«UBS has over CHF 2.8 trillion in invested assets»
Per cercare di comprendere cosa sia una cifra del genere, si tenga conto che il pil dell’Unione Europa assomma a 14,850 miliardi Usd: l’asset di Ubs è circa un quinto del pil di tutta l’Unione Europea.
Mr Alex Weber è il Presidente del CdA, mentre Mr Sergio Ermotti è l’Amministratore Delegato.
«Almost half the world’s billionaires bank with you. That’s a distinct set of clients. What have you learned from them?»
«It’s always fascinating to hear how they became so successful. When you look at billionaires, many of them share one characteristic: They were not born billionaires. I was in Asia recently, where I met a few, and they have quite impressive stories. It feels like the American dream, only it’s no longer just in America. The main lesson for me is that with passion, focus, vision, determination, you can do a lot»
Mr Ermotti non ha conseguito laurea né titoli accademici: ha iniziato a lavorare a 15 anni. Si direbbe che abbia fatto una simile carriera perché non contagiato dalle idee accademiche che sono insegnate nelle università occidentali di grido.
Potrebbe essere definito un empirista scettico.
«Sergio Pietro Ermotti (Lugano, 11 maggio 1960) è un banchiere e manager svizzero, dal novembre 2011 amministratore delegato di UBS, incarico svolto ad interim dal settembre del 2011. Nel 2014 è stato rinominato amministratore delegato della rispettiva società capogruppo UBS Group AG.
A 15 anni, dopo aver lasciato la scuola, Sergio Ermotti diventa apprendista presso la Cornèr Banca di Lugano, filiale nella quale lavorava il padre. Al termine dell’apprendistato viene promosso mandatario commerciale all’interno della stessa banca, consegue l’Attestato federale di esperto bancario (Swiss Certified Banking Expert) e segue un corso di formazione di tre settimane (Advanced Management Programme) all’Università di Oxford.
Nel 1985 torna in Svizzera, a Zurigo, città che lascerà otto anni dopo per recarsi a Londra e specializzarsi nel campo dell’Executive Management per l’Europa, il Medio Oriente e l’Africa.
Sergio Ermotti ha lavorato per un biennio presso la filiale Citigroup di Zurigo, dove si occupava di obbligazioni strutturate.
Dopo aver lavorato per Citigroup, Ermotti si trasferisce a Merrill Lynch & Co., prima presso la sede di Zurigo, dove gestisce le attività commerciali in franchi svizzeri sul mercato interno e dal 1993 a Londra in qualità di responsabile del Dipartimento europeo di equity derivatives. Dal 1994 al 1999 è responsabile per i prodotti equity linked di Merrill Lynch e nel 1999 guida il Dipartimento mercati azionari per l’EMEA. Nel 2001 è diventa direttore esecutivo dei mercati azionari globali ed entra a far parte dell’Executive Management Committee for Global Markets and Investment.
Nel 2005 Ermotti lascia Merrill Lynch per Unicredit, a Milano, ricoprendo la carica di dirigente dei mercati azionari e degli investimenti. Due anni dopo è nominato vice amministratore delegato del Gruppo, responsabile della strategia di business aziendale e delle aree di investimenti aziendali e privati, carica che ricoprirà fino al 2010.
Nell’aprile del 2011 Ermotti è nominato presidente e amministratore delegato di UBS per l’EMEA e membro del comitato direttivo del Gruppo. Con l’ingresso in UBS, Ermotti lascia la presidenza della compagnia aerea svizzera regionale Darwin Airline. Il 24 settembre 2011, dopo le dimissioni di Oswald Grübel legate a uno scandalo, Ermotti è nominato amministratore delegato ad interim di UBS, carica confermata dal consiglio di amministrazione il 15 novembre 2011 e riconfermata nel 2014 dalla società capogruppo UBS Group.
Il domenicale Schweiz am Sonntag ha indicato Ermotti come ‘Manager dell’anno 2015’. Nel 2015 Ermotti risulta essere anche il manager più pagato in Svizzera, raggiungendo i 14 milioni di franchi.» [Fonte]
Il messaggio di Mr Ermotti è semplice: miliardari si diventa.
«It feels like the American dream, only it’s no longer just in America»
Nota. Vi sono anche taluni malpensanti che insinuerebbero che Usb renda pubblica solo una piccola parte delle operazioni che gestisce. Sono maledicenze che distorcono la naturale riservatezza degli svizzeri e dei banchieri in particolare.
The CEO of UBS, Sergio Ermotti, is a trader at heart. Yet the most recent chapter of his career begins with the investment banker overhauling an investment bank. It’s 2011, and he’s just been named interim chief executive officer of a Swiss bank that’s no longer quite so secretive, that’s still reeling from the financial crisis, and that’s been tarnished by a rogue trader’s $2.3 billion loss.
Ermotti quickly embarked on a Matterhorn-size strategic shift that downplayed the company’s investment banking and asset management efforts to focus on building the world’s largest wealth manager. The resulting stability and credibility has made UBS Group AG such a model that investors now value the bank at a premium to its European rivals, several of which have attempted to deploy versions of Ermotti’s playbook. Asked if there’s a limit to how big UBS can grow from an assets perspective, Ermotti says, “If I look at the size of some of our asset-management competitors, it doesn’t look like it.” In two recent interviews, Ermotti discussed his strategic vision, the role technology will play in shrinking the bank over the next decade, and a regulatory landscape so inhospitable that it’s like “they’re living on a different planet”—which could someday even mean the Swiss bank reconsiders its Swissness.
BLOOMBERG MARKETS Almost half the world’s billionaires bank with you. That’s a distinct set of clients. What have you learned from them?
SERGIO ERMOTTI It’s always fascinating to hear how they became so successful. When you look at billionaires, many of them share one characteristic: They were not born billionaires. I was in Asia recently, where I met a few, and they have quite impressive stories. It feels like the American dream, only it’s no longer just in America. The main lesson for me is that with passion, focus, vision, determination, you can do a lot.
BM Which trait most stands out?
SE You see a lot of passion for what they do. And the same level of focus. It’s quite clear that it’s not all about money. Of course some people care about that, but at the end of the day, they enjoy what they do.
BM How much time do you actually spend with clients?
SE Not as much as I would like. The most interesting discussions are actually when we are fortunate enough to bring them together. We organize events where our clients can get together. It’s also a way for them to foster a level of cooperation, of getting to know each other—which is important for business regardless of UBS being involved or not.
BM You’re like Tinder?
SE At these events we are a kind of sophisticated speed-dating organizer, sure. It adds value for our clients. Take Art Basel. The idea is that people attend because they share a common interest, a passion. And while attending the events, maybe they start to talk about other issues or opportunities.
BM What did you think of UBS before you got here?
SE I thought it was an incredible franchise with almost 150 years of history that had survived a dramatic moment. My predecessors had stabilized things, but it was not clear yet what the path was going to look like going forward. I’ve always been impressed by the fact that, as bad as things got here, only 2 percent of clients closed their accounts. I figured the franchise and the quality of the people who are able to retain the clients during such a crisis must be extremely high. My view was, I want to be a part of this.
BM How would you describe your business today?
SE We are the undisputed global leader in wealth management. We think that this is a huge advantage. It’s a very fragmented market still. And if I look at our position and the growth expectations of wealth creation, which is expected to be twice as high as GDP, we should stay focused on doing this. Sell-side analysts, rating agencies, and the media still consider us an investment bank. I find it totally ridiculous. If you look at where our business comes from, we are basically the world’s most expensive investment bank and its cheapest asset manager.
BM What advice did you get when you arrived here?
SE Some competitors were telling me, “Shut down the investment bank; we’ll serve you.” They wanted to grab flows and build out their business. People also told me to sell Wealth Management Americas. My popularity would have soared, especially in Switzerland; UBS wouldn’t be where it is today; and I doubt I’d still be here. That was a defining moment—to say, These are businesses we can turn around. It was a good reminder that the consensus is not necessarily the right thing to do.
BM Was there a company, maybe even outside your industry, that you looked to for inspiration?
SE Not for strategy. But when I joined, I said I wanted UBS to be the Apple or the IBM of the financial-services industry: from glory, to near-death, and then back to glory.
BM You were briefly interim CEO while the board figured out who would be the best person for the job. How did you approach that role?
SE We were having a difficult time. Because after the big crisis was over, we had the rogue trader incident that was undermining the credibility of our recovery. It was a shock internally and externally. My No. 1 question was, Will I have the power to manage the bank? The most important issue was defining our strategy. I knew we had pockets of excellence and that we needed to focus our investments and growth in certain areas. We were starting to develop an understanding of where we may go, and we needed to give our investors and employees a vision for that direction, even if it wasn’t the final direction. I thought if we stayed silent and defensive, we were going to lose talented people and clients. We needed to find a model that was more stable and credible, and that also created value for our shareholders.
BM Was there ever a moment you thought, Maybe getting the CEO job isn’t such a good idea?
BM What gave you that confidence?
SE The confidence was progressive. I spoke with my colleagues and said, “We can regain control of our destiny.” Previously, UBS had been reactive. This was the first moment when we said, “Maybe our strategy can be accelerated, and we’re the ones dictating the acceleration.” We’re not waiting for someone else—a regulator or a shareholder—to tell us what to do. We were top-of-the-class in many areas of investment banking, but we don’t want to compete across the board. We are not a one-stop shop. We want to be seen as a focused investment bank that is very competitive where we choose to compete. My investment banking background—17 years at Merrill Lynch, five years at UniCredit—gave me confidence, and we decided to focus the acceleration into a model I thought could work. After the strategy announcement, people commented that it was like decommissioning a nuclear plant. But I knew it was possible.
