of that transformation, and that

0:05:36.400 --> 0:05:38.240
<v Speaker 1>is something which happens. That's why we said it takes

0:05:38.240 --> 0:05:40.520
<v Speaker 1>three years. Three years is a long time work. I

0:05:40.520 --> 0:05:42.480
<v Speaker 1>mean a lot of but a lot of the shareholders

0:05:42.480 --> 0:05:45.040
<v Speaker 1>will start asking questions. I mean, have you asked them

0:05:45.080 --> 0:05:47.600
<v Speaker 1>for more money to make it faster for three years,

0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:49.919
<v Speaker 1>especially in this banking world than anything could happen? No,

0:05:50.120 --> 0:05:52.520
<v Speaker 1>But you know, as I said, our LCR ratio is

0:05:52.839 --> 0:05:56.760
<v Speaker 1>strong and very strong, has has getting stronger as we speak.

0:05:57.080 --> 0:05:59.680
<v Speaker 1>Our capital ratio is very strong at fourteen point one

0:06:00.000 --> 0:06:02.320
<v Speaker 1>and as we gave it to Q four, so we

0:06:02.440 --> 0:06:05.040
<v Speaker 1>have everything we need to go through the transformation. Mars

0:06:05.320 --> 0:06:07.359
<v Speaker 1>or are you expecting, you know, the first quarter to

0:06:07.400 --> 0:06:10.520
<v Speaker 1>be good enough to keep shareholders off your back. The

0:06:10.640 --> 0:06:13.320
<v Speaker 1>first quarter is, as we said, and we put it

0:06:13.400 --> 0:06:15.880
<v Speaker 1>very clearly, we will make a loss in the first quarter,

0:06:15.960 --> 0:06:18.120
<v Speaker 1>but you will see progress in the first quarter numbers.

0:06:17.960 --> 0:06:22.680
<v Speaker 1>It's not in terms of what outflows in certain business momentum.

0:06:22.800 --> 0:06:26.240
<v Speaker 1>We're specifically businessman and the market business for example, which

0:06:26.400 --> 0:06:29.719
<v Speaker 1>was as we all discussed for the for four reasons,

0:06:30.040 --> 0:06:33.440
<v Speaker 1>clearly understandable reasons. A week in the Q four looks better.

0:06:33.760 --> 0:06:36.760
<v Speaker 1>We else management, we are making progress, certainly not yet

0:06:36.800 --> 0:06:39.239
<v Speaker 1>there where we should be, but we are making progress.

0:06:39.760 --> 0:06:42.080
<v Speaker 1>Are you comfortable with the banking system as a whole.

0:06:42.120 --> 0:06:45.000
<v Speaker 1>I mean, we've we've lived through a pretty incredible couple

0:06:45.040 --> 0:06:46.880
<v Speaker 1>of days and if you look at the markets are

0:06:46.880 --> 0:06:49.440
<v Speaker 1>all over the place. No, I think so. I mean

0:06:49.480 --> 0:06:52.760
<v Speaker 1>this is somewhat an isolated problem. If you want tool

0:06:53.000 --> 0:06:54.680
<v Speaker 1>and as I said, you know, if you are guzip

0:06:54.760 --> 0:06:56.800
<v Speaker 1>it or if you look at the large banks, I

0:06:56.880 --> 0:06:58.920
<v Speaker 1>see we will manage to it. Talk to me a

0:06:58.920 --> 0:07:01.200
<v Speaker 1>little bit about Cratty sweet first, Boston. So, first of all,

0:07:01.240 --> 0:07:04.800
<v Speaker 1>what's the timeline for the IPO. The timeline Fancy is unchanged,

0:07:04.839 --> 0:07:07.000
<v Speaker 1>a discussed last time. So we have a very clear

0:07:07.040 --> 0:07:10.720
<v Speaker 1>plan to put it into market creating liquidity event most

0:07:10.720 --> 0:07:14.480
<v Speaker 1>likely in IPO. We are working against our internal plans forcefully,

0:07:14.880 --> 0:07:16.920
<v Speaker 1>and I would expect such an event in like twenty

0:07:16.960 --> 0:07:19.400
<v Speaker 1>twenty five. As I said earlier, Okay, any news, I

0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:21.920
<v Speaker 1>mean today you had news about the twenty percent that

0:07:21.960 --> 0:07:24.920
<v Speaker 1>would go to craze Piece first Boston Partners. What happens

0:07:24.920 --> 0:07:28.320
<v Speaker 1>to the rest? The rest is owned by us and

0:07:29.480 --> 0:07:33.480
<v Speaker 1>obviously also portioned by Michael as as as we announce

0:07:33.560 --> 0:07:36.160
<v Speaker 1>it in like February, the rest is own past So

0:07:36.360 --> 0:07:39.880
<v Speaker 1>this is this is our part of the bank, remains

0:07:39.920 --> 0:07:42.200
<v Speaker 1>our part of the bank. We are going into liquidity

0:07:42.320 --> 0:07:45.360
<v Speaker 1>and again most likely IPO you will be probably a

0:07:45.360 --> 0:07:47.640
<v Speaker 1>majority shold and then we make decision you know how

0:07:47.680 --> 0:07:50.960
<v Speaker 1>our holding develops over the next following years. So you're

0:07:50.960 --> 0:07:55.080
<v Speaker 1>still looking for an anchor investor for Crazpiece first, Are

0:07:55.080 --> 0:07:57.200
<v Speaker 1>you closer to finding well, I don't know. Yeah, we

0:07:57.240 --> 0:07:59.760
<v Speaker 1>are close to, but I'm not sure if it's anchor.

0:07:59.800 --> 0:08:02.680
<v Speaker 1>And so we have a lot of interest from SERTA

0:08:02.720 --> 0:08:05.520
<v Speaker 1>parties to be invested into that. It tells you something

0:08:05.560 --> 0:08:08.520
<v Speaker 1>about the Surgia. I would say and we are evaluating

0:08:08.560 --> 0:08:13.080
<v Speaker 1>that Middle Eastern investors, different kinds of investors, different parts

0:08:13.080 --> 0:08:17.200
<v Speaker 1>of the world, but large chunk investors decision. And I

0:08:17.240 --> 0:08:20.440
<v Speaker 1>will inform you first as Okay, how far away are

0:08:20.440 --> 0:08:22.640
<v Speaker 1>we from that? We are pretty close. I would say

0:08:22.840 --> 0:08:25.320
<v Speaker 1>a couple of weeks will come before the first quarter.

0:08:25.560 --> 0:08:27.520
<v Speaker 1>I will tell the market if we are there. What

0:08:27.600 --> 0:08:33.800
<v Speaker 1>do you find most difficult about Your job is to

0:08:34.080 --> 0:08:36.680
<v Speaker 1>make it understandable. I would say, you know that we

0:08:36.720 --> 0:08:40.560
<v Speaker 1>are absolutely doing the right things that we need some

0:08:40.640 --> 0:08:44.640
<v Speaker 1>time to get through. And and this is what all

0:08:44.720 --> 0:08:46.960
<v Speaker 1>my colleagues and I try to do, you know, to

0:08:47.120 --> 0:08:50.080
<v Speaker 1>regain the trust off the bank over the next couple

0:08:50.120 --> 0:08:53.040
<v Speaker 1>of months. But is it more important to regain the

0:08:53.080 --> 0:08:58.000
<v Speaker 1>trust of shareholders or or clients? It is look clients,

0:08:58.280 --> 0:09:01.920
<v Speaker 1>is I told you last time? I would say one

0:09:01.960 --> 0:09:05.440
<v Speaker 1>of the best experience, even in this very difficult months

0:09:05.559 --> 0:09:08.480
<v Speaker 1>last year. I mean, they are so supportive of us,

0:09:08.960 --> 0:09:12.120
<v Speaker 1>they are listening to us, they're doing active things to

0:09:12.240 --> 0:09:14.840
<v Speaker 1>support they like to bank with create switch is a

0:09:14.880 --> 0:09:18.679
<v Speaker 1>fantastic experience. But you know, the convincing of this is

0:09:18.720 --> 0:09:20.840
<v Speaker 1>the right thing to do. We are executing at pace

0:09:20.920 --> 0:09:23.199
<v Speaker 1>and the head of plan is with all different stakeholders,

0:09:23.280 --> 0:09:25.280
<v Speaker 1>all different ones, But why are they taking money out?

0:09:25.280 --> 0:09:28.920
<v Speaker 1>Then if your clients are happy, because and that's what

0:09:28.960 --> 0:09:30.840
<v Speaker 1>I also said, if you are in a situation like

0:09:30.920 --> 0:09:33.839
<v Speaker 1>we were in October, you know where you had malicious

0:09:33.840 --> 0:09:36.040
<v Speaker 1>information out in the market. At the beginning of October,

0:09:36.120 --> 0:09:38.960
<v Speaker 1>we were not able to speak, legally not able to speak.

0:09:39.320 --> 0:09:41.520
<v Speaker 1>And that's why I said, like two thirds of the

0:09:41.559 --> 0:09:45.400
<v Speaker 1>outflaw stemming from October alone, eighty five percent from October

0:09:45.400 --> 0:09:48.160
<v Speaker 1>and November. And the moment we could reach out, we

0:09:48.240 --> 0:09:51.240
<v Speaker 1>started that huge program talk to our clients. More than

0:09:51.280 --> 0:09:53.920
<v Speaker 1>ten thousand clients in wealth managements since then, more than

0:09:54.000 --> 0:09:57.760
<v Speaker 1>fifty thousand individual meetings in Switzerland, and that has created momentum.

