WEBVTT - The Aftermath of Another Banking Mess, This Time in Europe

0:00:05.360 --> 0:00:13.160
<v Speaker 1>Welkner Trallins, I'm Joel Weber and I'm Eric Beltunas. So, Eric,

0:00:13.200 --> 0:00:16.760
<v Speaker 1>there's been this big shake up in banking, specifically in

0:00:16.800 --> 0:00:21.000
<v Speaker 1>Europe where ubs and credit squeeze have become one. That's

0:00:21.000 --> 0:00:23.800
<v Speaker 1>been a huge story at Bloomberg. Lots of ins and outs,

0:00:24.160 --> 0:00:26.960
<v Speaker 1>and here we are in the aftermath. Yeah. Absolutely, I

0:00:26.960 --> 0:00:29.320
<v Speaker 1>mean this is our second straight banking episode. That's a

0:00:29.400 --> 0:00:31.600
<v Speaker 1>big of a deal. It is. In TV they call

0:00:31.640 --> 0:00:33.680
<v Speaker 1>it staying in the news. So we're staying in the news.

0:00:34.280 --> 0:00:36.879
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna look at some of the etf angles and

0:00:36.960 --> 0:00:40.960
<v Speaker 1>also just how this changes the whole asset management industry landscape,

0:00:41.320 --> 0:00:43.279
<v Speaker 1>and it's going to have a couple of different sort

0:00:43.320 --> 0:00:45.880
<v Speaker 1>of ripple effects that we should look at that will

0:00:45.960 --> 0:00:50.040
<v Speaker 1>impact the industry and investors. And so joining us Alison Williams,

0:00:50.320 --> 0:00:53.760
<v Speaker 1>who's a senior analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence where she covers

0:00:53.800 --> 0:00:57.920
<v Speaker 1>global investment banks and asset managers, as well as Athanasio

0:00:58.200 --> 0:01:04.160
<v Speaker 1>Sarah Fagus who's an ETF anily with lumber Intelligence, this

0:01:04.319 --> 0:01:11.360
<v Speaker 1>time on trains Takeaways from a European banking saga. Alison Athanasios,

0:01:11.360 --> 0:01:13.920
<v Speaker 1>thanks for joining us on trillions. Yeah, Glad, to be

0:01:13.959 --> 0:01:17.600
<v Speaker 1>back on. Thanks for having us, Alison. Credit Sweets has

0:01:17.640 --> 0:01:20.800
<v Speaker 1>been troubled for years. It finally has collapsed into this

0:01:20.920 --> 0:01:24.759
<v Speaker 1>forced marriage with UBS, creating this megabank, this new megabank.

0:01:25.360 --> 0:01:28.880
<v Speaker 1>We've also not seen a globally systemic bank fail. Credit

0:01:28.920 --> 0:01:31.840
<v Speaker 1>Sweez is the first since the financial crisis. So, as

0:01:31.840 --> 0:01:33.800
<v Speaker 1>a close watcher of this space, just what's the greater

0:01:33.880 --> 0:01:36.840
<v Speaker 1>meaning here? Well, I think I guess we can. We

0:01:36.880 --> 0:01:40.600
<v Speaker 1>can talk about a couple of things, So you're perhaps

0:01:40.640 --> 0:01:45.240
<v Speaker 1>alluding to the regular Tory landscape. I think it's difficult

0:01:45.319 --> 0:01:50.680
<v Speaker 1>because this is a situation where market sentiment almost drives

0:01:50.760 --> 0:01:56.200
<v Speaker 1>reality creates reality. And so the bank, which had raised

0:01:56.240 --> 0:01:59.880
<v Speaker 1>capital looked very well capitalized, had a lot of liquidity

0:02:00.080 --> 0:02:02.680
<v Speaker 1>at the end of the quarter, although that had been

0:02:03.640 --> 0:02:06.240
<v Speaker 1>slipping away with some of the outflows. And just the

0:02:06.240 --> 0:02:11.920
<v Speaker 1>fact that liquidity is something that can change quickly and

0:02:11.960 --> 0:02:16.520
<v Speaker 1>can be impacted by sentiment, and that's a fundamental tenant

0:02:16.600 --> 0:02:21.400
<v Speaker 1>of the business. So it's difficult to say how regulators

0:02:21.520 --> 0:02:26.880
<v Speaker 1>can change that except to be vigilant. How much of

0:02:26.919 --> 0:02:30.880
<v Speaker 1>this and just all you know, all the banks is

0:02:30.960 --> 0:02:35.120
<v Speaker 1>just a byproduct of the central banks of the world,

0:02:35.280 --> 0:02:38.520
<v Speaker 1>namely the FED shifting course to fight inflation and raising

0:02:38.520 --> 0:02:41.120
<v Speaker 1>interest rates. It seems like there's just been a lot

0:02:41.160 --> 0:02:44.640
<v Speaker 1>of things caught on the wrong side of that shift.