BM How do you get everybody else in the organization, or at least the key people, to follow you?
SE That’s a very important point. I wouldn’t have had the confidence if our people and our clients didn’t believe. I think I had their full confidence, and that gave us a tail wind. When you start to get shareholders, clients, employees, rating agencies, and everybody converging, and then your competitors bad-mouth you, you know you did the right thing.
BM Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Many of your competitors have since retooled their own strategies to look more like yours. How would you have changed your approach?
SE I wouldn’t have done things any differently today, and I am totally convinced about that. We may be an example for some banks, but I don’t think we can be an example for all banks, because we are quite special. Every bank has to find its own DNA. I knew that we needed to show every quarter—quarter by quarter, no matter the market conditions—that we were serious about our new business model. Of course, we are not printing as much pretax profit and revenue growth, but if I look at return on allocated capital, I don’t believe that we are losing anything, actually. We are protecting our shareholders by not doing businesses that are clearly dilutive and not value-accretive.
BM Is there a limit to how big UBS can grow from an assets perspective?
SE If I look at the size of some of our asset-management competitors, it doesn’t look like it.
BM Speaking of which, your asset-management business is one area in which investors might still like to see better results. Is M&A the way forward?
SE We’d also like to see better results. We’ve exited certain businesses that weren’t adding value or differentiating us. You always need to understand, What’s the trajectory? Everything is open; never say never about anything nowadays. And it’s always our duty to look at any growth opportunity, organic or not. Having said that, the valuation doesn’t indicate that a bank can be a buyer of an asset-management business without being totally wiped out in terms of capital consumption. We are very happy. Our asset management is a low-capital-absorbing business and creates value for us.
BM So it’s less important to compete with the BlackRocks and the Vanguards of the world?
SE No, we can’t compete. It’s like the investment bank. We are competing with the so-called top in all the businesses where we choose to compete. We have to define the competition, and we have to define how we compete by our own targets.
BM So what’s your asset management play going to look like?
SE More focused, for sure. Already today we’re not small. We have around $700 billion of assets under management, more than a third of which—$250 billion—is passive. It’s true, passive is a new trend. We believe that the days of active are not over. It’s changing though. You need to be very good and focus on that. We are playing more the David than the Goliath. I know I can’t go out and compete on size with Vanguard or BlackRock on ETFs. But that’s not what we want to do. We want to have ETFs that are designed to serve certain characteristics.
BM On the active side, how much more fee compression do you expect as an asset manager?
SE The best example is what happened to wealth management. Look at the contractions we had, in top line and gross margins. The truth of the matter is you work on cost, on being more efficient. It’s not an excuse when there’s a contraction on the top line to say, “That’s a bad business; let’s throw it away.” It will continue, but there’s a limit. It’s like, how far can passive go without going down? I don’t know if they’re ever going to get into paying for managing assets, into negative commission territory. So unless we go there, it is difficult to expect another massive reduction in margins in passive. On the active side, yes, there’s some room to go yet. You pick where you want to compete, and I’m totally convinced you can resolve it with cost.
BM We’ll soon move out of a unique period of monetary policy. How worried are you about the effects of that?
SE I’m very worried. Not that I expect anyone to know the answer to everything, but I don’t think that anyone, even at the central banks, has a clue how to get out of this or what the repercussions of this monetary policy will be. We can all try to mitigate, but nobody knows the consequences. People can hope.
BM How does that affect how you manage this business?
SE It’s knowing we don’t know. If you look at risk management and how you run a bank nowadays, you always think about stress. You have to stay on top of things. It’s the only thing you are paranoid about. You basically have to say to yourself, The central bank says it won’t move rates for at least three years. But maybe in two months someone changes his mind. What would the repercussions be?
BM Do you think there’s enough risk-taking at UBS right now?
SE I’m pretty happy with the level of risk we take, the sustainability of our results, and how that translates to our relationships. With investment banking, for instance, we want to take risks and deploy capital only when it is done to facilitate client business. We want in aggregate to have returns that pay for the cost of equity. Otherwise it’s not a business.
BM How about elsewhere in the industry?
SE It’s difficult to make an assessment in general, but banking is basically about risk-adjusted returns—taking risk in a way that’s reasonable. What I see in the financial-services industry is people still struggling with their business model. I see people willing to deploy a lot of capital below what you would say is a reasonable level of expected return just to show momentum on the top line and that they’re getting market share. But there is also maybe the influence of something broader, where people are forgetting how quickly things can change. It’s difficult to detect any asset classes in the world that are not highly priced, and if you look at how much investors get paid from a risk-premium perspective, you have to wonder if maybe there’s a little bit of complacency in the financial system.
BM You began your career as a trader. As a trader, what are you looking at right now?
SE In this environment, if you’re a trader you move positions. You want to work on velocity; you want to stay as agile as possible to move your positions and your conviction as things change. When you’re running a bank or a large portfolio, it’s not as quick. You need to take more of a long-term view. I think what I feel today as a trader, as an investor, as a CEO of a bank is, What is the risk-adjusted upside of taking risks right now? None, very justified. And I have to admit that I would have thought the same a couple of years ago. Of course, my perception of risk, returns, and how much you get rewarded has changed, but what’s going on is people feel more and more, Is it likely that I will miss a couple more years of this environment? If I’m prudent, but I’m missing the next couple of years, my attitude today is that I’d rather take the opportunity cost. And because I don’t, I think that showing sustainability and a position of strength, in case there’s a change in sentiment, has a lot more long-term value to us than short-term gains.
BM Let’s clear up something else. Before you were a banker, didn’t you want to become a professional skier or football player?
SE In Switzerland back then, you could go to college at age 18 or 19 and become a sports teacher. So when I finished school at 15, I thought, OK, what am I going to do before college? Well, the most practical thing was to do an apprenticeship with a bank to get up to speed with accounting, finance, and so on. When I finish that, I’ll go into sports. I never thought that I would stay at the bank.
BM What stands out when you think about that first job?
SE Cornèr Bank was founded by one person and owned by the family. That was a very good experience, because that kind of bank has a different feeling than a big one owned by shareholders who are external, institutional managers.
BM When did you decide to stick around?
SE After a few months. I was in the securities department, where the bank was executing orders for clients to buy stocks and bonds, which was next to the foreign exchange department. I had never really thought of banking that way. I found myself getting a different view. I got confronted immediately with the influence of news. Back then, Bloomberg terminals didn’t exist, but we had all this info bombarding us that would affect financial markets. And I started to say, “Well, that’s not so boring.” Every other step I took for the next 10 years was only so that I could get into working at a big securities house as a trader.
BM And what was your big break?
SE In 1987, Merrill Lynch asked me to open a Swiss capital markets operation. I was 27. In hindsight, I was lucky enough to start a business from scratch. And I mean from zero—no offices even, just a space with walls between different areas. We decided to tear down the walls. I had to go out and order everything from phones to desks and also hire people.
BM How did you approach being a manager?
SE I started to use the same decision-making process from trading in management. I knew that I didn’t always need 100 percent of the information to make a decision. And I think that’s always applicable.
BM People who have worked with you describe that very characteristic—that you fill the information gap with instinct.
SE Especially when you’re managing a situation that requires speed. When a decision is more strategic, I don’t necessarily agree. I would never make a strategic decision for the company just using my instinct.
BM But it sounds as if you basically just learned business strategy as you went.
SE Learned, or maybe shaped. It was more learning the ecosystem. Once you learn the ecosystem, you have to figure out how do you anticipate, stay in front, protect your business, and grow the bottom line. Your decision-making process adapts because you learned something, somewhere, somehow. It’s not necessarily through formal education or by reading books; it’s also what you learn along the way—and it’s always surprising to see how much you’ve learned without realizing.
BM What was your toughest decision as a manager?
SE My first big promotion was to go to London and replicate what I’d done. In any career, you advance by making vertical moves. And in order to make the next vertical move, you have to go horizontal and get out of being a specialist. And it’s crucial to recognize that being a great specialist doesn’t make you a good manager. I mentioned the operation I opened, in Zurich. One of the biggest managerial challenges was to make the decision to shut down a big chunk of what I created. Learning to kill your darlings was also big from an emotional point of view. When you need to have difficult discussions with people who’ve been working with you for a long time, it’s not easy. You have to recognize that things have changed and move on.
BM So you made it to the top, looked back, and said, “This isn’t where the future is going to be.” How did you grapple with that?
SE It’s thinking about what, even today at UBS, is good for the franchise and the vast majority of our people. As you employ more and more people, it’s difficult to make everybody happy. It’s unrealistic to aspire to have no mistakes when you make a transformation. When we accelerated our strategy here, I knew that I could maybe have done a more precise job on the underlying analysis. It was a trade-off between waiting six more months to have better details and getting going before something leaks or people start to resist. I knew I had enough information to act. I may not have the perfect model on Day One, but I’m going to fix the parts that are not working as we go. I don’t want to divert the topic too much, but this is valid for regulation—the inability to recognize the need for changes.
BM What do you mean?
SE I think politicians and regulators did a good job of addressing the financial crisis. They did many things correctly, but they also made some mistakes. That’s only human. But now, because they’re so concerned of being accused of making mistakes, the danger is they don’t address them, that they become hostage to themselves. It’s easy to think, Oh, my God, I made a mistake. Well, yes, you made a mistake. But you also made 10 right decisions. Whether you’re in business or politics, you need to recognize you made a mistake and then do something to fix it. It’s impossible to do everything right.