0:09:58.080 --> 0:10:00.760
<v Speaker 1>Are you frustrated though that the actually you haven't been

0:10:00.800 --> 0:10:03.600
<v Speaker 1>able to get ahead of that quicker? No, I think

0:10:03.640 --> 0:10:06.440
<v Speaker 1>we are really doing the utmost possible and I'm proud,

0:10:06.559 --> 0:10:10.080
<v Speaker 1>not frustrated. I'm proud of what my colleagues, my people

0:10:10.440 --> 0:10:13.000
<v Speaker 1>at the front units have done since months. I'm really

0:10:13.040 --> 0:10:15.520
<v Speaker 1>proud of. But the message today, I mean, if you

0:10:15.520 --> 0:10:17.880
<v Speaker 1>look at your share price, you're proud. You think you're

0:10:17.880 --> 0:10:19.440
<v Speaker 1>executing You're on a three year ap plan, if you

0:10:19.440 --> 0:10:21.840
<v Speaker 1>look at the share price at a record low, does

0:10:21.880 --> 0:10:23.440
<v Speaker 1>your stomach sink a little bit when you look at

0:10:23.440 --> 0:10:26.600
<v Speaker 1>the share price? Nothing, which I like obviously, But look,

0:10:26.679 --> 0:10:29.160
<v Speaker 1>I can't control what I can control. I don't control

0:10:29.160 --> 0:10:32.400
<v Speaker 1>a share price. I control the execution of the right strategy,

0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:34.720
<v Speaker 1>and you think the share price will will catch up

0:10:34.920 --> 0:10:38.040
<v Speaker 1>if you execute? All right, thank you so much for

0:10:38.080 --> 0:10:40.240
<v Speaker 1>your time, But it was all recruiter. They're the Credit

0:10:40.280 --> 0:10:42.880
<v Speaker 1>Swiss chief executive officer and with that, I'm going to

0:10:42.920 --> 0:10:46.440
<v Speaker 1>send it back to you, a friend, saint, just absolutely fantastic.

0:10:56.200 --> 0:10:58.120
<v Speaker 1>And now we're going to take a different perspective here

0:10:58.360 --> 0:11:04.080
<v Speaker 1>Magnus Billing joining. He's the chief executive officer of Sweden's elector,

0:11:04.120 --> 0:11:07.000
<v Speaker 1>and we're thrilled he could join us this morning here

0:11:07.240 --> 0:11:10.439
<v Speaker 1>with perspective on the American banks and with the perspective

0:11:10.480 --> 0:11:15.720
<v Speaker 1>on the pension responsibilities in his Sweden, across Europe and

0:11:15.840 --> 0:11:20.160
<v Speaker 1>frankly at worldwide. Magnus, the path is this October of

0:11:20.280 --> 0:11:23.920
<v Speaker 1>last year, a small matter of a busted shure thing

0:11:24.360 --> 0:11:28.040
<v Speaker 1>in the United Kingdom, a ballot by the Bank of England,

0:11:28.120 --> 0:11:31.640
<v Speaker 1>literally in hours. What we've all observed over the last

0:11:31.640 --> 0:11:34.880
<v Speaker 1>four days and we look at Sweden as the bastion.

0:11:35.600 --> 0:11:39.920
<v Speaker 1>What are the shadows within the Swedish pension system right now?

0:11:40.520 --> 0:11:44.880
<v Speaker 1>Is it pricing commercial real estate is a different nuances

0:11:44.960 --> 0:11:53.319
<v Speaker 1>of European banking. What are the shadows you confront this morning? Well,

0:11:53.800 --> 0:11:56.760
<v Speaker 1>good morning, thank you for having me. I think first

0:11:56.760 --> 0:12:00.280
<v Speaker 1>of all that the Swedish pension system it's very robot

0:12:00.520 --> 0:12:02.600
<v Speaker 1>it's small, the robust that it's been in the last

0:12:02.640 --> 0:12:06.679
<v Speaker 1>ten fifteen years. But having said at obviously end of

0:12:06.720 --> 0:12:09.280
<v Speaker 1>the day, it's a lot about liquidity when the psychology

0:12:09.360 --> 0:12:11.679
<v Speaker 1>kicks in the dugle market space, and I think the

0:12:12.440 --> 0:12:14.439
<v Speaker 1>issue that you brought up about the UK event that

0:12:14.520 --> 0:12:16.800
<v Speaker 1>took place last year and also what we see now

0:12:16.840 --> 0:12:19.160
<v Speaker 1>in the past week or so, it's a lot of

0:12:19.840 --> 0:12:25.480
<v Speaker 1>liquidity psycholity around liquidity and the easiness one can move

0:12:25.520 --> 0:12:28.840
<v Speaker 1>capital today with the digital development that we've seen in

0:12:28.840 --> 0:12:33.120
<v Speaker 1>the past number of years. But looking at just a

0:12:33.160 --> 0:12:36.880
<v Speaker 1>balance sheet of basically across all the pension funds in

0:12:37.160 --> 0:12:39.760
<v Speaker 1>Sweden and an order gredion, they are very robust today.

0:12:40.200 --> 0:12:43.480
<v Speaker 1>Do you bring the money home? My experience on the

0:12:43.520 --> 0:12:48.760
<v Speaker 1>geography of crisis is one endowed pollet home to Swedish

0:12:48.760 --> 0:12:53.360
<v Speaker 1>pension plans and would you guess European continental plans do

0:12:53.440 --> 0:12:59.840
<v Speaker 1>they just bring the assets home. I think the under

0:13:00.440 --> 0:13:03.200
<v Speaker 1>the lying fundamentals of the US market is still very

0:13:03.240 --> 0:13:07.080
<v Speaker 1>attractive for any investors, so I think in the mid

0:13:07.120 --> 0:13:10.720
<v Speaker 1>to long term US will always be able to attract

0:13:10.720 --> 0:13:14.880
<v Speaker 1>the investors to invest into the market space. That goes

0:13:14.920 --> 0:13:17.360
<v Speaker 1>also for the pension funds, and I think looking at

0:13:17.400 --> 0:13:20.280
<v Speaker 1>the size of many of the pension funds in the

0:13:20.320 --> 0:13:26.200
<v Speaker 1>Nordics and the European space, they need to diversify into

0:13:26.200 --> 0:13:29.559
<v Speaker 1>the US market and under regions around the globe. So

0:13:29.600 --> 0:13:33.520
<v Speaker 1>I think I have at least a positive mid to

0:13:33.600 --> 0:13:36.520
<v Speaker 1>long term view on the US markets capacity to deliver

0:13:36.679 --> 0:13:39.040
<v Speaker 1>shareholder value to us. The magnets. You have a problem

0:13:39.160 --> 0:13:41.480
<v Speaker 1>this morning, as most people know, so let's talk about

0:13:41.520 --> 0:13:45.480
<v Speaker 1>that problem. Now. How does the Swedish pension fund end

0:13:45.520 --> 0:13:53.120
<v Speaker 1>up allocated to Signature Bank First republic An SVP. Yeah,

0:13:53.200 --> 0:13:56.400
<v Speaker 1>I mean we've been we invested in those companies starting

0:13:56.559 --> 0:14:01.040
<v Speaker 1>twenty seventeen up until twenty nineteen, and we've been growing

0:14:01.080 --> 0:14:05.000
<v Speaker 1>that allocation over the years. So obviously we thought that

0:14:05.600 --> 0:14:08.120
<v Speaker 1>the initial year was good for US investing that, but

0:14:08.840 --> 0:14:11.560
<v Speaker 1>with what's happened last week. Obviously we think it's a

0:14:11.559 --> 0:14:14.840
<v Speaker 1>big failure for us as an investor, and we need

0:14:14.880 --> 0:14:17.240
<v Speaker 1>to learn something from that and take actions based upon

0:14:17.480 --> 0:14:20.200
<v Speaker 1>the lessons learned. So it's a failure. I just want

0:14:20.240 --> 0:14:22.840
<v Speaker 1>to sort of put that in proportion to the total

0:14:22.880 --> 0:14:26.480
<v Speaker 1>portfolio that we're managing. We're talking about one percent of

0:14:26.520 --> 0:14:30.520
<v Speaker 1>a total capital that we manage. So from a customer

0:14:30.600 --> 0:14:33.320
<v Speaker 1>point of view, this does not have a material impact

0:14:33.360 --> 0:14:35.480
<v Speaker 1>at all. It will not impact the pensions that we

0:14:35.520 --> 0:14:38.960
<v Speaker 1>are committing to our customers. I understand that, but it

0:14:39.000 --> 0:14:41.880
<v Speaker 1>just speaks a weak internal controls and some odd decisions

0:14:41.880 --> 0:14:43.760
<v Speaker 1>that we need to talk about. Magnus, the fact that

0:14:43.800 --> 0:14:45.760
<v Speaker 1>you were allocated to those names, but some of the

0:14:45.840 --> 0:14:49.440
<v Speaker 1>conservative Swedish lenders you ended up selling those positions in

0:14:49.480 --> 0:14:51.320
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty two. So I guess the question that will

0:14:51.360 --> 0:14:54.640
<v Speaker 1>be repeatedly asked of you is just what happened? What

0:14:54.760 --> 0:14:57.560
<v Speaker 1>happened and why did you buy more of those names

0:14:57.560 --> 0:15:04.200
<v Speaker 1>and sound more conservative names. Well, those are two separate issues.

0:15:04.640 --> 0:15:09.480
<v Speaker 1>The divestment of the Swedish banks is a standalone assessment

0:15:09.520 --> 0:15:12.720
<v Speaker 1>and the decision made made at a different time. Talking

0:15:12.720 --> 0:15:16.560
<v Speaker 1>about the US banks, what we liked about then was

0:15:16.560 --> 0:15:19.920
<v Speaker 1>the market position, the position when it comes to transformation

0:15:20.080 --> 0:15:23.320
<v Speaker 1>in the digital space and the US market generally speaking,

0:15:23.360 --> 0:15:26.920
<v Speaker 1>the depth of that and the size of it. We

0:15:27.000 --> 0:15:30.080
<v Speaker 1>had discussion with the Silicon Valley Bank during the fall

0:15:30.200 --> 0:15:32.720
<v Speaker 1>because we also saw as many others, you know, the

0:15:33.080 --> 0:15:37.720
<v Speaker 1>withdrawal of the post sits and the investments the company

0:15:37.720 --> 0:15:41.680
<v Speaker 1>did in the long term government securities and what that

0:15:41.760 --> 0:15:46.800
<v Speaker 1>led when it comes to durational liquidity aspects. We thought

0:15:46.800 --> 0:15:49.200
<v Speaker 1>that the action plan that the company had was they

0:15:49.200 --> 0:15:51.720
<v Speaker 1>were transparent about that, and we thought it was well

0:15:51.760 --> 0:15:55.960
<v Speaker 1>fought through. Then last week the company acted not in

0:15:56.000 --> 0:15:58.480
<v Speaker 1>accordance with the action plan we had discussed and talked

0:15:58.480 --> 0:16:01.160
<v Speaker 1>with them about, and that we had been presentative, and

0:16:01.200 --> 0:16:04.080
<v Speaker 1>that surprised us, and I think that was a big

0:16:04.120 --> 0:16:06.760
<v Speaker 1>mistake from the company's side. Well, clearly, mcnus. It didn't

0:16:06.760 --> 0:16:09.040
<v Speaker 1>just surprise you, It surprised many people, including the regulator

0:16:09.280 --> 0:16:10.800
<v Speaker 1>here in the United States. So a lot of people

0:16:10.840 --> 0:16:13.160
<v Speaker 1>have questions they'll need to answer as well. I want

0:16:13.200 --> 0:16:14.920
<v Speaker 1>to understand how you responded to that in the last

0:16:14.960 --> 0:16:17.480
<v Speaker 1>couple of days. So you've identified some banks that you

0:16:17.560 --> 0:16:21.160
<v Speaker 1>hold that haven't managed their interest rate risk properly. Are

0:16:21.200 --> 0:16:24.600
<v Speaker 1>you worried that you also hold some European banking names

0:16:24.640 --> 0:16:27.480
<v Speaker 1>that maybe you're in the same position, perhaps even worse.