0:02:45.320 --> 0:02:48.800
<v Speaker 1>Did Credit Suite not prepare for that properly? Was that

0:02:49.280 --> 0:02:54.120
<v Speaker 1>a factor in this? The issue with the quantitative easing

0:02:54.240 --> 0:02:57.040
<v Speaker 1>was there was so much stimulus coming in. It really

0:02:57.120 --> 0:03:00.480
<v Speaker 1>heightened all the deposit bases. There were no loans to

0:03:00.520 --> 0:03:04.119
<v Speaker 1>invest in, so these loans were invested in securities. But

0:03:04.480 --> 0:03:08.120
<v Speaker 1>it really heightened the need to manage your balance sheet.

0:03:08.480 --> 0:03:12.320
<v Speaker 1>And because as banks are getting all these access deposits,

0:03:12.360 --> 0:03:15.640
<v Speaker 1>they have to estimate how much of that is sort

0:03:15.639 --> 0:03:18.440
<v Speaker 1>of permanent, if you will, how much is more hot

0:03:18.480 --> 0:03:22.960
<v Speaker 1>money that will flow out once there are other opportunities.

0:03:22.960 --> 0:03:27.840
<v Speaker 1>And so I think that QE really sowed the seeds,

0:03:27.919 --> 0:03:32.639
<v Speaker 1>if you will, of you know, placing the banks in

0:03:32.680 --> 0:03:38.360
<v Speaker 1>that situation that when rates row so rapidly, those who

0:03:38.600 --> 0:03:41.760
<v Speaker 1>were really focused on managing risk and more conservative were

0:03:41.800 --> 0:03:45.880
<v Speaker 1>in a better spot than those who did not. And

0:03:45.960 --> 0:03:49.480
<v Speaker 1>so the parallel I suppose I would draw with credit suites,

0:03:50.200 --> 0:03:52.440
<v Speaker 1>which is a little bit of a different situation, but

0:03:52.640 --> 0:03:59.240
<v Speaker 1>it does come down to managing risk when there is

0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:03.400
<v Speaker 1>a lot of ebulence in the markets, if you will.

0:04:03.440 --> 0:04:07.080
<v Speaker 1>So if we look at twenty twenty and the trading

0:04:07.120 --> 0:04:10.080
<v Speaker 1>that went on on the significant amount of revenue that

0:04:10.120 --> 0:04:15.640
<v Speaker 1>was generated across these global banks, and some banks looking

0:04:15.720 --> 0:04:18.320
<v Speaker 1>to make sure that they keep their risk management in place,

0:04:18.800 --> 0:04:23.960
<v Speaker 1>whereas others potentially might be wanting to expand that net

0:04:24.120 --> 0:04:27.320
<v Speaker 1>to make more revenue, and then the cost comes back

0:04:27.360 --> 0:04:30.680
<v Speaker 1>to bite them. And so I would say in both cases,

0:04:31.320 --> 0:04:37.799
<v Speaker 1>the key Israeli risk management. Risk management has to increase

0:04:37.839 --> 0:04:41.720
<v Speaker 1>and be even more stringent in a period where we're

0:04:41.720 --> 0:04:47.839
<v Speaker 1>facing unprecedented times, So unprecedented action with que to the

0:04:47.880 --> 0:04:50.520
<v Speaker 1>extent that we got that qe QT is something we've

0:04:50.560 --> 0:04:55.080
<v Speaker 1>never experienced. And so I think that when people invest

0:04:55.120 --> 0:04:57.400
<v Speaker 1>in banks, you look at bank managers. It's similar to

0:04:57.400 --> 0:05:01.760
<v Speaker 1>a portfolio manager. You have to manage your risks across

0:05:02.360 --> 0:05:06.120
<v Speaker 1>a variety of environment. So one interesting thing that UM

0:05:06.160 --> 0:05:09.640
<v Speaker 1>this revealed about Credit Swiss Athanasios is that they were

0:05:09.680 --> 0:05:13.520
<v Speaker 1>a big name in exchange traded notes, which is different

0:05:13.520 --> 0:05:17.960
<v Speaker 1>than an exchange traded fund and lacks a lot of

0:05:18.000 --> 0:05:20.640
<v Speaker 1>the oversight that ETFs get. So what does this mean

0:05:20.720 --> 0:05:25.520
<v Speaker 1>for et ns and specifically the ones that Credit Swiss

0:05:26.360 --> 0:05:28.760
<v Speaker 1>there's always an ETF ETN angle. I guess in this

0:05:28.800 --> 0:05:32.320
<v Speaker 1>case ETNS. Yeah, so they have this dubious pass of these.