BM What advice do you have for them?
SE It’s nothing that I wouldn’t give myself. When you make a mistake, don’t be stubborn. Try to fix it. That’s the most elementary part of the equation when you make so many changes in such a short period of time, or things have changed and you need to adapt, or you make a mistake. It took longer to happen in Europe [than in the U.S.], and it takes a very long time or is even impossible for people who are outside, in bodies that are meant to provide deep directions. That’s when I look at bodies like the Basel Committee, and I think they’re living on a different planet compared to what’s going on.
BM Do you think regulation like MiFID II will achieve what it set out to do?
SE I guess so if they want to create transparency. I don’t know what the final nonstated mission of regulation is.
BM Who will be the biggest winners and losers with MiFID II?
SE I think the real issue is to try to simplify it and understand what it means for clients. Know your clients, know what they need. You have to be relevant, and you need to add quality. I actually think MiFID II can create an opportunity. It’s not just a threat.
BM Nordea—Northern Europe’s largest bank—recently decided to relocate its headquarters from Stockholm to Helsinki. How significant is that in terms of playing regulatory arbitrage?
SE You know, when you use the word “arbitrage,” there’s a connotation that could be perceived as an opportunistic, short-sighted approach. I’m pretty convinced that the management of that bank and its board of directors thought very hard about what they were doing. And they’re not opportunistic. There’s a level at which too much is too much. There’s an acceptance that regulation is the right thing to do, that it protects your shareholders and clients, but there’s a point when you’re put in an uncompetitive position. If you have an inability to preserve the value of your own franchise, then you need to take action. I think I have a lot of respect and admire them for what they did. It may just be the beginning of a realization that this is indeed a different environment and people should never take things for granted, because nowadays nothing is 100 percent.
BM Not even UBS being in Switzerland?
SE Nothing. Not even. I’ll tell you one thing about Nordea: It’s mostly owned by people who aren’t Swedish investors. We’re not controlled by Swiss investors, either. We’re owned by foreign investors, as are our direct competitors. We feel we are a Swiss-based organization, and Swissness is a competitive advantage. But the reality is we need to balance those aspects with the fact that we cannot have a situation that’s creating a competitive disadvantage. But when you want to talk about regulatory arbitrage, it’s more between Europe and the U.S. I wouldn’t describe that as regulatory arbitrage.
BM What do you find yourself thinking hardest about right now?
SE It’s almost like you have to look up close with one eye and into the distance with the other. Short-term is understanding regulation, resolving some outstanding legal matters. Long-term is, How do we get the organization to move toward the next 10 years? And how do we embrace those challenges and changes in a positive way? And fortunately or unfortunately, I’m paid to think not just about the positive. I’m asking myself, What are catalysts—positive or negative—that are not really on the radar screen in the next 12 to 24 months that can change things? What are the risks? If I look at the global geopolitical situation, balance sheets of central banks, prices of asset classes, and so on, the risk is more skewed toward the negative part. The opportunity costs to be too prudent, too early is something that’s clearly frustrating a lot of people. Also, the riskiest part of our business nowadays is operational risks. We can have hours of discussion on credit or market risks. But the one thing that really hurt in the last 10 years of our industry is op risks, not credit or market risks. If you do something wrong as a bank, or you have people doing bad things within the bank, it costs you much more than any credit risk or market position.
BM How do you foster a cultural change to address that challenge?
SE It’s a journey. You have to teach people that you’re not just accountable for what you do. In our organization, you need to watch what’s going on around you; it’s not just a task for a risk-management team. This is also a big part of bringing back what banking is historically all about. I think we went through some anomalies before the financial crisis—a low-risk environment, free liquidity and capital, high degrees of complexity and sophistication. The usage of balance sheets changed certain dynamics of our functions, historically speaking. What we’ve done here is bring back a traditional banking mentality. That’s at the center of what we do. So there’s a lot of educating people between what is right and wrong. In many cases you needed to make people aware of things that were normal and allowed and understood to be standards that are not standards anymore. And if you look at how we measure people today, it’s not just if you’re the best client adviser, or banker, or trader. It’s also about how you deliver. If you’re perceived as a person who’s cutting corners, not collaborating, not behaving in the right way, it’s not like you’re going to have a place in the organization.
BM Where does UBS go from here?
SE Year After Year [referring to the Edward Ruscha artwork on his office wall]. It is a tough competitive environment; there’s nothing wrong with trying to deliver competitive results. Roger Federer wasn’t so bored winning his eighth Wimbledon. I don’t care as long as we can continue to deliver and grow. We are facing huge challenges, not just from traditional competition but from technology, from new regulation. It’s a never-ending story. You need to constantly think about how you keep yourself relevant in front of clients, how you create value for shareholders, how you attract and retain the best people. So it’s not really a boring environment.
BM One potential risk to your growth is China. Has the credit bubble peaked? How does that affect you?
SE You look at how the Chinese economy has been developing in the last 20 years and whatever it’s going to go through is an adjustment. They are able with their own means to get through it. Is this them potentially slowing down for a couple of years? Maybe, yes, but long-term we would expect China to grow 4, 5, maybe 6 percent or whatever and still double its economy in 10 or 20 years, depending on the average growth and financial markets.
BM How do you capture that growth?
SE We continue to do what we’ve done for the last 50 years in Asia. For us, investing in Asia is not a fashion or a new desire to offset something that’s going wrong. It’s a very natural continuation. I’m not really doing something to change the course of the firm; I’m just doing what my predecessors did in Asia and continuing to invest.
BM There’s been much scrutiny of big conglomerates recently, some of which were your clients. What gave you comfort to deal with HNA Group and the ownership of that company?
SE Without going into specifics, we believe we have checks and balances on when we do things and how we do them that justifies the business we do. If not, we take remedial actions to correct the situation. Our experiences and relationships in Asia are broad, and we apply the same standards there as we do worldwide.
BM There’s a lot of chatter about too many banks in Europe, that there needs to be more consolidation. Are there any obvious combinations that would make for a really good competitor?
SE The one I think that will be very meaningful is the consolidation of back-office processes to create value. A lot of traditional M&A was driven by cost, by synergies. There are a lot of things that could be done in our industry to keep that part without creating negative synergies, business problems, or shareholder issues.
BM Any examples?
SE A “utilities” concept that could create the benefits of consolidation without the front-end or shareholder complications. Some shareholders don’t want to change their structure but may be willing to exploit synergies. I do believe there’s a future where some consolidation would also be part of the solution. And I believe that regulators will allow that to happen, because it’s quite clear the landscape in Europe is not what Europe needs.
BM Let’s talk about technology a bit more. How different are things going to be in, say, three years?
SE For sure, it’s not going to be the same as today. I have to tell you that at the end of the day, I’m totally convinced that the battleground of banking is not the front office. The battleground is the back end. There’s no understandable reason why the financial-services industry has not developed a more comprehensive sharing of the value chain. This is partly because we are more regulated than many other industries, but it’s also because of profitability. And this is the first time the industry has gone through a prolonged period of deleveraging and contraction.
BM What should we expect to see on the technology front then?
SE Eventually, when we look back 3, 5, 10 years from now, you’ll realize how much has changed. But I don’t believe we’re going to go through those changes in a way that’s going to be perceived as disruptive to anyone. Think about where we were 10 years ago. So many changes have come through. You don’t see them because, of course, here we are every day. The impact of technology over the next 10 years is going to be very similar to the impact of regulation over the last 10. It’s not the Big Bang; it’s going to be very gradual. But you’re going to be faster—much more efficient, proficient. Instead of serving 50 clients, you’ll be able to serve 100 and in a more sophisticated way. And so I’m convinced that you need to continue to invest in that sense. Technology will help you reduce your cost base. But you’re also going to have to reinvest a lot of your savings to keep your tech capabilities up to speed.
BM As you walk around your firm, how many people will be doing something different because of technology in 10 years?
SE I’m not telling you anything new: We see a lot of contraction in the number of people in our industry. I think the jobs that are still going to be there are still relevant. You talk to people who are process-oriented firms, and they say they’ll have 50 percent less. It’s not 5 percent or 10 percent but probably something in the middle: 25 percent, 30 percent. If you look at UBS, we employ a meaningful amount of people—almost 95,000, including contractors. You can have 30 percent less, but the jobs are going to be much more interesting jobs, where the human content is crucial to the delivery of the service. I’m totally convinced that our jobs and industry will continue to be very interesting and challenging.
BM What kind of talent will thrive?
SE The people who will succeed in the future are mentally agile—flexible, fast-learning. Of course, you need to have the basics, but there’s a mental mobility that’s the name of the game.
BM So, if you ever decide to leave this great position—
SE Or they kick me out! (Laughing)
BM Or they kick you out. What do you still want to accomplish with your life?
SE I think it’s difficult to answer that question. If you answer that question, it means you’re already thinking about it.
BM So you’re not thinking about it?
SE That was the implied answer, yes. I think that if you start thinking about what you’re going to do next, it’s almost like you’re checking out.
BM There’s been some speculation about a potential move into politics.
SE As you say, it’s speculation, nothing more than that.
BM Earlier you said, “Never say never.”
SE Switzerland is not the U.S., it’s not Italy, it’s not France. I don’t think it’s ever happened that someone who is not a member of a party—somebody who is not active in politics at the regional or federal level—got elected.
BM So when you do leave, what piece from the UBS art collection are you going to walk out with?
SE If I could, I would take the piece hanging in my office, Year After Year.
BM Would you consider staying on as chairman?