0:16:27.840 --> 0:16:30.000
<v Speaker 1>Given what's happened with the bond market there over the

0:16:30.040 --> 0:16:35.480
<v Speaker 1>last couple of years. We see in the European market

0:16:35.560 --> 0:16:39.080
<v Speaker 1>as well withdraw all of deposits and it's increasing. So

0:16:39.120 --> 0:16:43.200
<v Speaker 1>we're monitoring that very closely, and we're monitoring basically the

0:16:43.280 --> 0:16:45.640
<v Speaker 1>whole exposure we have to the banking sector, which is

0:16:45.680 --> 0:16:48.440
<v Speaker 1>in total two percent of the total portfolio. So I

0:16:48.480 --> 0:16:52.040
<v Speaker 1>think we need the last few days has been you know,

0:16:52.600 --> 0:16:54.880
<v Speaker 1>escalating a little bit in the European market, but we're

0:16:55.080 --> 0:16:59.480
<v Speaker 1>monitoring that. I think the loss to equity ratio is

0:16:59.520 --> 0:17:03.120
<v Speaker 1>completely different or very different in the European space compared

0:17:03.160 --> 0:17:05.439
<v Speaker 1>to some of the banks in the US market that

0:17:05.440 --> 0:17:07.600
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned earlier. Magis, Can we just focus on Europe

0:17:07.640 --> 0:17:12.480
<v Speaker 1>just a little bit more. Do you hold credit suites? No,

0:17:12.600 --> 0:17:14.840
<v Speaker 1>we don't have you sold any names in the last

0:17:14.880 --> 0:17:16.840
<v Speaker 1>twenty four rounds the last four yeer hours. If you

0:17:16.920 --> 0:17:19.400
<v Speaker 1>de risk around the European banks at all in any way,

0:17:19.400 --> 0:17:24.240
<v Speaker 1>shape or form, we have not. We have we hold

0:17:24.359 --> 0:17:30.479
<v Speaker 1>shares in two Nordic banks SCB and Nordia. You also, though,

0:17:30.520 --> 0:17:33.280
<v Speaker 1>have taken on these credit risk transfers over the past

0:17:33.280 --> 0:17:36.200
<v Speaker 1>few years, or basically you take on the risk associated

0:17:36.240 --> 0:17:40.560
<v Speaker 1>with particularly European bank books tied to commercial loans to

0:17:40.640 --> 0:17:43.560
<v Speaker 1>stress that how confident are you that those are going

0:17:43.600 --> 0:17:49.480
<v Speaker 1>to be solid investments. I think the banking sector in

0:17:49.520 --> 0:17:53.639
<v Speaker 1>Europe is stronger than whether we're in prior to the

0:17:53.800 --> 0:17:56.760
<v Speaker 1>global financial crisis, so I think we're in a better

0:17:56.920 --> 0:18:00.280
<v Speaker 1>starting position. Obviously, a lot of things are happening around now,

0:18:00.280 --> 0:18:03.119
<v Speaker 1>and it's clearly a transition face that the market is

0:18:03.119 --> 0:18:06.439
<v Speaker 1>going through with the enormous increase in the interest rate

0:18:06.480 --> 0:18:08.040
<v Speaker 1>that we've seen in the past twelve months and the

0:18:08.119 --> 0:18:12.160
<v Speaker 1>speed of that, and we haven't transitioned through that yet.

0:18:12.920 --> 0:18:15.280
<v Speaker 1>But I think the banks, the Nordic banks that we

0:18:15.440 --> 0:18:18.560
<v Speaker 1>hold chairs are in a solid position as of today.

0:18:19.160 --> 0:18:20.800
<v Speaker 1>Given the bet that you made on some of the

0:18:20.880 --> 0:18:24.280
<v Speaker 1>US banks, I'm wondering how you're handling the fallout, whether

0:18:24.440 --> 0:18:27.200
<v Speaker 1>you're getting out of the positions, whether you're doubling down,

0:18:27.400 --> 0:18:30.960
<v Speaker 1>whether you're buying more. What's been sort of the positioning

0:18:30.960 --> 0:18:35.520
<v Speaker 1>over the past couple of days. Well, when you talk

0:18:35.560 --> 0:18:40.080
<v Speaker 1>about the silicon value Bank and the signature bank being

0:18:40.119 --> 0:18:43.000
<v Speaker 1>in a receivership. I think it's more a legal issue

0:18:43.040 --> 0:18:46.560
<v Speaker 1>for us to ensure that we protect our legal rights there.

0:18:46.640 --> 0:18:48.600
<v Speaker 1>I don't expect any value to come out with that

0:18:48.800 --> 0:18:52.560
<v Speaker 1>ass of today when it comes to First Republic. Obviously,

0:18:53.040 --> 0:18:56.600
<v Speaker 1>it's very volatile and it's day to day. Basically, yesterday

0:18:56.840 --> 0:19:01.560
<v Speaker 1>it fell a lot, today it's up again. Well, we

0:19:01.680 --> 0:19:04.320
<v Speaker 1>haven't taken any decision yet, but we are ready to

0:19:04.359 --> 0:19:07.760
<v Speaker 1>take decisions as we see appropriate for us at any stage.

0:19:07.760 --> 0:19:10.200
<v Speaker 1>But we haven't taken a major actions today which brought

0:19:10.240 --> 0:19:13.760
<v Speaker 1>to that bank magus. Every crisis unfolds with a certain character.

0:19:14.040 --> 0:19:17.840
<v Speaker 1>We make note of Sweden's wonderful work many many decades

0:19:17.880 --> 0:19:21.040
<v Speaker 1>ago and inventing a whole bit of central bank theory

0:19:21.080 --> 0:19:26.120
<v Speaker 1>with how Stockholm handled a crisis. The theme right now

0:19:26.200 --> 0:19:29.520
<v Speaker 1>seems to be the shadows or the mysteries of private

0:19:29.520 --> 0:19:34.480
<v Speaker 1>equity and venture capital in America. Conservative money is addicted

0:19:34.560 --> 0:19:38.360
<v Speaker 1>to the potential return of that group. Are you exposed

0:19:38.400 --> 0:19:42.479
<v Speaker 1>to private equity and venture capital long term locked in

0:19:42.680 --> 0:19:46.040
<v Speaker 1>holdings and do you worry that there could be some

0:19:46.119 --> 0:19:52.320
<v Speaker 1>real issues there with liquidity in our equity portfolio, our

0:19:52.359 --> 0:19:57.520
<v Speaker 1>investment model is predominantly focused on more mature companies and

0:19:57.560 --> 0:20:01.280
<v Speaker 1>we invest directly in those. So we're looking for strong

0:20:01.320 --> 0:20:06.040
<v Speaker 1>cash flow RODDAM potential growth and future positive cash flow.

0:20:06.440 --> 0:20:08.880
<v Speaker 1>With that set, that means that we don't we basically

0:20:08.880 --> 0:20:12.200
<v Speaker 1>don't have any private equity exposure and VC exposure, not portfolio.

0:20:12.320 --> 0:20:14.040
<v Speaker 1>You've been doing this for a few years. Do you

0:20:14.080 --> 0:20:17.439
<v Speaker 1>assume in crisis, with the way yields are gyrating, the

0:20:17.560 --> 0:20:20.520
<v Speaker 1>way all central banks have become more restrictive in the

0:20:20.600 --> 0:20:25.120
<v Speaker 1>last four or five days, do you suggest that not

0:20:25.200 --> 0:20:30.040
<v Speaker 1>the actual assumption, but just the expected return of pension

0:20:30.080 --> 0:20:36.000
<v Speaker 1>portfolios will come down. Yes. I do think that the

0:20:36.040 --> 0:20:39.119
<v Speaker 1>next ten years will be more difficult to generate return,

0:20:40.480 --> 0:20:44.360
<v Speaker 1>and I think we will see changes in the investment

0:20:44.400 --> 0:20:48.840
<v Speaker 1>models in the pension fund industry in order to secure

0:20:49.040 --> 0:20:52.800
<v Speaker 1>adequate return for for the beneficiarcy. Sir, My great theme

0:20:52.840 --> 0:20:55.240
<v Speaker 1>here is we've had interest rate come in as we've

0:20:55.240 --> 0:20:59.600
<v Speaker 1>come back and normalized yield, certainly normalized yield. Within the

0:20:59.640 --> 0:21:03.280
<v Speaker 1>europe p and sphere as well, is a troubled non

0:21:03.280 --> 0:21:07.400
<v Speaker 1>profitable companies what we call in America zombies, that they

0:21:07.400 --> 0:21:11.080
<v Speaker 1>will go away, whether they're banks or anything else. As well.