0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:35.159
<v Speaker 1>Now I'm not saying these products are bad, but they

0:05:35.240 --> 0:05:38.880
<v Speaker 1>are used in cases speaking of risk. They want to

0:05:38.880 --> 0:05:40.520
<v Speaker 1>give you exposure to areas that may be hard to

0:05:40.600 --> 0:05:42.600
<v Speaker 1>do in an ETF. So they want to use leverage,

0:05:42.680 --> 0:05:45.920
<v Speaker 1>or they want to give you exposure to some frontier market.

0:05:46.520 --> 0:05:49.000
<v Speaker 1>So if you remember that XIV product, which was the

0:05:49.040 --> 0:05:53.600
<v Speaker 1>inverse val Valmageddon, that was a credit Swiss product. Um,

0:05:53.640 --> 0:05:56.159
<v Speaker 1>you know they had t VX, which is a levered

0:05:56.320 --> 0:05:59.599
<v Speaker 1>volatility one. That's a credit by the way. So he

0:06:00.400 --> 0:06:02.560
<v Speaker 1>so you know there's there's an audience for it, right,

0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:05.520
<v Speaker 1>people that like Eric leverage. Eric's dad he probably just

0:06:05.600 --> 0:06:08.840
<v Speaker 1>quick backstory, my my dad. My dad asked me what

0:06:08.920 --> 0:06:11.360
<v Speaker 1>ETF will go up the most if the market crashes,

0:06:11.440 --> 0:06:13.719
<v Speaker 1>because he thought Hillary Clinton would win the twenty sixteen

0:06:13.760 --> 0:06:16.440
<v Speaker 1>election and the stock market would sell off. And I said, well,

0:06:17.040 --> 0:06:19.920
<v Speaker 1>t VIX. But you cannot hold it, No, you can.

0:06:20.000 --> 0:06:22.799
<v Speaker 1>And not only did Hillary not win, the market didn't crash,

0:06:22.839 --> 0:06:26.279
<v Speaker 1>it went up, and he held it. Everything that everything

0:06:26.400 --> 0:06:28.280
<v Speaker 1>went wrong went wrong with him anyway, by the way,

0:06:28.320 --> 0:06:31.160
<v Speaker 1>this is the whole episode. We interviewed our Dads. It

0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:34.400
<v Speaker 1>was called Our Two Dads. We interviewed Eric's dad, who

0:06:34.520 --> 0:06:37.760
<v Speaker 1>tends to like risk and my dad less risky. But

0:06:37.839 --> 0:06:40.720
<v Speaker 1>the real key factor with these is not even the exposure.

0:06:40.760 --> 0:06:43.440
<v Speaker 1>It's that it's essentially a note right back by the bank,

0:06:43.560 --> 0:06:46.640
<v Speaker 1>and so if the bank something happens. That's one of

0:06:46.720 --> 0:06:48.960
<v Speaker 1>those things that you don't really think about, Like, you know,

0:06:49.000 --> 0:06:51.080
<v Speaker 1>it's like, oh, well, what it's twenty twenty three, wins

0:06:51.080 --> 0:06:53.039
<v Speaker 1>a bank and go under. These notes are probably pretty safe,

0:06:53.080 --> 0:06:55.400
<v Speaker 1>but this was a reminder that, you know what, this

0:06:55.520 --> 0:06:58.039
<v Speaker 1>is a risk that you need to be aware of. Now,

0:06:58.760 --> 0:07:02.479
<v Speaker 1>considering that UBS also has etns there, it's probably the

0:07:02.480 --> 0:07:04.840
<v Speaker 1>best partner. Like if this business is going to live on,

0:07:04.880 --> 0:07:08.520
<v Speaker 1>because they also offer them here too, I would suspect either,

0:07:09.080 --> 0:07:10.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, they're going to change the name. You know,

0:07:11.080 --> 0:07:13.600
<v Speaker 1>it's pretty unprecedented, So I don't know if maybe they

0:07:13.640 --> 0:07:16.080
<v Speaker 1>want to close on the smaller ones or if they're

0:07:16.120 --> 0:07:19.560
<v Speaker 1>gonna redeem them and just keep the UBS business. Eric

0:07:19.600 --> 0:07:21.200
<v Speaker 1>and I were actually talking about this. I think at

0:07:21.200 --> 0:07:23.720
<v Speaker 1>first glance, I said etns are done, Like I just

0:07:23.720 --> 0:07:25.920
<v Speaker 1>think people are over them. When we studied in the

0:07:25.920 --> 0:07:30.120
<v Speaker 1>past what happened two thousand and eight COVID. People love leverage,

0:07:30.160 --> 0:07:33.080
<v Speaker 1>they love juice, and these things have endured on even

0:07:33.120 --> 0:07:35.280
<v Speaker 1>despite some of the you know, some of the hiccups.