SE It’s very difficult to answer this question now. Never say never, but it may not necessarily be something I want to do, or be right for the bank, or that shareholders want. [Chairman] Axel Weber said in public that he and I will stay for another five years. By then we’re going to be old enough. And I have no intention to step down.
BM When you think of your time at UBS so far, how have you changed?
SE It’s difficult for me to say. I’ve been growing into the job. I learned that I’m much more patient than I thought. I had to become much more patient than I thought I could ever be. I don’t know if it’s the nature of aging or the nature of the job.
Martinuzzi is the managing editor for European finance and investing at Bloomberg News in London. Weber is the editor of the magazine.
Mentre Frau Merkel tenta di catechizzare i suoi concittadini ed il mondo per convertirli al nuovo credo alteramente senziente, pensante ed operante, la Polonia le sta scippando sotto il naso le sede operative europee delle maggiori banche mondiali.
Tutto era nato negli scorsi anni e si era concretizzato a fine giugno.
A quell’epoca già iniziavano a circolare le proiezioni elettorali per pochi intimi, quelle reali.
«Three Polish cities: Warsaw, Kraków and Wrocław are being considered for opening a new office of financial company JP Morgan Chase, the Puls Biznesu daily reported.
Kraków’s city hall confirmed that its representatives held a meeting with JP Morgan officials.
According to the daily, Poland is not the only country considered by JP Morgan, and a number of European cities are competing to lure the company, whose investment could create 2,500 new jobs.
Puls Biznesu added that investment banker, Goldman Sachs, will also probably relocate its back-office from London’s city to Warsaw following Brexit.
Mateusz Morawiecki, Poland’s Finance and Development Minister has said that due to the UK leaving the EU, the Polish services sector might see 20,000 new jobs created between 2016 and the end of 2017.»
«U.S. bank JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) is zooming in on Warsaw as a destination for its new back office operations center which could eventually employ several thousand people supporting the bank’s European and Asian business, sources said.
As Britain prepares to leave the European Union, and banks and other financial firms look to shift jobs from London’s financial center, Poland has set its sights on mid-tier work where salaries may not be astronomical but jobs are numerous.
A delegation from JPMorgan visited Warsaw last month, the sources said, to look for real estate that could house the new center, which could become of the largest of its kind in Poland.
“The focus is definitely Warsaw,” said one source familiar with the matter, speaking anonymously as discussions are not public.
JPMorgan has also visited Poland’s western city of Wroclaw and Hungary’s capital Budapest as possible contenders»
«Warsaw is about to become home of another eminent operations centre – this time for USA’s investment bank, JPMorgan Chase. Although the information has yet to be confirmed, Poland is a firm contender in the race to secure the position of JPMorgan’s next location. The bank is said to be looking for new office sites as a result of Brexit. This would make JPMorgan Chase another institution planning to shift away from London’s City after Britain’s ‘leave’ vote last year.
The back office centre that JPMorgan is looking to open would deal with bank’s businesses in Europe and Asia. Poland is certainly capable of providing enough workforce and has experience in attracting foreign employees as well. Although no clear declarations have been made, the financial centre may several thousand people – according to some sources about 2,500 employees, although initially it would hire less than a hundred people.»
«Poland’s government expects JPMorgan Chase & Co. to open an operational center in Warsaw, swelling the ranks of banks attracted by Poland’s lower costs amid competition by European cities for jobs set to move away from London»
«The deal is done»
«UBS Group AG has set up a global hub in Krakow »
«Goldman Sachs, which is planning to halve its London staff to 3,000 workers, will expand in Warsaw to “several hundred” people over the next three year »
«Brexit could bring as many as 30,000 business service-sector jobs to Poland»
«Business outsourcing centers opened by foreign corporates have added 198,000 jobs in Poland, including 32,000 in the 12 months to March, with many of them in the financial industry, according to the Association of Business Service Leaders in Poland»
«That compares with 275,000 people employed in the traditional financial sector as of the first quarter, according to the Central Statistical Office»
* * * * * * * *
Nel 2000 la Polonia aveva un pil di 171.276 miliardi Usd, che nel 2016 è cresciuto a 467.591. Il Q1 ed il Q2 di questo anno hanno segnato un +4.2% ed un +4.4%, rispettivamente.
Nel 2000 il pil procapite era 4,476 Usd che nel 2016 è arrivato a 12,314 Usd.
Poland’s government expects JPMorgan Chase & Co. to open an operational center in Warsaw, swelling the ranks of banks attracted by Poland’s lower costs amid competition by European cities for jobs set to move away from London.
The U.S. bank, which is poised to hire “several thousand people,” according to Polish Deputy Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, adds to list of foreign lenders that have been relocating some mid- and back-office positions to the formerly communist European Union member.
“The world’s largest bank will have a headquarters here and will hire several thousand people in management, risk management and logistics, which is good as these are well paid jobs,” Morawiecki told public radio Trojka on Friday. “The deal is done.”
UBS Group AG has set up a global hub in Krakow, while Goldman Sachs, which is planning to halve its London staff to 3,000 workers, will expand in Warsaw to “several hundred” people over the next three years, Handelsblatt has reported. Morawiecki said this year that Brexit could bring as many as 30,000 business service-sector jobs to Poland.
Jennifer Zuccarelli, a spokeswoman at JPMorgan in London, declined to comment. A spokeswoman said in January that the bank was “always reviewing our options to improve our real estate strategy for back-office functions” and that the process had “nothing to do with” Brexit.
Business outsourcing centers opened by foreign corporates have added 198,000 jobs in Poland, including 32,000 in the 12 months to March, with many of them in the financial industry, according to the Association of Business Service Leaders in Poland. That compares with 275,000 people employed in the traditional financial sector as of the first quarter, according to the Central Statistical Office.
New positions in the banking industry in Warsaw offer salaries from $1,400 to $5,050 per month, according to ABSL. That compares with the average annual salary of about $62,000 in financial services in the U.K., according to job recruitment agency Reed.
Separately, Poland’s second biggest lender Pekao SA announced a prominent hire from among the group of Poles who had been building their careers in London’s financial center, flagging the move as a symbol of Warsaw’s growing allure for financial professionals amid Brexit risks.
The lender took on Roksana Ciurysek-Gedir, who has headed a team at Credit Suisse’s wealth management unit, as deputy chief executive officer. Pekao’s acting CEO Michal Krupinski, himself a former investment banker in Merrill Lynch, expects more hires from London in the coming weeks.
Questa è la struttura del’azionariato di Allianz al 31 dicembre 2016. Si noti come il 33.8% del capitale sia tedesco mentre il 66.2% sia straniero.
Cerchiamo di capire chi siano le parti in causa.
Anbang Insurance Group.
«Anbang Insurance Group (Chinese: 安邦保险; pinyin: Ānbāng bǎoxiǎn) is a Chinese holding company whose subsidiaries mainly deal with insurance, banking, and financial services. The company was founded in 2004 as a regionally based property insurance business with its headquarters in Beijing. Its founding shareholders included state-owned car maker Shanghai Automotive Industries Corp., which held a 20% stake. In 2005 state-owned oil company Sinopec bought a 20% share.
As of February 2015, the company had assets worth more than CN¥800 billion (US$123 billion). The Financial Times has described Anbang as “one of China’s most politically connected companies.”
Anbang Insurance has more than 30,000 employees in China and is engaged in offering various kinds of insurance and financial products.
The company holds a geographically diversified portfolio of assets in financial services real estate and lodging.
In 2014, Anbang Insurance acquired Belgium insurer, Fidea Verzekeringen.
In 2014, Anbang Insurance purchased the Waldorf Astoria New York hotel from Blackstone for nearly US$2 billion.
In 2015 Anbang purchased Dutch insurer Vivat from the Dutch state. They paid €150m outright, and agreed to infuse between €770m and €1bn in fresh capital, and to take on €550m of debt.
In 2015 Anbang paid US$1 billion for a 57.5% stake in South Korea’s Tongyang Life, an insurance company, in what was reported to be the first direct investment in a South Korean financial institution by a mainland China entity.
In November 2015, Anbang announced that it would buy Iowa-based insurer Fidelity & Guaranty Life for about $1.57 billion.
In February 2016, the Financial Post in Canada reported that is to purchase a 66% stake in four office towers of Bentall Centre in Vancouver from Ivanhoe Cambridge, a subsidiary of Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec; and subsequently remaining 33% stake in May 2016. Terms of the deal were undisclosed. But the price paid by Anbang is reported to value the property at over CAD$ 1 Billion.
In March 2016, Blackstone agreed to a further US$6.5 billion sale of 16 landmark US hotels owned by the Strategic Hotels & Resorts REIT, including the historic Hotel del Coronado near San Diego, the Westin St. Francis in San Francisco, several Four Seasons resorts, and Manhattan’s JW Marriott Essex House hotel.
In April 2016, Anbang purchased Allianz’s South Korea operations.
In 2016, Anbang purchased Retirement Concepts, a Canadian company with 24 retirement homes in British Columbia, Calgary and Montreal.» [Fonte]
Anbang è un gruppo assicurativo cinese con asset di 123 miliardi di dollari nel 2015, e penetrazione nel mercato mondiale.
«HNA Group Co., Ltd., is a Chinese conglomerate headquartered in Haikou, Hainan, China. Founded in 2000, it is involved in the aviation, real estate, financial services, tourism, logistics, and other industries. It is part owner of Grand China Air (Hainan Airlines), China’s fourth largest airline, and owns 25% of Hilton Worldwide.