0:21:11.560 --> 0:21:16.040
<v Speaker 1>Do you suggest that we will see combinations and transactions

0:21:16.119 --> 0:21:19.920
<v Speaker 1>to clear out companies have had essentially a free lunch

0:21:20.000 --> 0:21:26.040
<v Speaker 1>for sixteen years. Yeah, I do think some companies are

0:21:27.400 --> 0:21:32.960
<v Speaker 1>have benefited too much or all the center banks put

0:21:33.359 --> 0:21:35.040
<v Speaker 1>and the fact that we've been living in the world

0:21:35.119 --> 0:21:38.280
<v Speaker 1>for many years where cost of capital has been basically zero,

0:21:39.240 --> 0:21:41.560
<v Speaker 1>and I don't think that that is sustainable little long

0:21:41.680 --> 0:21:45.320
<v Speaker 1>term and I would suspect that some businesses out there

0:21:45.320 --> 0:21:49.600
<v Speaker 1>will struggle to adjust to more normalized interest rate level

0:21:49.760 --> 0:21:52.640
<v Speaker 1>long term magnets as you and I talking, as we're

0:21:52.680 --> 0:21:55.359
<v Speaker 1>all speaking, the first Deputy Governor of the Swedish Central

0:21:55.359 --> 0:21:57.919
<v Speaker 1>Banks address in Parliament at the moment, suggesting that we

0:21:57.960 --> 0:22:00.880
<v Speaker 1>need more timing despite well it's ability. There are people

0:22:00.880 --> 0:22:03.159
<v Speaker 1>who believe that things are breaking now and these central

0:22:03.160 --> 0:22:05.320
<v Speaker 1>banks need to back away. Can we finish on that?

0:22:05.640 --> 0:22:11.159
<v Speaker 1>What's your take on that? So I didn't hear the

0:22:11.240 --> 0:22:13.680
<v Speaker 1>question that properly, so could you I can repeat it, sir?

0:22:13.840 --> 0:22:16.000
<v Speaker 1>By all means. So, the first Deputy government of the

0:22:16.080 --> 0:22:19.720
<v Speaker 1>ricks Bank is speaking to Parliament right now suggesting that

0:22:19.760 --> 0:22:23.199
<v Speaker 1>we need more tightening despite the volatility. Magnus. As you know,

0:22:23.280 --> 0:22:25.800
<v Speaker 1>the conversation in the last twenty four hours is that people,

0:22:25.960 --> 0:22:29.040
<v Speaker 1>some people believe things are breaking and central banks should

0:22:29.040 --> 0:22:33.919
<v Speaker 1>back away. What's your take on that, sir. I do

0:22:34.000 --> 0:22:37.200
<v Speaker 1>think that we in the market space today actually see

0:22:37.200 --> 0:22:40.080
<v Speaker 1>a de facto tightening, and I think that should be

0:22:40.119 --> 0:22:43.080
<v Speaker 1>catered into the policy decisions to be made going forward.

0:22:44.160 --> 0:22:47.880
<v Speaker 1>And it's very difficult assessments to make, obviously, but I'm

0:22:47.920 --> 0:22:50.679
<v Speaker 1>a little bit concern that we're breaking or breaking the

0:22:50.760 --> 0:22:54.440
<v Speaker 1>markets if we're too aggressive. Obviously, we need to bring

0:22:54.440 --> 0:22:58.280
<v Speaker 1>down the inflation because that is the long term number

0:22:58.280 --> 0:23:01.439
<v Speaker 1>one fall for all the market participants. But it's a

0:23:01.440 --> 0:23:05.120
<v Speaker 1>balancing act here, and I think again that the current

0:23:05.480 --> 0:23:08.240
<v Speaker 1>defect of marketing, it tightening, that's happening, should be catered

0:23:08.280 --> 0:23:11.040
<v Speaker 1>into the consideration. Magnus, is a difficult time for everyone,

0:23:11.080 --> 0:23:13.680
<v Speaker 1>particularly for you this morning, and we appreciate the opportunity

0:23:13.720 --> 0:23:16.200
<v Speaker 1>to speak with you at that difficult time. Thanks for BEINGMDUS.

0:23:16.280 --> 0:23:19.240
<v Speaker 1>Magnus billing the I've elect a Swedish pension fund with

0:23:19.280 --> 0:23:26.240
<v Speaker 1>exposure to all the wrong names. This is a joy.

0:23:26.359 --> 0:23:28.800
<v Speaker 1>His name is Ethan Harris. He's an author. He's also

0:23:28.840 --> 0:23:31.960
<v Speaker 1>had a global research at Bank of America's Securities and

0:23:32.040 --> 0:23:35.359
<v Speaker 1>stopped economics with appression book Ben Vernanke's Fed a few

0:23:36.000 --> 0:23:38.680
<v Speaker 1>years ago. In that book, you talked about a theme

0:23:38.720 --> 0:23:41.760
<v Speaker 1>I just talked to Vincent Reinhardt about, which was the

0:23:41.800 --> 0:23:46.600
<v Speaker 1>shadow of Alan Greenspan. Are we in this mess, doctor Harris,

0:23:46.640 --> 0:23:51.880
<v Speaker 1>because we became unmeasured? Well, I think that. I don't

0:23:51.920 --> 0:23:55.400
<v Speaker 1>think Alan Greenspan's legacy is really that strong right now.

0:23:55.480 --> 0:23:58.399
<v Speaker 1>I think we got into this mess because, like a

0:23:58.440 --> 0:24:01.560
<v Speaker 1>lot of central banks and a lot of economists, the

0:24:01.600 --> 0:24:05.320
<v Speaker 1>FED started to believe that inflation was largely dead and

0:24:05.400 --> 0:24:08.119
<v Speaker 1>you didn't have to worry about a sloped Phillips curve

0:24:08.160 --> 0:24:10.919
<v Speaker 1>to put a technical term on it, and so they

0:24:10.960 --> 0:24:15.480
<v Speaker 1>adopted a very passive monetary policy. Now we're seeing a

0:24:15.640 --> 0:24:19.560
<v Speaker 1>massive ketchup by the FED, and of course financial accidents

0:24:19.600 --> 0:24:23.679
<v Speaker 1>happen when you're hiking rates very fast, and so some

0:24:23.760 --> 0:24:26.280
<v Speaker 1>of this is a legacy of the FED and other

0:24:26.280 --> 0:24:29.560
<v Speaker 1>central banks starting too slowly to deal with inflation. The

0:24:29.720 --> 0:24:34.200
<v Speaker 1>legacy and reality that I've seen within Brian moynihan in

0:24:34.240 --> 0:24:38.560
<v Speaker 1>his Modern Bank of America is he's viscerally granular. Brian,

0:24:38.640 --> 0:24:42.080
<v Speaker 1>more than any other CEO I know, has a granular

0:24:42.200 --> 0:24:46.800
<v Speaker 1>feel with all that research on your banking side, do

0:24:46.880 --> 0:24:51.560
<v Speaker 1>you see a financial integrity to our banking system beneath

0:24:51.840 --> 0:24:54.359
<v Speaker 1>the massive Bank of America. Well, I don't want to

0:24:54.400 --> 0:24:56.879
<v Speaker 1>comment on Bank of America specific, no, I mean on

0:24:56.880 --> 0:24:59.520
<v Speaker 1>the other banks. So I think then that Moynahan's glued

0:24:59.560 --> 0:25:03.800
<v Speaker 1>to when I think one of the questions for investors

0:25:03.840 --> 0:25:06.080
<v Speaker 1>these days is how healthy is a banking system? And

0:25:06.160 --> 0:25:09.800
<v Speaker 1>I think, as your previous guests said, the banking system

0:25:09.800 --> 0:25:15.520
<v Speaker 1>overalls and excellent health. It's heavily regulated, heavily capitalized. You're

0:25:15.560 --> 0:25:19.600
<v Speaker 1>always going to have during periods of stress, some events,

0:25:20.040 --> 0:25:23.760
<v Speaker 1>and I would think of this as a stress event

0:25:24.600 --> 0:25:28.919
<v Speaker 1>in the context of otherwise not just strong financial banking system,

0:25:28.960 --> 0:25:31.440
<v Speaker 1>but strong financial system in general. So when you look

0:25:31.440 --> 0:25:33.199
<v Speaker 1>at the balance of risks right now, and this is

0:25:33.240 --> 0:25:34.879
<v Speaker 1>something that I've been giving a lot of thought too.

0:25:34.960 --> 0:25:37.360
<v Speaker 1>If the financial system is strong, you have these supports,

0:25:37.359 --> 0:25:39.639
<v Speaker 1>you get a best sense of a rebound. It doesn't

0:25:39.680 --> 0:25:42.920
<v Speaker 1>really tighten financial conditions all that much from where we were,

0:25:42.960 --> 0:25:46.600
<v Speaker 1>and in fact, given the lower expectations for FED rate hikes,

0:25:46.760 --> 0:25:50.199
<v Speaker 1>you have easier financial conditions and you did just a

0:25:50.200 --> 0:25:53.639
<v Speaker 1>bit ago. At what point does that become a huge

0:25:53.760 --> 0:25:56.800
<v Speaker 1>risk for inflation that does not come down. Well, I

0:25:56.800 --> 0:25:59.399
<v Speaker 1>think we need to recognize that we're in the middle

0:25:59.400 --> 0:26:02.040
<v Speaker 1>of a of a stress event, and so it's very

0:26:02.040 --> 0:26:05.479
<v Speaker 1>hard to predict where things are going. The markets will

0:26:05.520 --> 0:26:08.760
<v Speaker 1>always price out the central bank during a crisis like this.

0:26:09.560 --> 0:26:13.840
<v Speaker 1>But the real question is does the policy efforts. Does

0:26:13.880 --> 0:26:16.440
<v Speaker 1>the attempt to ring friends the problem? Does it work.

0:26:16.600 --> 0:26:19.679
<v Speaker 1>If it works, the FED then goes back to their

0:26:19.720 --> 0:26:22.720
<v Speaker 1>regularly scheduled program and they have to deal with inflation.