0:07:35.320 --> 0:07:38.160
<v Speaker 1>So maybe not the credits ones as much, but I

0:07:38.160 --> 0:07:41.160
<v Speaker 1>think etns are still going to be okay after a

0:07:41.200 --> 0:07:44.800
<v Speaker 1>lot of this. Yeah, etns, I feel have just found

0:07:44.840 --> 0:07:47.720
<v Speaker 1>a way to survive, like a cockroach or something, because

0:07:47.720 --> 0:07:50.160
<v Speaker 1>they were first used to go places that ETFs couldn't,

0:07:50.160 --> 0:07:53.520
<v Speaker 1>like India. Then when you know that was you can

0:07:53.560 --> 0:07:56.560
<v Speaker 1>get to India now easily with the stock market, so ETFs.

0:07:56.800 --> 0:07:58.560
<v Speaker 1>So if you have a choice ETF or ETN, all

0:07:58.600 --> 0:08:01.400
<v Speaker 1>else equal, people pick the ETF. The ETN at first

0:08:01.440 --> 0:08:04.000
<v Speaker 1>offer that. Then they offered a tax treatment that was

0:08:04.000 --> 0:08:06.680
<v Speaker 1>a little more favorable for things that held futures or MLPs.

0:08:07.280 --> 0:08:09.000
<v Speaker 1>So that's why you see some of the commodity and

0:08:09.080 --> 0:08:13.160
<v Speaker 1>vics etns popular. Now it's leverage because a lot of

0:08:13.200 --> 0:08:15.960
<v Speaker 1>etns have come out that offer three x leverage and

0:08:16.320 --> 0:08:19.680
<v Speaker 1>you can't do that in ETF anymore. So etns have

0:08:19.760 --> 0:08:22.480
<v Speaker 1>been creative. I think they should try a bitcoin ETN.

0:08:23.000 --> 0:08:25.040
<v Speaker 1>I mean it seems like if the SEC's okay with

0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:28.600
<v Speaker 1>leverage happening at three x and the ETN maybe they'd

0:08:28.600 --> 0:08:30.480
<v Speaker 1>be okay with a bitcoin. That's just a little sidebar.

0:08:30.920 --> 0:08:33.040
<v Speaker 1>But I do like you, I think, and in Europe

0:08:33.080 --> 0:08:35.680
<v Speaker 1>they've always been pretty big. So I think they're ten billion.

0:08:35.720 --> 0:08:40.960
<v Speaker 1>That's not big. But it's if they've overcome expectations, I think,

0:08:41.000 --> 0:08:44.080
<v Speaker 1>and they keep hanging around and finding new ways to live,

0:08:44.120 --> 0:08:46.120
<v Speaker 1>for sure, Alison. I want to go back to you

0:08:46.160 --> 0:08:49.040
<v Speaker 1>on a question we talk about. This is a big merger.

0:08:49.840 --> 0:08:52.840
<v Speaker 1>I was looking at the sort of leaderboard of asset

0:08:52.880 --> 0:08:55.600
<v Speaker 1>managers and I think, you know, we all look at

0:08:55.600 --> 0:09:00.319
<v Speaker 1>Blackrock is number one, Vanguard number two, but with this

0:09:00.320 --> 0:09:03.600
<v Speaker 1>this merger puts them at number three? Or am I

0:09:03.640 --> 0:09:06.400
<v Speaker 1>wrong there? Like? How big is this new company going

0:09:06.440 --> 0:09:10.120
<v Speaker 1>to be? Well, it depends on I guess if you're

0:09:10.160 --> 0:09:14.600
<v Speaker 1>looking at the wealth or asset or the combined businesses.