HNA Group was ranked 170th in 2017 Fortune Global 500 list.» [Fonte]
Nel 2015 il total asset ammontava a 466.709 miliardi di yuan.
«Allianz SE is a German financial services company headquartered in Munich, Germany. Its core businesses are insurance and asset management. As of 2014, it is the world’s largest insurance company, the largest financial services group and the largest company according to a composite measure by Forbes magazine, as well as the largest financial services company when measured by 2013 revenue. The company is a component of the Euro Stoxx 50 stock market index.
Its Allianz Global Investors division ranks as a top-five global active investment manager, having €1,933 billion of assets under management (AuM), of which €1,408 billion are third-party assets (as of 2015-03-31), with specialized asset managers including PIMCO (bonds), RCM (equities) and Degi (real estate).
Allianz sold Dresdner Bank to Commerzbank in November 2008. As a result of this transaction, Allianz gained a 14% controlling stake in the new Commerzbank. » [Fonte]
Nel 2015 Allianz gestiva un asset under management di 1,933 miliardi di euro, dei quali 1,408 erano di terze parti.
Si resta alquanto sorpresi quando si esamina l’elenco dei maggiori azionisti.
* * * * * * *
Il cancellierato della Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel passerà alla storia come il periodo in cui l’élite ha svenduto la Germania.
HONG KONG (Reuters) – China’s Anbang Insurance Group and HNA Group both considered buying into German insurer Allianz SE this year as part of plans to become global financial powerhouses, people with direct knowledge of the matter said.
The separate talks, which were at an early stage and did not result in formal bids, were called off earlier this year due to expected regulatory hurdles in Germany and China and the fact that Allianz (ALVG.DE) showed little interest, they added.
The Chinese conglomerates both weighed buying a majority stake in the world’s fourth-largest insurer by market value – which is worth over $95 billion – while HNA was also open to a minority stake, two people involved in the discussions said.
It was “highly unlikely” that the talks to acquire a controlling stake in Allianz, one of nine insurers regulators say are of global systemic importance, would be revived in the near future, one of the people said.
A bid would have ran into political and regulatory hurdles as the insurer is a German stalwart that holds a huge amount of capital and is an important pillar for local pensions.
HNA’s [HNAIRC.UL] plan to buy an Allianz stake was first reported by Germany’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
Representatives at Allianz, Anbang [ANBANG.UL] and HNA – which has announced over $50 billion in deals since 2015 including stakes in Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE) and Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc (HLT.N) – all declined to comment when contacted by Reuters.
Although the talks did not continue for long, the plans for possible separate bids for Allianz reveal ambition among Chinese conglomerates including Anbang and HNA to create a global empire through large, debt-fueled acquisitions.
Massive overseas deals has resulted in Chinese regulators ramping up scrutiny this year of outbound acquisitions – ranging from football clubs to movie studios – of groups including Anbang, HNA, Fosun and Dalian Wanda.
Beijing has increased restrictions on overseas acquisitions in recent months and has leant on domestic banks to reduce lending that helped fuel the shopping spree and saw local firms spending a record $221 billion on assets overseas in 2016.
And in June, China ordered a group of lenders to assess exposure to some of China’s more aggressive dealmakers, including Anbang, Dalian Wanda, and HNA, the sprawling aviation-to-financial services conglomerate.
Anbang started discussing acquiring a controlling stake in Allianz in the second half of last year and had held informal talks with some banks, including select Wall Street banks, to seek advisory and lending support, the people said.
HNA had also held similar talks with some banks, they said. Besides regulatory roadblocks, the uncertainty about the ownership structures at the two conglomerates, however, led to some banks pulling back from those talks, the people said.
Similar to HNA, Beijing-based Anbang, whose main business is insurance, has been one of China’s most aggressive dealmakers in recent years, and is best-known overseas for the record-breaking purchase of the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.
Anbang’s overseas shopping spree included acquisition of Allianz’s South Korean businesses — Allianz Life Insurance Korea and asset management firm Allianz Global Investors Korea — for more than $3 million last year.
«Il consorzio internazionale acquisisce il 19,5% del colosso energetico russo. Dal gruppo italiano fino a 5,2 miliardi. L’interesse dei gruppi internazionali.
Intesa Sanpaolo ha vinto la partita: supporta con un finanziamento fino a un massimo di 5,2 miliardi di euro il consorzio formato da Glencore, leader mondiale nell’attività di produzione e trading di materie prime, e dal Fondo sovrano del Qatar (Qia) per l’acquisizione del 19,5% del capitale di Rosneft. Valore complessivo dell’operazione 10,2 miliardi di euro.»
Bene. Banca Intesa San Paolo ha dovuto chiedere il permesso alla Banca Centrale per erogare il prestito alla Rosneft, che è colpita sia dalle sanzioni generiche sia da quelle specifiche ad personam. In poche parole: fare un prestito a quella società è uno dei peggiori reati configurabili all’interno dell’Unione Europea.
Ma omnia munda mundis, dice la Europa Unita: se il prestito fa bene alla Germania è cosa buona, giusta e salutare. Ma questo vale solo nell’Unione Europea.
Non è vero che siano due pesi e due misure: la presenza tedesca santificherebbe anche satanasso in persona. Ma gli altri cosa ne pensano. Quanto vale Frau Merkel?
Ma l’Eurozona è solo un decimo dell’economica mondiale. E l’Italia è un settimo dell’economia europea.
Fuori dall’Unione Europea c’è il mastino che morde.
«Italian bank Intesa Sanpaolo has encountered problems syndicating a loan to Glencore and Qatar’s wealth fund to finance their purchase of a stake in the Kremlin-controlled oil major Rosneft because of new U.S. sanctions against Russia»
«Four banking sources told Reuters that Western banks including from the United States and France have so far put on hold their participation in the syndication of the 5.2 billion euro ($6.13 billion) loan that Intesa provided last year»
«Intesa (ISP.MI) invited about 15 banks to join the loan when it opened the syndication in May»
«The banking sources said their compliance departments needed to understand the new sanctions»
«they are wary of damaging their relations with Saudi Arabia and the other three Gulf nations embroiled in the dispute.»
«the syndication was complicated by a political stand-off between Qatar and Saudi Arabia»
* * * * * * * *
– Prendiamo atto che Banca Intesa San Paolo non è in grado di erogare un prestito di 5.2 miliardi di euro, cifra miserrima per una banca.
– Prendiamo atto che le altre banche a livello mondiale si siano rifiutata di partecipare in compagnia di Banca Intesa San Paolo in un’operazione illegale, perché viola le sanzioni contro la Russia.
– Prendiamo atto come due paesi relativamente piccoli, quali l’Arabia Saudita ed il Qatar, possano condizionare l’operato di una banca dell’Unione Europea, infischiandosene palesemente degli interessi tedeschi e di Frau Merkel.
– Prendiamo infine atto che a Mr Trump basta fare una leggina piccola piccola a Washington per bloccare l’Unione Europea.
A questo punto verrebbe da chiedersi: ma Frau Merkel chi mai crede di essere?
Non si sa dove sia e cosa stia facendo il Governo italiano.
LONDON/MILAN (Reuters) – Italian bank Intesa Sanpaolo has encountered problems syndicating a loan to Glencore and Qatar’s wealth fund to finance their purchase of a stake in the Kremlin-controlled oil major Rosneft because of new U.S. sanctions against Russia.
Four banking sources told Reuters that Western banks including from the United States and France have so far put on hold their participation in the syndication of the 5.2 billion euro ($6.13 billion) loan that Intesa provided last year.
Intesa (ISP.MI) invited about 15 banks to join the loan when it opened the syndication in May. A loan of this size would normally take between four and six weeks to syndicate, though deals involving emerging markets can sometimes take a few weeks longer.
The banking sources said their compliance departments needed to understand the new sanctions.
They also said the syndication was complicated by a political stand-off between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Banks are taking a more cautious approach to deals involving Qatar as they are wary of damaging their relations with Saudi Arabia and the other three Gulf nations embroiled in the dispute.
“The syndication is stuck because of new U.S. sanctions on Russia. The new sanctions are so wide-reaching that they will surely impact all similar deals involving Russian state firms,” said a London-based source with a large Western bank invited by Intesa to participate in the syndication.
Intesa, Italy’s largest retail bank, declined to comment. The banking sources did not want themselves or their banks to be named because they were not cleared to speak about the deal and because talks between Intesa and the banks about the syndication are confidential.
«Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) is a leading global financial services firm providing investment banking, securities, wealth management and investment management services. It is headquartered at 1585 Broadway in the Morgan Stanley Building, Midtown Manhattan, New York City. With offices in more than 42 countries and more than 55,000 employees, the firm’s clients include corporations, governments, institutions and individuals.
Morgan Stanley, formed by J.P. Morgan & Co. partners Henry Sturgis Morgan (grandson of J.P. Morgan), Harold Stanley and others, came into existence on September 16, 1935, in response to the Glass–Steagall Act that required the splitting of commercial and investment banking businesses. In its first year the company operated with a 24% market share (US$1.1 billion) in public offerings and private placements. The main areas of business for the firm today are Institutional Securities, Wealth Management and Investment Management.» [Fonte]
In numeri, Morgan Stanley nel 2016 denunciava ricavi per 37.95 miliardi Usd, reddito operativo 8.5 miliardi, ed un asset under management di 1,300 miliardi. Più tutto il resto.
Di questa banca di interesse mondiale si può dire di tutto tranne che non sappiano guadagnare loro e far guadagnare i propri clienti, che le hanno dato da gestire un qualcosa come 1,300 miliardi di dollari.