0:26:22.760 --> 0:26:26.560
<v Speaker 1>If it doesn't work, then monetary policy gets drawn into

0:26:26.600 --> 0:26:30.800
<v Speaker 1>the process of supporting the financial system. Our view is

0:26:30.840 --> 0:26:34.200
<v Speaker 1>that ultimately the ring fencing works and the FED goes

0:26:34.200 --> 0:26:37.520
<v Speaker 1>back to hiking interest rates. So I think our view

0:26:37.560 --> 0:26:42.200
<v Speaker 1>would be that the markets understandably are in a very

0:26:43.119 --> 0:26:46.280
<v Speaker 1>risk off mode, but ultimately the Fed's going to end

0:26:46.359 --> 0:26:48.240
<v Speaker 1>up having to fight inflation. And this is the reason

0:26:48.280 --> 0:26:50.520
<v Speaker 1>why you're in the camp of another twenty five bases

0:26:50.520 --> 0:26:53.320
<v Speaker 1>point rate hike next week. But I do wander longer

0:26:53.440 --> 0:26:56.720
<v Speaker 1>term whether the signs of stress have kind of gut

0:26:56.800 --> 0:26:59.159
<v Speaker 1>checked your sense of how much these long and variable

0:26:59.200 --> 0:27:01.920
<v Speaker 1>lags have come to the four and put a higher

0:27:02.320 --> 0:27:04.879
<v Speaker 1>or rather a lower cap on how high rates can

0:27:04.920 --> 0:27:09.520
<v Speaker 1>go well. I think that unquestionably this this stress and

0:27:09.560 --> 0:27:12.919
<v Speaker 1>the system now titans financial conditions and is a warning

0:27:12.960 --> 0:27:16.440
<v Speaker 1>about the lag defects of monetary policy. It's actually been

0:27:16.640 --> 0:27:19.720
<v Speaker 1>surprising how little impact the Feds had up to now.

0:27:20.560 --> 0:27:24.359
<v Speaker 1>They hiked at a very fast pace. Now we're seeing

0:27:24.400 --> 0:27:28.359
<v Speaker 1>some effects, and perhaps an extreme effect, and so it

0:27:28.400 --> 0:27:30.440
<v Speaker 1>does have to make you a little more cautious about

0:27:30.440 --> 0:27:33.640
<v Speaker 1>how far the Fed needs to go. Mike. But let's

0:27:33.640 --> 0:27:35.400
<v Speaker 1>get out in front of Michael Gapan in the next

0:27:35.400 --> 0:27:37.439
<v Speaker 1>hour with John Ferrell. He's a good economist, I mean

0:27:37.480 --> 0:27:39.840
<v Speaker 1>he is, I think so. But let's get let's get

0:27:39.880 --> 0:27:42.800
<v Speaker 1>the hair escape in view here. Did they hike too rapidly?

0:27:42.920 --> 0:27:44.960
<v Speaker 1>Were you guys sitting over the last number of weeks

0:27:45.000 --> 0:27:48.119
<v Speaker 1>going at the rate of change and Newtonian calculus of

0:27:48.119 --> 0:27:50.879
<v Speaker 1>all this dance is just a little bit off. No,

0:27:51.480 --> 0:27:54.240
<v Speaker 1>I don't think so. I'm sitting now. I think that

0:27:54.280 --> 0:27:57.760
<v Speaker 1>the the original error was waiting too long to hike.

0:27:59.359 --> 0:28:01.399
<v Speaker 1>The graduate was some of green span. You know, the

0:28:01.440 --> 0:28:05.040
<v Speaker 1>idea of hiker early so you can hike slowly wasn't

0:28:05.560 --> 0:28:08.240
<v Speaker 1>carried out and wasn't the stands of the shadow of Greenspan.

0:28:08.359 --> 0:28:11.760
<v Speaker 1>Here the shadows do it that they didn't do with Well,

0:28:11.800 --> 0:28:13.720
<v Speaker 1>we got to just go to Michael mcughs diving into

0:28:13.760 --> 0:28:16.600
<v Speaker 1>forty seven pages of inflation data. Goods you said was

0:28:16.680 --> 0:28:22.159
<v Speaker 1>one percent. Can you joyous about a service disinflation? No, Unfortunately,

0:28:22.200 --> 0:28:25.480
<v Speaker 1>services go up a little bit seven point two six percent.

0:28:25.800 --> 0:28:28.240
<v Speaker 1>But a lot of that, as we mentioned, is housing

0:28:28.240 --> 0:28:30.879
<v Speaker 1>owner's equivalent rent up seven tenths, same as it was

0:28:31.320 --> 0:28:34.360
<v Speaker 1>last month. Rent of primary residence up eight tenths. That's

0:28:34.359 --> 0:28:37.480
<v Speaker 1>a tenth more than it was in the month of January.

0:28:37.680 --> 0:28:41.800
<v Speaker 1>But also we got a big boost in the lodging category.

0:28:42.080 --> 0:28:45.000
<v Speaker 1>For shelter, it's up two point three percent. That's more

0:28:45.040 --> 0:28:51.040
<v Speaker 1>than double what it was the month of January. Air

0:28:51.040 --> 0:28:53.400
<v Speaker 1>fares were up. But here's an interesting thing, and it'd

0:28:53.400 --> 0:28:55.920
<v Speaker 1>be interested to see if if Ethan would go so

0:28:55.960 --> 0:28:58.480
<v Speaker 1>far as to extrapolate the way I'm trying to hear.

0:28:58.560 --> 0:29:01.760
<v Speaker 1>But if you're looking at where you might be seeing

0:29:01.880 --> 0:29:05.720
<v Speaker 1>wage increases, we've talked about leisure and hospitality a lot.

0:29:06.320 --> 0:29:09.840
<v Speaker 1>Food away from home up six tenths for the second

0:29:09.920 --> 0:29:14.120
<v Speaker 1>month in a row, and full service meals up six tenths.

0:29:14.440 --> 0:29:18.240
<v Speaker 1>That's a tenth higher than it was so prices are

0:29:18.280 --> 0:29:22.400
<v Speaker 1>going up at restaurants, Alcoholic beverage prices went down. I'm

0:29:22.440 --> 0:29:25.640
<v Speaker 1>not sure if that's not went down but tailed off

0:29:25.640 --> 0:29:28.200
<v Speaker 1>in inflation. I'm not sure as Tom help with that,

0:29:28.640 --> 0:29:30.840
<v Speaker 1>But to that point, and Ethan, I'd love you to

0:29:30.840 --> 0:29:33.200
<v Speaker 1>weigh in on this, because we have seen people willing

0:29:33.240 --> 0:29:35.400
<v Speaker 1>to spend, and they're willing to spend on services, and

0:29:35.440 --> 0:29:39.880
<v Speaker 1>that isn't diminishing. Distress in the financial system really change that.

0:29:39.960 --> 0:29:42.720
<v Speaker 1>If people can get their deposits and everyone just goes

0:29:42.760 --> 0:29:45.240
<v Speaker 1>on their way. Well, if you can get past the

0:29:45.400 --> 0:29:48.880
<v Speaker 1>panic moment here in the markets, which it is, you're

0:29:48.960 --> 0:29:53.320
<v Speaker 1>back to an economy that's solid. It hasn't threatened the

0:29:53.360 --> 0:29:57.640
<v Speaker 1>recession yet. As Mike pointed out, there's a lot of

0:29:57.680 --> 0:30:02.600
<v Speaker 1>inflation in areas where labor class are important. You can't

0:30:02.680 --> 0:30:05.360
<v Speaker 1>fix your inflation problem just by getting an improvement in

0:30:05.440 --> 0:30:09.360
<v Speaker 1>supply chains. You need to get the service side under control.

0:30:09.400 --> 0:30:11.600
<v Speaker 1>You need a normal labor market, and we don't have

0:30:11.640 --> 0:30:14.160
<v Speaker 1>a normal labor market just quickly. I'd love your sense.

0:30:14.400 --> 0:30:16.400
<v Speaker 1>Vincent Reinhart was on and he said that if this

0:30:16.440 --> 0:30:20.000
<v Speaker 1>FED reserve comes out and doesn't hike rates because of

0:30:20.240 --> 0:30:23.920
<v Speaker 1>potential financial system stress. It is basically saying that what

0:30:23.960 --> 0:30:27.080
<v Speaker 1>they did on Sunday was not effective, that that program

0:30:27.320 --> 0:30:30.400
<v Speaker 1>was not sufficient to stave off any distress. Do you agree,

0:30:30.440 --> 0:30:32.080
<v Speaker 1>I mean, do you think that if they do not

0:30:32.200 --> 0:30:34.479
<v Speaker 1>raise twenty five bases points that will be a policy

0:30:34.600 --> 0:30:37.640
<v Speaker 1>error given the data we've seen. I would never contradict Vince.

0:30:37.920 --> 0:30:41.640
<v Speaker 1>He and I were grad students together, anyways. No, I

0:30:41.640 --> 0:30:46.400
<v Speaker 1>think that. I think that it depends on how stress

0:30:46.480 --> 0:30:49.520
<v Speaker 1>the markets are. If the markets are in serious distress,

0:30:49.640 --> 0:30:53.240
<v Speaker 1>pausing is okay. If they're improving a lot and the

0:30:53.320 --> 0:30:56.840
<v Speaker 1>ring fencing is working, then you can start to wonder

0:30:56.880 --> 0:30:59.719
<v Speaker 1>whether the FED has confidence in its ring fencing. So

0:31:00.000 --> 0:31:03.120
<v Speaker 1>think that's a legitimate concern. You and Vincent Reinhardt were

0:31:03.160 --> 0:31:08.440
<v Speaker 1>the laureate Ned Phelps. His later career is dynamism. Do

0:31:08.560 --> 0:31:12.880
<v Speaker 1>we risk losing our dynamism because of this crisis, and

0:31:13.000 --> 0:31:16.520
<v Speaker 1>particularly the Silicon Valley crisis. Well, I think that there's

0:31:16.600 --> 0:31:19.960
<v Speaker 1>been The COVID crisis itself has taken some of the

0:31:20.040 --> 0:31:23.040
<v Speaker 1>mojo out of the economy. I think that the tech

0:31:23.120 --> 0:31:26.520
<v Speaker 1>sector to some degree has overexpanded. I think this is

0:31:26.520 --> 0:31:28.760
<v Speaker 1>a temporary thing for tech. Tech is still going to

0:31:28.800 --> 0:31:31.240
<v Speaker 1>be a driver of growth going forward. Don't be a stranger.