0:09:14.640 --> 0:09:18.240
<v Speaker 1>I think if you if you're focusing solely on wealth,

0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:23.720
<v Speaker 1>it will be second behind Morgan Stanley and so within

0:09:23.840 --> 0:09:29.480
<v Speaker 1>that business, ahead of banks such as Bank America or

0:09:30.280 --> 0:09:33.640
<v Speaker 1>Wells Fargo. If you're looking at just the pure asset

0:09:33.679 --> 0:09:37.480
<v Speaker 1>management business, it moves them closer to a top ten

0:09:38.440 --> 0:09:50.240
<v Speaker 1>perhaps number eleven from being a top twenty. Athanasius I

0:09:50.240 --> 0:09:53.600
<v Speaker 1>wanted to bring up something that like just lit fire,

0:09:54.240 --> 0:09:57.680
<v Speaker 1>especially online infilt like, which was these additional tier one

0:09:58.040 --> 0:10:01.199
<v Speaker 1>bonds that can got wrapped up in this quickly? What

0:10:01.440 --> 0:10:05.320
<v Speaker 1>are they and where does this net out for investors?

0:10:05.360 --> 0:10:07.440
<v Speaker 1>Because it turns out that they were wrapped up in

0:10:07.480 --> 0:10:10.680
<v Speaker 1>a lot of exchange traded funds. Yeah, so it wasn't

0:10:10.720 --> 0:10:14.160
<v Speaker 1>just the DTF impact, wasn't just their ETN ETF business

0:10:14.160 --> 0:10:16.280
<v Speaker 1>in Europe, but also where are their credits responds in

0:10:16.360 --> 0:10:20.040
<v Speaker 1>ETFs um and so this was particularly a European issue.

0:10:20.200 --> 0:10:22.160
<v Speaker 1>You know these so these AT one bonds or Coco

0:10:22.200 --> 0:10:24.840
<v Speaker 1>bonds for sure. So it really worked is why would

0:10:24.840 --> 0:10:26.960
<v Speaker 1>you buy it in the first place. So they tend

0:10:27.040 --> 0:10:28.959
<v Speaker 1>to pay a higher a little bit of a higher yield.

0:10:29.080 --> 0:10:31.559
<v Speaker 1>They're convertible, so you get some stock participation that the the

0:10:31.640 --> 0:10:34.360
<v Speaker 1>stock goes up, but the tradeoff is it could be

0:10:34.400 --> 0:10:37.360
<v Speaker 1>completely wiped out right in an extreme case like we saw.

0:10:38.000 --> 0:10:40.720
<v Speaker 1>So this AT one was the ticker. It's an invest

0:10:40.800 --> 0:10:43.320
<v Speaker 1>go ETF. It's probably the biggest one in Europe and

0:10:43.320 --> 0:10:45.679
<v Speaker 1>it's pretty decent sized, like a billion in assets. It

0:10:45.720 --> 0:10:48.360
<v Speaker 1>was down like eighteen percent when this news came out

0:10:48.480 --> 0:10:51.160
<v Speaker 1>on you know, on Monday. I guess the good news

0:10:51.200 --> 0:10:52.520
<v Speaker 1>and this is that it was really only in that

0:10:52.559 --> 0:10:54.280
<v Speaker 1>one product that was one that was hit by far

0:10:54.360 --> 0:10:57.240
<v Speaker 1>the most um But what I found really interesting is

0:10:57.240 --> 0:10:59.320
<v Speaker 1>if you started looking at how it was trading a

0:10:59.320 --> 0:11:01.920
<v Speaker 1>couple of days for it was trading at a pretty

0:11:01.960 --> 0:11:04.559
<v Speaker 1>big discount even before the news came out over the weekend,

0:11:04.600 --> 0:11:08.080
<v Speaker 1>So someone with sniffing something out with it. But it's

0:11:08.080 --> 0:11:11.319
<v Speaker 1>pretty concentrated just to that product. Widentry has won as well,

0:11:11.320 --> 0:11:13.800
<v Speaker 1>but that one's pretty small. But then there's credits with

0:11:13.960 --> 0:11:17.560
<v Speaker 1>stock that's splattered all over all these different ETFs you know,

0:11:18.720 --> 0:11:21.800
<v Speaker 1>ESG funds, factor funds, etc. But that was probably by

0:11:21.840 --> 0:11:26.240
<v Speaker 1>far the most extreme case of credits bringing down the

0:11:26.320 --> 0:11:29.520
<v Speaker 1>price of an ETF. Another takeaway for me on all

0:11:29.520 --> 0:11:32.920
<v Speaker 1>this was something that I was enlightened by and now

0:11:32.920 --> 0:11:35.480
<v Speaker 1>it makes sense, especially in the banks in the US

0:11:35.440 --> 0:11:39.800
<v Speaker 1>SVB in particular, and I'll throw this to Alison, you know,

0:11:40.160 --> 0:11:43.640
<v Speaker 1>it seems to me that like there's un potential other

0:11:43.720 --> 0:11:46.719
<v Speaker 1>issue with banks in general if they aren't going to