Morgan Stanley sa più che bene come l’unico modo di mantener e di accrescere la clientela sia farla guadagnare.
* * * * * * *
«Whilst the electric vehicles and lithium batteries manufactured by these two companies do indeed help to reduce direct CO2 emissions from vehicles, electricity is needed to power them.»
«And with their primary markets still largely weighted towards fossil-fuel power (72% in the U.S. and 75% in China) the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material»
«the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.»
«Morgan Stanley, …. admitted that considering companies on a climate-change basis was not a perfect science»
* * * * * * *
Il risultato delle ricerche condotte dalla Morgan Stanley è riassumibile in due statement:
– se è vero che le automobili elettriche non sarebbero inquinanti, la produzione della corrente necessaria al loro funzionamento risulterebbe essere ancor più inquinante rispetto ai classici motori a combustione.
– Tesla non sarebbe società sulla quale operare investimenti strategici.
Morgan Stanley, the international banking behemoth, released the results of its study on the best “green” companies in which to invest. This is based, said the bank, on the assumptions that some, perhaps many, investors who have drunk the “green Kool-Aid” want to invest in ways to “save” the environment and fight against “climate change.” Missing from the top of their list is perhaps the most visible “green” automobile company: Tesla, Inc., formerly known as Tesla Motors.
After comparing the savings in carbon dioxide (CO2) achieved by Tesla’s high-mileage electric vehicles to all the “secondary and tertiary” factors involved in their manufacture, Morgan Stanley said, “The carbon emissions generated by the electricity required … are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.” That Tesla wasn’t nearer to the top, said the bank, was one of the “biggest surprises” of its study.
Part of the problem, said the report, is that that electricity is largely generated by burning fossil fuels. With “72% [of electricity produced] in the U.S. [by fossil fuels], the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material,” said the bank.
This echoed conclusions made back in May by British “greenhouse gas” expert Mike Berners-Lee, author of How Bad are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything. Said Berners-Lee: “If you are a relatively low-mileage person, you should stick with your gas-powered car.” Enviros at left-liberal Salon magazine interviewed Berners-Lee, who admitted that “green” isn’t just measured by tail-pipe emissions, but by everything involved in building a Tesla:
Important factors in determining carbon emissions include the weight of the vehicle, driving habits and the source of the electricity that charges your car … it can be a much greener choice to keep the perfectly functional car you have, rather than go out and buy a new [green] one.
That CO2 calculation which adds up everything involved a building a Tesla, or any other vehicle, is called “embodied carbon”: all the energy required to build the car from the ground up. That includes the extraction and processing of raw materials and shipping the parts and the vehicles themselves across oceans in oil- or coal-fired tankers. It also includes the cost of building the massive plants to assemble them.
For instance, Tesla received approval last December from the city of Fremont, California, to expand its present facility there by 4.6 million square feet, which includes 12 “growth zones” around the site. This expansion includes the steel, concrete, and plastic not only in its construction but in the production lines and computers that drive the robots. It also must encompass the tax credits that Fremont’s politicians no doubt granted to keep Tesla from building its plant elsewhere.
There’s another cost involved as well — one that neither Berners-Lee nor Morgan Stanley considered: the $7,500 tax credit provided to purchasers of the Tesla which is paid for by taxpayers. These “incentives” distort the market and tilt it in favor of Tesla against its competitors. Without those incentives, credits, and political enticements, Tesla (which, by the way has turned a profit in just two quarters in its 13-year existence) might just be a footnote in history.
In other words, one can never know whether Tesla’s electric car venture would ever pay off, either economically or environmentally. Once the government (state, local, or federal) gets involved in picking winners, it distorts the market because it is also automatically involved in punishing losers (those who don’t get the credits). So one cannot ever be sure whether the free market, driven by consumer choice, would reward Tesla with profitability or even allow its continued existence.
Just how great is that market distortion, thanks to governmental favoritism and media hype? Consider this: Tesla’s market capitalization (its stock price multiplied by shares outstanding) is now greater than that of General Motors! This despite the fact that Tesla lost $773 million in 2016 while GM earned a profit of more than $9 billion. This despite the fact that Tesla sold only 76,000 cars last year while GM sold 10 million.
Tesla just may be “building a better mousetrap” with its lithium-ion battery-powered automobiles. It’s too bad that the free market won’t be allowed to make that decision on its own.
Climate change is almost unanimously considered one of the gravest threats facing humanity, with the worst-case scenarios representing massive environmental destruction. Investors hoping to combat it with their portfolio allocations can, but one famous environmentally focused company may actually be doing more harm than good.
Morgan Stanley identified 39 stocks that generate at least half their revenue “from the provision of solutions to climate change,” something it said was a central component of investing to make a difference, as opposed to just a making a buck.
“In our view, impact investing needs to begin with companies whose products and services have a notable positive environmental or social impact,” wrote Jessica Alsford, an equity strategist at the investment bank.
Not surprisingly, alternative-energy companies ranked the highest in terms of their positive impact, and the “top five climate-change impact stocks” were all manufacturers of solar and wind energy: Canadian Solar CSIQ, -9.86% China High Speed Transmission 0658, +0.00% GCL-Poly 3800, +0.00% Daqo New Energy DQ, -5.25% and Jinko Solar JKS, -9.99%
Not among the top companies? Electric-car makers, including Tesla Inc. TSLA, -2.76% Elon Musk’s company has been an investor favorite for years, even eclipsing Ford Motor Co. F, +0.09% and General Motors GM, +0.23% in market cap.
Tesla shares are up nearly 66% so far this year, but the good it may have been doing for portfolios may not translate to it doing good for the planet. Morgan Stanley said this was one of the “biggest surprises” of its study.
The bank grouped the “climate-change impact stocks” into four sector categories: utilities, renewable manufacturers, green infrastructure companies and transportation stocks. It then analyzed them on a number of metrics, including “the CO2 [carbon dioxide] savings achieved from the products and services sold by the companies,” as well as secondary and tertiary factors centered around the environmental impact of the making of these products.
This is where Tesla, along with China’s Guoxuan High-Tech 002074, +1.30% fall short.
“Whilst the electric vehicles and lithium batteries manufactured by these two companies do indeed help to reduce direct CO2 emissions from vehicles, electricity is needed to power them,” Morgan Stanley wrote. “And with their primary markets still largely weighted towards fossil-fuel power (72% in the U.S. and 75% in China) the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material.”
In other words, “the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.”
Morgan Stanley calculated that an investment of $1 million in Canadian Solar results in nearly 15,300 metric tons of carbon dioxide being saved every year. For Tesla, such an investment adds nearly one-third of a metric ton of CO2.
“Very few if any stocks will have a 100% net positive impact,” read the report. “However, the extra layer of analysis on subsidiary effects must be a subjective judgement call, based on whether the additional impacts (of which there may be many) are sufficiently negative to offset the positive effect created by the core business.”
It added, “We even struggled to find total CO2 emissions data for most companies.”
Investing with an eye toward the environment is part of a growing trend of ESG investing, which stands for evaluating companies on environmental, social and governance grounds. Such investments favor companies that have strong environmental policies, or that treat their employees well, for example.
There are even funds that focus specifically on climate-change issues, like the iShares MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF CRBN, -0.10% or the SPDR MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF LOWC, -0.12% . Both exchange-traded funds have outperformed the broader S&P 500 so far this year, whereas the largest ETF to track the energy sector XLE, -0.51% recently dropped into bear-market territory, defined as a 20% drop from a peak.
The low-carbon funds have seen increased usage over the past year, something analysts credit to the election of President Donald Trump, whose administration is seen as hostile to environmentally friendly policies.
I comportamenti irrazionali esitano invariabilmente in dolorosi insuccessi.
E l’esperienza storica insegna come ogni intervento politico sul sistema bancario ne denaturi la specificità e ne eroda la consistenza, anche fino al fallimento.
Se è ragionevole che lo stato dia leggi e regolamenti semplici e chiari anche per il settore bancario, altrettanto chiaro dovrebbe essere il fatto che tali interventi debbano prendere atto della realtà dei fatti: le concezioni politiche ed economiche utopiche sono la miglior ricetta verso il fallimento.
Le banche vivono imprestando denaro a chi poi renda il ricevuto e nel frattempo paghi interessi: il prestito politico diventa in breve un credito in sofferenza e tassi di interesse artificiosamente nulli o, peggio, negativi, impediscono alla banca di sopravvivere.
La orgogliosa Germania ha visto uscire dal novero delle principali banche mondiali Deutsche Bank, la cui proprietà non è più peraltro tedesca. Ma senza un sistema bancario a livello mondiale è del tutto impossibile sostenere una politica con ambizioni mondiali né, tanto meno, illudersi di poter nutrire ‘valori’ che si vorrebbero imporre a tutto il mondo. Già ci si è occupati di Deutsche Bank.
«the biggest 25 private banks managed $13.3 trillion for clients with at least $1 million in assets, representing 63.2 percent of the market»
«The biggest gainer on the list was China Merchants Bank, which rose five rungs to 15th. Bank of China also entered the list, in 24th place»
«Deutsche Bank dropped out of the world’s top 15 private banks in 2016»
«Private banking assets at Deutsche Bank fell 28 percent in dollar terms to $227 billion at the end of 2016»
«The demand rocked confidence in Deutsche Bank and triggered billions of dollars in withdrawals by clients. The bank eventually settled for $7.2 billion.»