0:31:32.360 --> 0:31:34.920
<v Speaker 1>Ring mister moynihan with you next time. Doctor Harris is

0:31:34.920 --> 0:31:48.960
<v Speaker 1>with the Bank of America. We are thrilled to have

0:31:48.960 --> 0:31:51.760
<v Speaker 1>the former banker of Little Rock with us right now.

0:31:51.960 --> 0:31:54.360
<v Speaker 1>He is a name that will become very familiar to

0:31:54.400 --> 0:31:57.280
<v Speaker 1>Americans here in the study of this financial blow up.

0:31:57.760 --> 0:32:01.560
<v Speaker 1>He is french Hill, Republican from Arkansas. French Show. When

0:32:01.560 --> 0:32:03.800
<v Speaker 1>you were at Vanderbilt, if you went down forty and

0:32:03.920 --> 0:32:06.360
<v Speaker 1>north on two sixty five, you ended up where this

0:32:06.400 --> 0:32:11.800
<v Speaker 1>debate began, at the Hermitage. It Andrew Jackson's spectacular home

0:32:12.000 --> 0:32:15.560
<v Speaker 1>east of Nashville, and that's where this debate started, the

0:32:15.680 --> 0:32:19.400
<v Speaker 1>raging debate over the Second Bank of the United States.

0:32:19.760 --> 0:32:24.000
<v Speaker 1>The Republicans are Jacksonian, They're scared stiff of the big

0:32:24.040 --> 0:32:28.440
<v Speaker 1>money of New York, etc. Etc. And the Democrats of

0:32:28.480 --> 0:32:31.880
<v Speaker 1>the urban milieu push against that. How is this battle

0:32:31.960 --> 0:32:34.680
<v Speaker 1>going to play out? Are we still in fear of

0:32:34.800 --> 0:32:39.600
<v Speaker 1>the Second Bank of the United States? Well, Tom, I

0:32:39.680 --> 0:32:42.480
<v Speaker 1>love the history lesson and the Hermitage is a beautiful spot.

0:32:42.480 --> 0:32:47.000
<v Speaker 1>And Jackson was a super controversial president. But today we're

0:32:47.040 --> 0:32:49.920
<v Speaker 1>faced with a situation where I think after ten years

0:32:49.960 --> 0:32:54.080
<v Speaker 1>of easy money and amazing amounts of fiscal stimulus. I

0:32:54.120 --> 0:32:58.320
<v Speaker 1>think some management teams have forgotten their prudential obligations to

0:32:58.360 --> 0:33:01.560
<v Speaker 1>their depositors and their shareholders. So we have a real

0:33:01.640 --> 0:33:04.920
<v Speaker 1>laxity and risk management in some of our financial institutions,

0:33:05.360 --> 0:33:08.080
<v Speaker 1>and perhaps we've got laxity in the supervision of those

0:33:08.120 --> 0:33:11.440
<v Speaker 1>institutions as well, particularly in the case of Silicon Valley.

0:33:11.520 --> 0:33:14.080
<v Speaker 1>Do we need to treat the banks such as Delphire

0:33:14.160 --> 0:33:16.520
<v Speaker 1>that you ran in Arkansas? Do we need to treat

0:33:16.640 --> 0:33:20.400
<v Speaker 1>smaller banks like the bigger banks out of Dadd Frank?

0:33:20.480 --> 0:33:23.400
<v Speaker 1>Do we need a one regulatory system? Is that the

0:33:23.480 --> 0:33:27.600
<v Speaker 1>lesson learned well? I think some of the costs of

0:33:27.680 --> 0:33:31.360
<v Speaker 1>Dodd Frank on small banks made them less competitive, harder

0:33:31.400 --> 0:33:35.640
<v Speaker 1>to earn a return on invested capital there, and that's

0:33:35.640 --> 0:33:39.880
<v Speaker 1>why Democrats and Republicans came together, as you noted earlier,

0:33:39.920 --> 0:33:43.680
<v Speaker 1>and Barney Frank supported it to make modifications in Dodd

0:33:43.760 --> 0:33:48.440
<v Speaker 1>Frank's regulatory burden on small financial institutions. I don't think

0:33:48.480 --> 0:33:52.040
<v Speaker 1>that in any way, shape or form reduced the obligations

0:33:52.040 --> 0:33:55.880
<v Speaker 1>of the bankers for their risk management legal requirements or

0:33:55.920 --> 0:33:59.080
<v Speaker 1>for the supervisors to do their routine job on a

0:33:59.160 --> 0:34:02.360
<v Speaker 1>quarterly basis to make sure the system is safe and sound. Comngressman,

0:34:02.400 --> 0:34:05.240
<v Speaker 1>you keep mentioning the supervision, and I'm wondering how much

0:34:05.240 --> 0:34:08.279
<v Speaker 1>you fault Jerome Powell's voter to reserve for the lack

0:34:08.440 --> 0:34:13.640
<v Speaker 1>of supervision that you're talking about. Well, the Silicon Valley

0:34:13.719 --> 0:34:19.120
<v Speaker 1>Bank clearly had risk management problems in their strategy about

0:34:19.840 --> 0:34:23.479
<v Speaker 1>short term deposits that were unensured invested in long term

0:34:23.520 --> 0:34:28.000
<v Speaker 1>treasury and mortgage securities. And the California Bank Regulators, the

0:34:28.080 --> 0:34:31.920
<v Speaker 1>state bank regulators, were the principal regulator, backed up by

0:34:31.920 --> 0:34:36.440
<v Speaker 1>the San Francisco Bank of the FED, and so they

0:34:36.480 --> 0:34:40.560
<v Speaker 1>do have a supervisory obligation. This bank grew very very

0:34:40.640 --> 0:34:43.440
<v Speaker 1>fast over the last two years, and that is usually

0:34:43.480 --> 0:34:47.439
<v Speaker 1>a huge red flag to supervisors, and perhaps they could

0:34:47.440 --> 0:34:50.480
<v Speaker 1>have intervened and helped the management team steer in a

0:34:50.600 --> 0:34:53.200
<v Speaker 1>much more safe and sound direction. Do you think that

0:34:53.280 --> 0:34:56.160
<v Speaker 1>things have stabilized enough that you have confidence, given the

0:34:56.200 --> 0:35:00.760
<v Speaker 1>intelligence that you've received, that the stability in the financial

0:35:00.760 --> 0:35:03.240
<v Speaker 1>system is sound and that we're unlikely to see something

0:35:03.239 --> 0:35:06.799
<v Speaker 1>else like this in the near future. Well, you never

0:35:06.920 --> 0:35:08.600
<v Speaker 1>know what's going to happen. In the future. But we

0:35:08.680 --> 0:35:11.600
<v Speaker 1>do have a safe and sound banking system with good

0:35:11.640 --> 0:35:16.160
<v Speaker 1>capital and good earnings and generally good liquidity planning across

0:35:16.200 --> 0:35:18.880
<v Speaker 1>the nation. I think that's clear over the past decade.

0:35:18.920 --> 0:35:22.320
<v Speaker 1>But I think with the low interest rates at zero

0:35:22.400 --> 0:35:25.760
<v Speaker 1>and then a sharp increase in short rates, some management

0:35:25.800 --> 0:35:30.160
<v Speaker 1>teams were not prepared for handling that in the right way,

0:35:30.200 --> 0:35:32.640
<v Speaker 1>and so we may have bumps in the road as

0:35:32.640 --> 0:35:34.640
<v Speaker 1>a result of that, And you've certainly seen that in

0:35:34.680 --> 0:35:38.759
<v Speaker 1>the case of Silicon Valley last week. Congressman. You've come

0:35:38.760 --> 0:35:41.440
<v Speaker 1>on the show before and talked about how inflation is

0:35:41.480 --> 0:35:44.440
<v Speaker 1>at tax on the poorest members of our society, about

0:35:44.480 --> 0:35:48.000
<v Speaker 1>how when inflation gets this high it becomes punitive for

0:35:48.040 --> 0:35:51.520
<v Speaker 1>so many families. How important is it from your vantage

0:35:51.520 --> 0:35:54.640
<v Speaker 1>point to see the ongoing rate hikes or some sort

0:35:54.680 --> 0:35:58.520
<v Speaker 1>of continuation in monetary policy regardless of some of the

0:35:58.560 --> 0:36:00.880
<v Speaker 1>concerns that we've seen in the financial system, or do

0:36:00.920 --> 0:36:03.600
<v Speaker 1>you think that this is the clarion call that perhaps

0:36:03.640 --> 0:36:07.719
<v Speaker 1>what we've seen is enough. Lisa, it's a it's a

0:36:07.719 --> 0:36:10.160
<v Speaker 1>tough question. As I've said on your show before, that's

0:36:10.160 --> 0:36:14.000
<v Speaker 1>the anguish of central banking to try to balance these factors.

0:36:14.040 --> 0:36:17.000
<v Speaker 1>But look, the FED has a central obligation to all

0:36:17.040 --> 0:36:20.080
<v Speaker 1>of us in our families of price stability, so they've

0:36:20.120 --> 0:36:22.479
<v Speaker 1>got to have that as their principal mission. But they'll

0:36:22.520 --> 0:36:26.080
<v Speaker 1>look at financial fragility as well. But I think the

0:36:26.120 --> 0:36:29.160
<v Speaker 1>FED should stay on track, using their best judgment and

0:36:29.239 --> 0:36:31.759
<v Speaker 1>looking at the data and make sure that they can

0:36:31.800 --> 0:36:35.040
<v Speaker 1>beat this inflation and get it back down to closer

0:36:35.040 --> 0:36:38.200
<v Speaker 1>to that target of two percent. If we get to

0:36:38.280 --> 0:36:43.360
<v Speaker 1>some new insurance regime. The belief here, Congressman, is the

0:36:43.440 --> 0:36:46.040
<v Speaker 1>banks are going to pay for it, not to taxpayer.

0:36:46.120 --> 0:36:51.800
<v Speaker 1>I get that idea, But is our Vest Bank of Bentonville, Arkansas?