0:11:46.840 --> 0:11:50.080
<v Speaker 1>give enough money for the people who have put their

0:11:50.080 --> 0:11:53.040
<v Speaker 1>money with the bank. Like, how much are people getting

0:11:53.040 --> 0:11:56.560
<v Speaker 1>on deposits, because now you can get four or five

0:11:56.640 --> 0:12:00.800
<v Speaker 1>percent on a short term treasury ETF and that is

0:12:00.800 --> 0:12:04.240
<v Speaker 1>pretty juicy or a money market fund, right and the banks,

0:12:04.440 --> 0:12:06.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, I've looked at some of the rates, they're

0:12:06.240 --> 0:12:08.920
<v Speaker 1>very low. Are banks going to have to increase their

0:12:09.040 --> 0:12:12.680
<v Speaker 1>rates on deposits or are they just going to have

0:12:12.720 --> 0:12:15.280
<v Speaker 1>a lot of people who don't even notice, don't care, Like,

0:12:15.480 --> 0:12:19.200
<v Speaker 1>is that a risk? Yeah, so's it's a little of both.

0:12:19.559 --> 0:12:24.800
<v Speaker 1>And by the way, this was something expected for twenty

0:12:24.920 --> 0:12:29.400
<v Speaker 1>twenty three, and we had already started to see deposit

0:12:29.480 --> 0:12:33.520
<v Speaker 1>outflows to higher yielding products, right, so money out from

0:12:33.520 --> 0:12:37.360
<v Speaker 1>core deposits going into CDs and money market funds. And

0:12:37.640 --> 0:12:40.560
<v Speaker 1>I think that this over the last couple of weeks

0:12:41.160 --> 0:12:45.720
<v Speaker 1>may have just accelerated that at for some customers. I

0:12:45.720 --> 0:12:49.480
<v Speaker 1>would also say that the banks strategies. There were definitely

0:12:49.679 --> 0:12:53.800
<v Speaker 1>banks who had said again since they didn't they don't

0:12:53.840 --> 0:12:56.440
<v Speaker 1>have loans to put these a lot of these deposits

0:12:56.440 --> 0:13:01.040
<v Speaker 1>in to let some of them run off. But just

0:13:01.200 --> 0:13:06.200
<v Speaker 1>given sort of the more dear deposits are at the moment,

0:13:06.520 --> 0:13:09.920
<v Speaker 1>could that change and could banks start to pay up

0:13:09.920 --> 0:13:12.120
<v Speaker 1>a little bit at the at the end of the day,

0:13:12.440 --> 0:13:17.000
<v Speaker 1>we had expected interest margin pressure on banks. So keeping

0:13:17.000 --> 0:13:21.360
<v Speaker 1>in mind that banks yields, so that's that's their sort

0:13:21.400 --> 0:13:24.560
<v Speaker 1>of their revenue yield has benefited from the higher rates,

0:13:25.000 --> 0:13:28.920
<v Speaker 1>and we had expected the cost side of things, which

0:13:28.960 --> 0:13:31.720
<v Speaker 1>is what they pay for deposits and or other funding,

0:13:32.240 --> 0:13:35.280
<v Speaker 1>to begin to be more of a headwind for the

0:13:35.280 --> 0:13:39.760
<v Speaker 1>banks this year because generally as rates go up, the

0:13:39.880 --> 0:13:43.720
<v Speaker 1>first leg of the increase tends to benefit the banks

0:13:43.720 --> 0:13:46.120
<v Speaker 1>when you're in a very low interest rate environment such

0:13:46.120 --> 0:13:51.880
<v Speaker 1>as we're emerging from. But then eventually banks have to

0:13:51.920 --> 0:13:55.400
<v Speaker 1>increase those costs, and so we had expect this to

0:13:55.440 --> 0:13:57.280
<v Speaker 1>be coming. We think it's going to accelerate, and the

0:13:57.280 --> 0:14:00.319
<v Speaker 1>bottom line is it does put a damper on the

0:14:00.360 --> 0:14:03.760
<v Speaker 1>bank's net interest margin. And the other factor I think

0:14:03.760 --> 0:14:08.360
<v Speaker 1>that's coming into play is now that we're seeing the

0:14:08.360 --> 0:14:11.600
<v Speaker 1>need and value of this excess liquidity, especially in a

0:14:11.679 --> 0:14:15.680
<v Speaker 1>very uncertain environment that while also further way on the

0:14:15.720 --> 0:14:19.920
<v Speaker 1>banks net interest margins. Yeah, it's interesting and Ethanolsa has

0:14:19.920 --> 0:14:23.400
<v Speaker 1>been tracking this very well. That cash like ETFs, which