«Operating income in the industry was virtually flat as private banks faced up to low and negative interest rates as well as an increasing preference by wealthy clients for passive investments»
* * * * * * *
Le banche di interesse mondiale gestiscono 13.3 trilioni di dollari loro affidati da clienti almeno milionari: questa quota rappresenta il 62% del mercato. Sono clienti estremamente mobili, che non tollerano perdite: o li soddisfi oppure semplicemente se ne vanno. E su scala mondiale trovano pur sempre opzioni loro favorevoli.
La Germania paga un severo scotto all’aver pensato ed agito in modo ideologico, utopico.
– La prima calamitosa utopia è quella che l’Eurozona sia finanziariamente omogenea. Ciò è falso: tipicamente i paesi mediterranei hanno esigenze opposte a quelle dei paesi del nord. Nessuna banca centrale può soddisfare simultaneamente esigenze discordanti.
– La seconda utopia è che la Germania possa essere egemone. Per essere grande, la Germania avrebbe dovuto rinunciare ad essere immensa. Nei fatti, ed il mercato lo dimostra ampiamente, il suo sistema finanziario è semplicemente troppo limitato per poter sostenere le ambizioni dell’ideologia valoriale di Frau Merkel. Non sussiste mercato finanziario che non affondi le sue radici in un solidissimo comparto produttivo. Se è vero che la Svizzera abbia un florido sistema bancario senza una rilevante produzione industriale, è altrettanto vero che non abbia ambizioni egemoniche.
– La terza utopia consiste nell’aver optato per una politica economica di earning e tassi negativi nel tentativo di poter contenere gli effetti di debiti pubblici oramai ingestibili. È stato un tentativo disperato di mantenere in vita una Eurozona morta e defunta, non senza la malizia di poter ricattare gli stati fortemente indebitati ai propri voleri, imponendo loro i così detti ‘valori’ di Frau Merkel, non da ultima la politica migratoria.
– La quarta utopia è che la politica possa governare finanza ed economia. È un cascame dell’ideologia comunista prima, socialista e liberal dopo. Se sicuramente sia vero che la politica abbia il potere di imporre un lungo periodo di tassi negativi, sarebbe altrettanto vero che alla fine dovrà ben constatarne come non abbia salvato nulla e nessuno, esitando solo nella distruzione totale del sistema. I clienti abbandonano in massa le banche che non possano oppure non sappiano far fruttare i propri capitali.
– La quinta utopia è di portata sul medio – lungo termine. Se i grandi capitali non disdegnano sicuramente il cogliere buone occasioni di guadagno immediato, la loro vocazione è nei fatti una allocazione di lungo termine, e tale è solo un impiego nel sistema produttivo. Ma valutata nel medio – lungo termine la situazione tedesca non solo è improduttiva, ma anche irredimibile a causa della crisi demografica che incombe: gi autoctoni sono in via di estinzione. Senza personale qualificato non esiste collettività e, quindi, il relativo sistema economico. E questo fatto è lucidamente presente agli occhi dei grandi investitori.
* * * * * * *
La Germania si avvia mestamente a celebrare il funerale di un sistema bancario una volta fiorente.
È stato assassinato da un’ideologia avulsa dalla realtà dei fatti.
ZURICH (Reuters) – Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) dropped out of the world’s top 15 private banks in 2016, a year marked by negative headlines for Germany’s biggest lender, rankings by wealth management researcher Scorpio Partnership showed on Monday.
Private banking assets at Deutsche Bank fell 28 percent in dollar terms to $227 billion at the end of 2016, sending it tumbling five places to 16th in Scorpio’s rankings of the 25 biggest private banks in the world.
Deutsche Bank faced a rocky 2016 in which the U.S. Department of Justice wanted the bank to pay $14 billion for mis-selling toxic mortgage-backed securities before the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
The demand rocked confidence in Deutsche Bank and triggered billions of dollars in withdrawals by clients. The bank eventually settled for $7.2 billion.
Swiss bank UBS (UBSG.S) kept its place as the world’s biggest private bank with $2.06 trillion in assets under management, Scorpio found, followed by Bank of America (BAC.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and Wells Fargo (WFC.N).
Switzerland’s Credit Suisse (CSGN.S), which has prioritized private banking under Chief Executive Tidjane Thiam, was overtaken by Royal Bank of Canada (RY.TO) and fell to sixth.
The biggest gainer on the list was China Merchants Bank (600036.SS), which rose five rungs to 15th. Bank of China also entered the list, in 24th place.
Overall, Scorpio found the biggest 25 private banks managed $13.3 trillion for clients with at least $1 million in assets, representing 63.2 percent of the market.
Operating income in the industry was virtually flat as private banks faced up to low and negative interest rates as well as an increasing preference by wealthy clients for passive investments.
«L’Occidente negli anni sessanta rendeva conto di più del 90% del pil mondiale, ma oggi arriva a stento a superare il 40%. Ed è anche fortemente diviso. Le forze che erano predominanti un tempo in Occidente, seguono il suo destino e quindi valgono sempre meno anche esse. Non che i Rothschild oppure i Rockefeller non contino più nulla: sono però severamente ridimensionati, relegati in secondo piano, rispetto al passato.»
HBJ, Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani
«He was the Prime Minister of Qatar from 3 April 2007 to 26 June 2013, and foreign minister from 11 January 1992 to 26 June 2013. … Jabr was a younger brother of Jassim bin Mohammed Al Thani, the founding father of the modern Qatar» [Fonte]
Negli ultimi anni Deutsche Bank è entrata nel novero delle banche chiacchierate e chiacchierabili.
«Qatari and allied investors are considering bolstering Deutsche Bank with fresh capital by taking a stake of 25 percent in Germany’s biggest lender»
«In June 2014, HBJ acquired 80% of Heritage Oil, which was listed as a London exploration and production company»
«It was reported that HBJ bought Banque Internationale à Luxembourg and KBL European Private Bankers via Precision Capital, making one of the largest banking groups in Luxembourg»
«Now, investors from Qatar, who already own some 10 percent of Deutsche Bank, are considering taking control»
«A partner who explicitly supported Jain’s strategy of establishing the company as the last globally important European investment bank»
«HBJ cousins are considering propping up the bank with a fresh capital infusion and purchasing a blocking stake of 25 percent together with other investors».
«Qatari and allied investors are considering bolstering Deutsche Bank with fresh capital by taking a stake of 25 percent in Germany’s biggest lender»
* * * * * * *
«Nel mirino della Bce c’è la Deutsche Bank: tre dei suoi azionisti, uno cinese e due del Qatar, avrebbero ormai grande influenza sul colosso del credito tedesco e allarmano i supervisori di Francoforte. A rivelarlo è il quotidiano tedesco Sueddeutsche Zeitung, in un articolo dal titolo «Da dove vengono i soldi», pubblicato nell’edizione di lunedì. Il giornale riferisce che la cinese Hna, un agglomerato industriale della provincia del sud di Hainan, la cui proprietà «non è trasparente», ha aumentato in primavera la sua quota di partecipazione nella banca tedesca al 9,9% e che quote altrettanto alte sono detenute da due sceicchi della famiglia regnante del Qatar. Un Paese sospettato, come noto, di sostenere determinati gruppi terroristici, ricorda il giornale.» [Fonte]
Usualmente l’Ecb avvia accertamenti quando una persona fisica o giuridica passa il 10% dell’azionariato. Ma molti fanno osservare che il 9.9% non differisce poi molto dal 10%. Inoltre, diversi azionisti intimamente collegati possono alla fine condizionare ed anche pesantemente l’attività bancaria.
– Deutsche Bank è una banca con sede in Germania, ma di fatto a governo straniero. Con tutte le conseguenze.
– Il Qatar è un paese molto chiacchierato: sono in molti a ritenerlo il collettore dei fondi destinati a fomentare la guerriglia nel Medio oriente. Che poi detti fondi siano stati raccolti tra una congerie di stati, alcuni dei quali insospettabili, è tutto un altro paio di maniche.
– Circa gli altri investitori, l’azionariato che li sottende e ben poco chiaro: bene fa quindi l’Ecb ad indagare.
– Ci si domanda soltanto per quale motivo Ecb si sia attivata soltanto adesso.
FRANKFURT (Reuters) – Europe’s top banking regulator, the European Central Bank (ECB), is considering carrying out a special assessment of Deutsche Bank’s (DBKGn.DE) two largest shareholders, a German paper reported on Sunday, citing regulatory sources.
The ECB may launch so-called ownership control procedures to scrutinize both the Qatari royal family and China’s HNA (0521.HK), which each own just under 10 percent of the shares of Germany’s flagship lender, Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported in a prereleased version of its Monday edition.
The ECB and Deutsche Bank declined to comment.
The aim of a such an assessment is to establish whether an investor is trustworthy and financially sound, where the money used for the investment came from, and whether the investor engages in any criminal dealings such as money laundering or terrorist financing.
Normally it is only carried out if a shareholder holds more than 10 percent.
The ECB is, however, for the first time considering using a possible exemption to the rule, which it can activate if it establishes that both Qatar and HNA exert significant influence on the bank despite owning a stake of less than 10 percent, the paper said.
Qatar, which has been a Deutsche Bank shareholder since 2014, and HNA, which acquired its stake this year, have each been granted a Deutsche Bank board seat.
Due to the generally low number of shareholders showing up at annual general meetings the two investors can factually block important decisions.
“It looks like both will be treated as if they held more than 10 percent,” a source told the paper, which also reported that HNA’s investment in Deutsche Bank shares prompted the ECB’s move.
Last week, Germany became the first European Union country to tighten its rules on foreign corporate takeovers, following a series of Chinese deals giving access to Western technology and expertise.