0:36:52.280 --> 0:36:54.400
<v Speaker 1>Are they going to have to pick up the tab

0:36:54.960 --> 0:37:01.560
<v Speaker 1>for the irresponsible behavior of West Coast technocrats. Yeah, Tom,

0:37:01.560 --> 0:37:03.560
<v Speaker 1>this is a great question. And you know, back in

0:37:03.600 --> 0:37:05.680
<v Speaker 1>two thousand and eight and two thousand and nine we

0:37:05.719 --> 0:37:10.200
<v Speaker 1>moved to risk based premiums based on the bank's camel rating,

0:37:10.200 --> 0:37:13.280
<v Speaker 1>their risk rating by the regulators. That was a step

0:37:13.320 --> 0:37:16.920
<v Speaker 1>to making sure that people who run a poorer shop

0:37:16.960 --> 0:37:20.600
<v Speaker 1>pay a higher deposit insurance premium. Now the question is

0:37:20.600 --> 0:37:24.439
<v Speaker 1>should we have some sort of premium on top of

0:37:24.880 --> 0:37:27.920
<v Speaker 1>this risk based premium that would cover these sorts of

0:37:28.280 --> 0:37:31.160
<v Speaker 1>situations where a bank is determined to be like they

0:37:31.200 --> 0:37:35.440
<v Speaker 1>did this weekend, systemically important, and yet we're ensuring deposits

0:37:35.440 --> 0:37:38.120
<v Speaker 1>for which no premium was paid. I think this is

0:37:38.160 --> 0:37:41.080
<v Speaker 1>an important area for policy to consider. We looked at

0:37:41.120 --> 0:37:43.759
<v Speaker 1>it back into O eight to ten. I think we

0:37:43.840 --> 0:37:45.560
<v Speaker 1>need to look at it again in the face of

0:37:45.560 --> 0:37:48.960
<v Speaker 1>this new banking system and Twitter runs, which is what

0:37:50.160 --> 0:37:54.120
<v Speaker 1>was precipitating this collapse last week. Let's meet in the rotunda.

0:37:54.200 --> 0:37:57.840
<v Speaker 1>What is the common ground, Congressman Hill, of you and

0:37:58.000 --> 0:38:02.520
<v Speaker 1>Senator Warren Well, I think both Senator Warren and I

0:38:02.600 --> 0:38:05.080
<v Speaker 1>want a safe and sound banking system. We want to

0:38:05.080 --> 0:38:08.560
<v Speaker 1>make sure, for example, in the digital assets space, that

0:38:08.680 --> 0:38:11.479
<v Speaker 1>the rules of the road are clear, that we don't

0:38:11.520 --> 0:38:14.040
<v Speaker 1>have this speculation that we've seen in that market, and

0:38:14.080 --> 0:38:17.960
<v Speaker 1>that criminals are prosecuted and fraudsters are prosecuted. But I

0:38:17.960 --> 0:38:20.800
<v Speaker 1>would say to Senator Warren, look, we have a robust

0:38:20.960 --> 0:38:24.520
<v Speaker 1>regulatory system with plenty of rules on banks of all sizes.

0:38:24.800 --> 0:38:28.400
<v Speaker 1>What we need to see is vigorous supervision of those

0:38:28.440 --> 0:38:31.520
<v Speaker 1>banks by their primary regulators at all stages of the

0:38:31.560 --> 0:38:34.840
<v Speaker 1>economic cycle. Does not mean Congressman walking back some of

0:38:34.880 --> 0:38:39.640
<v Speaker 1>the deregulation we silk I throw in twenty eighteen. You know, Jonathan,

0:38:39.680 --> 0:38:42.440
<v Speaker 1>I don't think so, because it was a very bipartisan,

0:38:42.680 --> 0:38:46.120
<v Speaker 1>very modest tiering of the regulatory structure that came out

0:38:46.160 --> 0:38:49.760
<v Speaker 1>of Dodd Frank. I don't think you can lay that.

0:38:50.560 --> 0:38:52.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't think you can lay the collapse of the

0:38:53.200 --> 0:38:56.640
<v Speaker 1>banks last week at the foot of twenty one fifty five.

0:38:56.719 --> 0:38:59.560
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. I just don't think that's relevant. I

0:38:59.560 --> 0:39:03.360
<v Speaker 1>think what is relevant is risky management practices, with or

0:39:03.400 --> 0:39:08.200
<v Speaker 1>without Dodd Frank and lack of supervision by the primary regulator.

0:39:08.239 --> 0:39:10.640
<v Speaker 1>The reason I stats because they regulate to use the

0:39:10.680 --> 0:39:14.319
<v Speaker 1>systemic risk exception to make depositus whole. And Congressmen, what

0:39:14.320 --> 0:39:17.000
<v Speaker 1>we've acknowledged that the weekend is that basically all banks

0:39:17.239 --> 0:39:19.959
<v Speaker 1>in America carries some degree of systemic risks. So should

0:39:19.960 --> 0:39:24.239
<v Speaker 1>they all be regulated in the same fashion, regardless of size. Well,

0:39:24.239 --> 0:39:26.399
<v Speaker 1>I think tiering is important, But that gets back to

0:39:26.400 --> 0:39:29.560
<v Speaker 1>Tom's good question about deposit insurance. Should we have a

0:39:29.600 --> 0:39:33.240
<v Speaker 1>premium on top of the risk based premium that somehow

0:39:33.280 --> 0:39:37.640
<v Speaker 1>reflects that systemic risk and that would be something that

0:39:37.680 --> 0:39:40.120
<v Speaker 1>somebody would have to think through analytically. About how one

0:39:40.120 --> 0:39:43.520
<v Speaker 1>would assess that in a fair and balanced way. But

0:39:43.640 --> 0:39:46.840
<v Speaker 1>that speaks to this question, because you're right, the regulators

0:39:46.880 --> 0:39:50.920
<v Speaker 1>this weekend determined that Silicon Valley's reach went well beyond

0:39:51.400 --> 0:39:54.400
<v Speaker 1>its branches in California and New York. Is it related

0:39:54.440 --> 0:39:56.520
<v Speaker 1>to the economy? A comlreishment always creates to get your

0:39:56.560 --> 0:40:01.120
<v Speaker 1>perspective the banking system, the politics on a day, Congressman

0:40:01.160 --> 0:40:11.120
<v Speaker 1>French Hair god a politician with actual David George, senior

0:40:11.160 --> 0:40:16.080
<v Speaker 1>research analyst, bared very importantly with decades of experience, David,

0:40:16.080 --> 0:40:17.959
<v Speaker 1>what are you writing this morning? Let me just cut

0:40:17.960 --> 0:40:20.800
<v Speaker 1>to the chase. What matters right now for David George

0:40:22.880 --> 0:40:26.080
<v Speaker 1>M We wrote this morning, Tom, good morning, thanks for

0:40:26.480 --> 0:40:30.960
<v Speaker 1>having me. We we believe that this is an asymmetrically

0:40:31.120 --> 0:40:34.760
<v Speaker 1>positive risk reward for regional bank stocks. In fact, probably

0:40:34.800 --> 0:40:39.279
<v Speaker 1>the most constructive that we've been since COVID, maybe even

0:40:39.320 --> 0:40:42.319
<v Speaker 1>more constructive than that. This is one of the best

0:40:42.400 --> 0:40:46.000
<v Speaker 1>setups that we have seen in the last twenty I've

0:40:46.040 --> 0:40:49.480
<v Speaker 1>done this twenty three years, and this is an unbelievably

0:40:49.560 --> 0:40:53.560
<v Speaker 1>good risk reward set up stock. What is the skill

0:40:53.600 --> 0:40:57.560
<v Speaker 1>set to determine that a given bank is not seeing

0:40:58.480 --> 0:41:05.000
<v Speaker 1>outflows and that given bank has trust and confidence. Well,

0:41:05.040 --> 0:41:07.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, part of it is obviously it's it's difficult

0:41:07.640 --> 0:41:11.879
<v Speaker 1>to predict customer behavior. But I think something that has

0:41:11.920 --> 0:41:16.359
<v Speaker 1>gone undiscussed in the financial media is and I don't

0:41:16.360 --> 0:41:18.840
<v Speaker 1>cover Silicon Valley, but I think it's important to note

0:41:18.880 --> 0:41:22.040
<v Speaker 1>that they have two hundred twenty billion deposits. Still, how

0:41:22.040 --> 0:41:25.359
<v Speaker 1>many branches they had eighteen? Do you know how many

0:41:25.360 --> 0:41:29.480
<v Speaker 1>branches US Bank has five thousand? The average deposits per

0:41:29.480 --> 0:41:34.200
<v Speaker 1>branch at most US banks is about fifteen to fifty million,

0:41:34.760 --> 0:41:39.240
<v Speaker 1>not two billion per offers. So the granularity of most

0:41:39.360 --> 0:41:43.560
<v Speaker 1>US regional banks funding is just infinitely different than the

0:41:43.680 --> 0:41:47.080
<v Speaker 1>kind of banks that have been reported that have failed.

0:41:47.400 --> 0:41:52.920
<v Speaker 1>So obviously we are in a period where investors have

0:41:53.040 --> 0:41:56.319
<v Speaker 1>long memories and there's panic, but that is where you

0:41:56.440 --> 0:41:59.640
<v Speaker 1>get these asymmetric opportunities, and that's where we are in

0:41:59.680 --> 0:42:02.200
<v Speaker 1>my O. That said, David, there's a very different scenario

0:42:02.280 --> 0:42:05.320
<v Speaker 1>that is uniform pretty much across all the banking sector

0:42:05.360 --> 0:42:08.520
<v Speaker 1>as well as beyond which is the immediacy of being

0:42:08.560 --> 0:42:12.200
<v Speaker 1>able to withdraw in real time online at any time,

0:42:12.400 --> 0:42:14.440
<v Speaker 1>the ability for there to be a bank run that

0:42:14.560 --> 0:42:18.880
<v Speaker 1>happens so quickly that even regulators are caught completely off guard.