0:14:23.400 --> 0:14:26.880
<v Speaker 1>again yield four or five percent their assets, have just

0:14:27.000 --> 0:14:30.240
<v Speaker 1>gone up double to over one hundred billion, and I

0:14:30.320 --> 0:14:33.120
<v Speaker 1>never thought about them competing with the banks, but that's

0:14:33.120 --> 0:14:35.880
<v Speaker 1>sort of what's happening, right, yeah, you know, and they

0:14:35.880 --> 0:14:37.920
<v Speaker 1>make it so easy. And the other thing to remember

0:14:38.000 --> 0:14:40.480
<v Speaker 1>is you can sell the ETF right away, right So,

0:14:40.600 --> 0:14:42.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you could wait an extra day and get

0:14:42.160 --> 0:14:44.360
<v Speaker 1>it out of money market fun but it's so easy.

0:14:44.640 --> 0:14:47.480
<v Speaker 1>Right into the ETF getting attractive yields, you can sell

0:14:47.480 --> 0:14:50.200
<v Speaker 1>it really quickly, right in your broker account. So yeah,

0:14:50.200 --> 0:14:52.280
<v Speaker 1>we never really thought about that until we started seeing

0:14:52.280 --> 0:14:54.880
<v Speaker 1>it popping up the now, competing with deposits. And when

0:14:54.920 --> 0:14:58.240
<v Speaker 1>I was researching Vogel for the Bogel book, I wrote

0:14:58.480 --> 0:15:00.440
<v Speaker 1>there was an interesting part in one of his books

0:15:00.440 --> 0:15:03.320
<v Speaker 1>about early in vanguards days, they were offering money market

0:15:03.360 --> 0:15:07.720
<v Speaker 1>funds for low fees, and he basically said the banks

0:15:08.280 --> 0:15:10.560
<v Speaker 1>started to notice and got scared, and then they started

0:15:10.560 --> 0:15:13.640
<v Speaker 1>offering their money market funds. So this whole idea of

0:15:13.680 --> 0:15:16.400
<v Speaker 1>money market funds and ETFs competing with banks is not new,

0:15:17.000 --> 0:15:19.680
<v Speaker 1>but with ETFs in particular, how easy and liquid and

0:15:19.720 --> 0:15:21.640
<v Speaker 1>available they are. I think this is going to be

0:15:21.640 --> 0:15:24.280
<v Speaker 1>a really interesting thing to watch. And Allison, you know

0:15:24.400 --> 0:15:25.720
<v Speaker 1>something you and I have talked about and This is

0:15:25.680 --> 0:15:27.640
<v Speaker 1>a perfect time to ask you about this, is this

0:15:27.760 --> 0:15:31.800
<v Speaker 1>wave of consolidation. I had talked about the Vanguard effect

0:15:31.840 --> 0:15:34.720
<v Speaker 1>for years with you, but the thing that offset it

0:15:34.840 --> 0:15:37.280
<v Speaker 1>was you always had the market going up offsetting the

0:15:37.320 --> 0:15:41.080
<v Speaker 1>outflows to cheaper passive products. Now the market isn't complying,

0:15:41.160 --> 0:15:44.040
<v Speaker 1>and like last year, active mutual funds saw five trillion

0:15:44.080 --> 0:15:46.680
<v Speaker 1>dollars decrease in assets, most of that just because the

0:15:46.720 --> 0:15:50.960
<v Speaker 1>market went down. Do you see more of this? Be

0:15:51.160 --> 0:15:53.760
<v Speaker 1>it maybe banks and you know, having problems with people

0:15:53.840 --> 0:15:56.800
<v Speaker 1>leaving for money market funds or other reasons, or maybe

0:15:56.840 --> 0:15:59.280
<v Speaker 1>they were overextended in this market. Then you throw in

0:15:59.320 --> 0:16:03.000
<v Speaker 1>the passive effect and a market that won't help them

0:16:03.000 --> 0:16:05.880
<v Speaker 1>off set those outflows. Could we see just sort of

0:16:06.000 --> 0:16:09.920
<v Speaker 1>an avalanche of consolidation if the market stays flat or

0:16:09.960 --> 0:16:13.960
<v Speaker 1>down over the next two or three years. So I think, Eric,

0:16:14.320 --> 0:16:17.840
<v Speaker 1>the question is is this a choppy market period or

0:16:18.040 --> 0:16:22.560
<v Speaker 1>are we going into sustained downturn because I think managers

0:16:22.600 --> 0:16:25.960
<v Speaker 1>are not going to make or not going to want

0:16:25.960 --> 0:16:29.320
<v Speaker 1>to make decisions about their long term future because of

0:16:29.360 --> 0:16:31.960
<v Speaker 1>a tough temporary period in the markets. But to the

0:16:32.000 --> 0:16:38.480
<v Speaker 1>extent that managers do change their mind and feel that

0:16:38.520 --> 0:16:42.040
<v Speaker 1>they are entering into a new period, a new paradigm

0:16:42.080 --> 0:16:46.360
<v Speaker 1>where you're not going to see the market boost that

0:16:46.400 --> 0:16:49.320
<v Speaker 1>we saw over the last decade or so that really

0:16:49.440 --> 0:16:53.280
<v Speaker 1>helped the earning their revenue and the earnings of their managers.