0:42:19.200 --> 0:42:21.960
<v Speaker 1>How does that change your risk assessment of smaller banks,

0:42:22.080 --> 0:42:25.080
<v Speaker 1>especially at a time or cash is paying something and

0:42:25.239 --> 0:42:27.480
<v Speaker 1>a lot of people are concerned that these banks are

0:42:27.480 --> 0:42:31.520
<v Speaker 1>not going to be able to deliver. Well, first of all,

0:42:31.560 --> 0:42:34.680
<v Speaker 1>I am not concerned. Maybe that doesn't matter. But to

0:42:34.760 --> 0:42:38.720
<v Speaker 1>your second point, at least the movement of funds into

0:42:38.840 --> 0:42:41.960
<v Speaker 1>treasuries and higher yielding alternatives, that's been going on for

0:42:42.160 --> 0:42:44.879
<v Speaker 1>over a year, so that is not a new phenomenon. Now.

0:42:44.880 --> 0:42:47.600
<v Speaker 1>How people feel about that given where the stacks have

0:42:47.680 --> 0:42:52.280
<v Speaker 1>been trading is new, but fundamentally that has been happening

0:42:52.320 --> 0:42:56.600
<v Speaker 1>for several months and several quarters. In terms of the

0:42:56.640 --> 0:43:00.600
<v Speaker 1>movement of deposits and things like social media and media

0:43:00.640 --> 0:43:03.400
<v Speaker 1>like yourself talking about bank runs, that's really not that helpful,

0:43:03.440 --> 0:43:07.960
<v Speaker 1>to be honest, to depositors, because most customers of regional

0:43:08.000 --> 0:43:11.600
<v Speaker 1>banks do not have millions of dollars. They've got maybe

0:43:11.600 --> 0:43:13.919
<v Speaker 1>five thousand dollars in a checking account, maybe a small

0:43:13.960 --> 0:43:16.880
<v Speaker 1>business has got a hundred thousand. They are not focused

0:43:16.920 --> 0:43:19.560
<v Speaker 1>on this, They are focused on running their businesses. So

0:43:19.600 --> 0:43:24.520
<v Speaker 1>I just think that the similarities between silicon ballets and

0:43:24.680 --> 0:43:27.800
<v Speaker 1>most other what I would call main street banks couldn't

0:43:27.800 --> 0:43:31.520
<v Speaker 1>be more different. That said, there is this concern about

0:43:31.719 --> 0:43:33.719
<v Speaker 1>the interest rate risk at a lot of banks, and

0:43:33.719 --> 0:43:36.560
<v Speaker 1>I am wondering, from your perspective, putting aside, you know

0:43:36.560 --> 0:43:39.400
<v Speaker 1>what the media's role is, or what investor's role is,

0:43:39.480 --> 0:43:42.120
<v Speaker 1>or what the reputational risk is. What about the nuts

0:43:42.120 --> 0:43:45.120
<v Speaker 1>and bolts, potential unrealized losses and the balance sheets of

0:43:45.120 --> 0:43:48.400
<v Speaker 1>a number of regional banks that haven't necessarily hedged against

0:43:48.480 --> 0:43:51.840
<v Speaker 1>a dramatic rise in interest rates, and among all of

0:43:51.840 --> 0:43:57.000
<v Speaker 1>their assets they used to back those customer deposits, well,

0:43:57.040 --> 0:43:59.640
<v Speaker 1>a couple of things. So banks, as part of the

0:44:00.120 --> 0:44:03.360
<v Speaker 1>Frank legislation have to own securities as part of what's

0:44:03.400 --> 0:44:07.120
<v Speaker 1>called the LCR liquidity coverage rations. And keep in mind,

0:44:07.640 --> 0:44:10.040
<v Speaker 1>Silicon Valley and banks under two hundred and fifty billion

0:44:10.120 --> 0:44:13.200
<v Speaker 1>ATHLETs are no longer subject to that legislation. All of

0:44:13.200 --> 0:44:15.560
<v Speaker 1>the big banks that we talk about are all subjects

0:44:15.560 --> 0:44:17.120
<v Speaker 1>in that. By the way, that's another thing that has

0:44:17.120 --> 0:44:21.440
<v Speaker 1>gone unreported and unnoticed and undiscussed in terms of the

0:44:21.440 --> 0:44:24.280
<v Speaker 1>interest rate risk. Yes, there are banks that are sitting

0:44:24.280 --> 0:44:27.319
<v Speaker 1>on securities. These are money good securities, by the way,

0:44:27.320 --> 0:44:29.600
<v Speaker 1>These are treasuries an mbs that pay us agreed, These

0:44:29.600 --> 0:44:32.680
<v Speaker 1>are not subprime loans, these are not CBOs. These are

0:44:33.120 --> 0:44:37.000
<v Speaker 1>money good securities and by the way, deposits have value

0:44:37.000 --> 0:44:39.959
<v Speaker 1>as well. They are not marked to market either. So

0:44:40.120 --> 0:44:43.720
<v Speaker 1>despite that, you have banks that are generally jap market.

0:44:43.760 --> 0:44:45.880
<v Speaker 1>Would they make last quarter or eight billion of earnings?

0:44:46.080 --> 0:44:48.600
<v Speaker 1>B of A made five billion of earnings. This is

0:44:48.680 --> 0:44:53.160
<v Speaker 1>just not a crisis. Two thousand and eight was a crisis.

0:44:53.160 --> 0:44:57.360
<v Speaker 1>This is a very short term crisis of componence driven

0:44:57.400 --> 0:45:01.640
<v Speaker 1>by one bank that was essentially a levered funds So um,

0:45:02.000 --> 0:45:05.640
<v Speaker 1>from my perspective, there are obviously unrealized losses, and by

0:45:05.680 --> 0:45:08.760
<v Speaker 1>the way, with bonds rallying, those losses are now becoming

0:45:08.840 --> 0:45:13.400
<v Speaker 1>games and that will change over time. But most banks

0:45:13.400 --> 0:45:17.319
<v Speaker 1>will hold these these securities until maturity. Um. Yeah, but

0:45:17.520 --> 0:45:20.040
<v Speaker 1>I think I think just to say that these banks

0:45:20.040 --> 0:45:23.399
<v Speaker 1>aren't managing interest rate risks, I think is not an

0:45:23.400 --> 0:45:26.200
<v Speaker 1>intellectually honest statement from my perspect Well, David, it's always

0:45:26.200 --> 0:45:28.960
<v Speaker 1>fantastic to get your perspective repeatedly through this conversation. You

0:45:29.000 --> 0:45:31.640
<v Speaker 1>do sound somewhat frustrated with the way this story has

0:45:31.680 --> 0:45:34.560
<v Speaker 1>been covered over the last three days. What would you

0:45:34.600 --> 0:45:37.080
<v Speaker 1>like to say here more of going forward? What are

0:45:37.080 --> 0:45:42.080
<v Speaker 1>the questions that you think have been missing? Um, I

0:45:42.200 --> 0:45:46.359
<v Speaker 1>just think that that the constant focus on is your

0:45:46.400 --> 0:45:50.000
<v Speaker 1>money safe? It's just and I think the prolifration of

0:45:50.040 --> 0:45:53.719
<v Speaker 1>social media is obviously something that you're not necessarily engaged in.

0:45:53.840 --> 0:45:58.360
<v Speaker 1>But but I think it's just too I think I

0:45:58.400 --> 0:46:03.400
<v Speaker 1>think it's important to to just distinguish between banks and

0:46:03.520 --> 0:46:08.560
<v Speaker 1>their funding and their customer bases. And you know, this

0:46:08.600 --> 0:46:12.080
<v Speaker 1>particular situation is frustrating when you've got a not to

0:46:12.120 --> 0:46:15.600
<v Speaker 1>get political, but when you've got a VC legend tells

0:46:15.640 --> 0:46:19.440
<v Speaker 1>everyone that screams fire in a crowded theater, that's not

0:46:19.600 --> 0:46:23.440
<v Speaker 1>helpful either. And that's a whole other discussion. But I

0:46:23.480 --> 0:46:27.600
<v Speaker 1>think I think the main thing is just having some

0:46:27.680 --> 0:46:31.920
<v Speaker 1>differentiation between banks. And by the way, there will be

0:46:31.920 --> 0:46:35.040
<v Speaker 1>beneficiaries of this. All of the large banks, as you

0:46:35.120 --> 0:46:38.040
<v Speaker 1>kind of referenced a little bit earlier before we started

0:46:38.080 --> 0:46:41.399
<v Speaker 1>the show, they will benefit from this. So there will

0:46:41.440 --> 0:46:45.279
<v Speaker 1>be your big ten to fifteen banks, Ye will be

0:46:45.400 --> 0:46:48.120
<v Speaker 1>net beneficiaries, which which is something that again I think

0:46:48.800 --> 0:46:51.360
<v Speaker 1>it's not been discussed, and those stocks have gotten smoked

0:46:51.360 --> 0:46:53.359
<v Speaker 1>as well. It's something we've talked about a lot over

0:46:53.400 --> 0:46:55.759
<v Speaker 1>the last three days. A lot of money is going

0:46:55.760 --> 0:46:57.080
<v Speaker 1>to go to the SI base. There's going to be

0:46:57.120 --> 0:46:59.280
<v Speaker 1>a premium attached to them, just in terms of safety,

0:46:59.400 --> 0:47:01.600
<v Speaker 1>safe safety. David, this was great. Let's try and make

0:47:01.640 --> 0:47:03.719
<v Speaker 1>this rankular because I have no doubt it's going to

0:47:03.760 --> 0:47:06.200
<v Speaker 1>be a story for the next couple of weeks. Maybe

0:47:06.200 --> 0:47:08.560
<v Speaker 1>have the next couple of months, David, George, that of bat.

0:47:08.640 --> 0:47:12.480
<v Speaker 1>Subscribe to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast on Apple, Spotify and

0:47:12.640 --> 0:47:16.960
<v Speaker 1>anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live every weekday

0:47:17.080 --> 0:47:20.600
<v Speaker 1>starting at seven am Eastern. I'm Bloomberg dot Com, the

0:47:20.680 --> 0:47:25.200
<v Speaker 1>iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You

0:47:25.280 --> 0:47:29.319
<v Speaker 1>can watch us live. I'm Bloomberg Television and always I'm

0:47:29.360 --> 0:47:33.279
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Terminal. Thanks for listening. I'm Tom Keane and

0:47:33.440 --> 0:47:35.040
<v Speaker 1>this is Bloomberg