0:16:53.400 --> 0:16:58.800
<v Speaker 1>If managers believe that the longer term future is worse

0:16:58.840 --> 0:17:02.080
<v Speaker 1>than the past than I think that's what will require

0:17:02.120 --> 0:17:05.920
<v Speaker 1>them to reevaluate their options. Yeah. I mean we've seen

0:17:06.119 --> 0:17:08.000
<v Speaker 1>like even Active is going back to a degree in

0:17:08.040 --> 0:17:10.080
<v Speaker 1>the etf rapper, but it's got to be below forty

0:17:10.080 --> 0:17:12.800
<v Speaker 1>basis points, like it's not just active to pass. If

0:17:12.800 --> 0:17:14.840
<v Speaker 1>it's really what I call the great cost migration, I

0:17:14.880 --> 0:17:18.240
<v Speaker 1>just think it's been hidden up or covered up by

0:17:18.280 --> 0:17:21.600
<v Speaker 1>the bull market. And as if the market doesn't help

0:17:21.960 --> 0:17:24.119
<v Speaker 1>these companies out, I think a lot of them will

0:17:24.160 --> 0:17:26.240
<v Speaker 1>try to join forces, get scale so they can lower

0:17:26.240 --> 0:17:30.240
<v Speaker 1>fees and ultimately compete against the big two black Rock

0:17:30.280 --> 0:17:33.359
<v Speaker 1>and Vanguard, And that includes banks. Although banks are lucky

0:17:33.400 --> 0:17:36.480
<v Speaker 1>they have alternative business lines. And as you said, I

0:17:36.560 --> 0:17:39.840
<v Speaker 1>also think alternatives are a good place because Vanguard black Rock,

0:17:40.080 --> 0:17:42.320
<v Speaker 1>I mean a Vanguard particular, doesn't really do a lot there.

0:17:43.280 --> 0:17:45.240
<v Speaker 1>So I think there'll be they'll have to get clever.

0:17:45.240 --> 0:17:47.440
<v Speaker 1>They'll have to get cheaper in some places and then

0:17:47.480 --> 0:17:51.720
<v Speaker 1>go places Vanguard doesn't or where there's it isn't commoditized

0:17:51.760 --> 0:17:54.399
<v Speaker 1>as much. And I think that's will again will result

0:17:54.400 --> 0:17:56.720
<v Speaker 1>in more of this consolidation. And of course this is

0:17:56.720 --> 0:17:59.040
<v Speaker 1>going to be an interesting place to watch to see

0:17:59.040 --> 0:18:03.920
<v Speaker 1>how UBS just the wealth business, asset management investment bank

0:18:03.960 --> 0:18:06.000
<v Speaker 1>hanging more. And of course now we know that there's

0:18:06.000 --> 0:18:07.600
<v Speaker 1>going to be a new CEO, which is a bit

0:18:07.600 --> 0:18:09.679
<v Speaker 1>of a back to the future move because he was

0:18:09.960 --> 0:18:15.240
<v Speaker 1>previously the CEO of UBS, Sergio or Mati Alison Athanasias.

0:18:15.320 --> 0:18:17.520
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for joining us on Trains. Thanks for

0:18:17.520 --> 0:18:25.160
<v Speaker 1>having me on, Thanks for having me Thanks for listening

0:18:25.240 --> 0:18:27.359
<v Speaker 1>to Trillions until next time. You can find us on

0:18:27.359 --> 0:18:31.600
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Terminal, Bloomberg dot com, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and

0:18:31.640 --> 0:18:33.959
<v Speaker 1>wherever else you like to listen. We'd love to hear

0:18:34.000 --> 0:18:36.920
<v Speaker 1>from you. We're on Twitter. I'm at Joel Weppers Show,

0:18:37.080 --> 0:18:41.159
<v Speaker 1>He's at Eric Balcina's. This episode of Trillions was produced

0:18:41.200 --> 0:18:43.000
<v Speaker 1>by Magnus Hindrances, but