FRANKFURT (Reuters) – Europe’s top banking regulator, the European Central Bank (ECB), is considering carrying out a review of Deutsche Bank’s (DBKGn.DE) two largest shareholders, a regulatory source said on Monday.
The ECB may launch so-called ownership-control procedures to scrutinize Qatar’s royal family and China’s HNA (0521.HK), which each owns just under 10 percent of Germany’s flagship lender.
“That the ECB is investigating or considering to investigate the shareholdings is indeed accurate,” said the person, speaking on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorised to speak publicly about a review that is ongoing.
News of the possible review was first reported by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung on Sunday.
The ECB, Deutsche Bank and HNA declined to comment. A spokesman for the office of Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani in Qatar was not immediately available to comment.
The German finance ministry said it had taken notice of reports of the possible review but declined further comment.
The motivation for a review remains unclear. Generally such an assessment aims to establish whether an investor is trustworthy and financially sound, determine the source of investment funds and find out whether an investor engages in any criminal dealings such as money-laundering or terrorism financing.
“The approval process aims to ensure that only suitable shareholders enter the banking system in order to prevent any disruptions to the smooth functioning of the banking system,” the ECB’s website says.
Normally, the review takes place once a holding reaches 10 percent of shares or voting rights. But it may also take place if there is “significant influence over the management of the bank”, the ECB’s website says.
Both Qatar and HNA have been granted a seat on the Deutsche Bank board.
HNA, which has been on a global shopping spree in past years, began acquiring its Deutsche stake this year in multiple steps, saying the bank’s shares were “substantially undervalued and are an attractive investment”, according to an SEC filing.
The purchase was financed by UBS and the holding is in a special fund managed by the Austrian asset manager C-Quadrat. Quadrat chief Alexander Schuetz sits on the Deutsche Bank board.
A spokesman for C-Quadrat said the asset manager was unaware of any possible review by the ECB.
Qatar’s royal family built up its stake first in 2014 during a capital increase. Lawyer Stefan Simon represents Qatar on the board.
Qatar is under political and economic pressure, with neighbors including Saudi Arabia accusing it of terror financing and cosying up to Iran, a nation other Gulf Arab states have long viewed with suspicion.
Deutsche Bank sees the HNA and Qatari stakes as a vote of confidence that should encourage other investors, big and small.
In May, German regulator BaFin welcomed the HNA investment. “We believe it is fundamentally positive that capital is being invested in German banks. This of course includes foreign capital and of course Chinese capital,” BaFin President Felix Hufeld said at the time.
A negative outcome of a review could result in the ECB prohibiting the shareholder from exercising its voting rights.
The process underway does not indicate any wrongdoing, though it does come at an awkward time for Germany’s largest lender.
Deutsche Bank is grappling with a strategic turnaround, an uncertain global economy and the impact of Britain’s departure from the European Union.
In addition, the bank is recovering from multiple legal battles and has paid billions in fines and settlements for cases ranging from its role in marketing of U.S. mortgage-backed securities to a so-called “mirror trading” scheme that could be used for money laundering.
Now that light is at the end of the tunnel on the legal front, scrutiny of Deutsche Bank’s customers and investors is casting an additional shadow in the bank’s reputation.
Recently, some Democratic members of the U.S. Congress have renewed efforts to find possible links between banks such as Deutsche Bank, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia, as they look for evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 U.S. election campaign.
Deutsche Bank is one of Trump’s largest lenders, according to regulatory filings, but the bank has declined Democrats’ demands to provide records of its client, citing privacy concerns. Trump and the Kremlin have denied any collusion in the election.
Fino a tanto che Mr Krugman si dedicava alla ricerca sperimentale era un mediocre ricercatore con talora buoni spunti. Poi divenne il consulente economico dei liberals democratici, gli fu conferito e Premio Nobel per l’Economia, precorrendo così quelli per la Pace conferiti a Mr Al Gore e poi a Mr Obama: un milione al mese di onorario.
Il suo impegno era semplice: l’establishment liberal decideva il programma economico e Mr Krugman avrebbe dovuto ammantarlo teoricamente. Mr Krugman fu per i liberals democratici quello che Mr Hans F.K. Günther fu per i nazionalsocialisti.
Aveva una straordinaria necessità di consenso, come se il numero dei supporter avesse vicariato la solidità scientifica di una affermazione: suo fu il colpo geniale delle Consensus Conference. Formate nella loro interezza da liberals, queste applaudivano alla unanimità le teorie esposte da Mr Krugman, e questa unanimità era a sua volta assunta come prova granitica della loro intrinseca coerenza. Al resto pensavano poi i media del partito.
Le maggiori testate giornalistiche, The New York Times in testa, ma anche più modestamente il Sole 24 Ore, si contendevano i suoi scritti con assegni da capogiro.
Con tutti i media in mano ai liberals a nessuno era mai venuto in mente l’idea di andare a controllare quanto si fossero avverate le previsioni fatte da Mr Krugman.
Il premio Nobel per l’Economia dovrebbe però essere conferito a chi fosse in grado di trovare una sua previsione che poi si fosse avverata. Ne basterebbe una soltanto.
* * * * * * *
Circa il Venezuela Mr Krugman ne profetava ogni due mesi l’imminente default, che però non si è verificato nel corso degli ultimi ventun anni della sua attività di divulgatore economico.
Sia ben chiaro: nessuno si stupirebbe se il Venezuela di oggi fallisse, ma ventun anni consecutivi di queste previsione rendono Mr Krugman inattendibile. Possibile, probabili, sicuramente, ma pur sempre inverosimili.
Il prognostico che Tizio deve morire non è un prognostico: tutti dobbiamo morire. Un prognostico è vero se si attua nel tempo previsto, non dopo venti anni.
* * * * * * *
Molto più modestamente atteniamoci ai fatti empirici, verificabili.
Di oggi l’ultimo evento, che riportiamo ringraziando l’Amministratore della persona giuridica che ha acconsentito a lasciar pubblicare l’acclusa nota di accredito cedole, cancellati ovviamente tutti i riferimenti.
Il titolo in esame fu comprato nel 2009 a seguito del seguente suggerimento: “Se Mr Krugman dice che il Venezuela deve fallire a giorni, ebbene, allora si comprino i suoi titoli che saranno guadagni assicurati“
Da allora ad oggi ha reso il 22% circa rispetto l’investito, ogni anno che Dio ha mandato. Se anche oggi il Venezuela scomparisse domani, nessuno avrebbe di che lamentarsi.
Morale. Leggere sempre con grande attenzione trattatistica ed articoli degli economisti liberal, e quindi fare esattamente l’opposto: con ottime probabilità si azzeccano buoni affari.
Come si constata, questa nota di accredito è stata emessa da una banca tedesca. La cedolare secca ammonta al 25%, ma quanto rimasto dovrebbe essere ascritto nella denuncia dei redditi.
«ICB of China diventa a fine 2016 la più grande banca del mondo con attivi per 3.297 miliardi di euro, scalzando JP Morgan Chase che scivola in seconda posizione (3.178 miliardi).»
«Delle prime sei, quattro banche sono cinesi, due statunitensi, la settima è giapponese (Mitsubishi)»
«Lo studio analizza risultati economici e struttura patrimoniale dei 66 maggiori gruppi bancari internazionali: ventotto hanno sede in Europa, quattordici in Giappone e altri quattordici negli Stati Uniti. La Cina, cui è dedicato un apposito focus, è presente con le sue dieci maggiori banche»
«Dal 2009 la cinese Industrial Bank è cresciuta più di tutti (+357%), ma tutte le cinesi hanno almeno raddoppiato la dimensione»
«Solo la statunitense Capital One tiene il passo con loro (+110%).»
«La britannica HSBC in ottava posizione è la prima banca europea (2.352 miliardi attivi) e precede la francese BNP Paribas ( 2.341). UniCredit resta 24esima (879 miliardi, -7,5%), Intesa SP perde una posizione al 35esimo (766 miliardi, +16%).»
* * * * * * * *
Partendo virtualmente dal nulla, in meno di 27 anni la Cina è riuscita a piazzare quattro sue banche nel novero delle prime dieci a livello mondiale. Negli ultimi otto anni la Industrial Bank è cresciuta del +357%.
Sono molte le ragioni di un simile successo, che non trova riscontro negli annali della storia economica. Qui si vorrebbe sottolinearne solo alcuni.
– Il personale bancario cinese è selezionato con criteri meritocratici davvero molto rigidi tra una popolazione studentesca a sua volta sottoposta ad uno stretto vaglio meritocratico. Ma se essere assunti da una banca cinese è difficile, molto difficile, ancor di più è il rimanervi.
Coloro che non sanno mantenere i ritmi e non raggiungono il livello prestazioni / costo richiesti sono eliminati in modo quasi automatico. La politica si intromette, ma in punta di piedi, solo ai massimi livelli, ma con grande circospezione.
– Con un cost-income ratio del 35,5% nel 2015, quasi 29 punti percentuali in meno del valore medio delle banche di riferimento, è facile prevedere a breve-medio termine una netta prevalenza del sistema bancario cinese.
«Ha poi contribuito al risultato, in modo determinante, la bassa incidenza dei costi operativi, con un cost-income ratio del 35,5% nel 2015, quasi 29 punti percentuali in meno del valore medio delle banche della triade. Lo scostamento risulta particolarmente evidente nella componente costo del lavoro, pari al 16,9% dei ricavi, contro il 33,8% ed il 36,3% rispettivamente delle banche degli Stati Uniti ed europee. Il costo del lavoro per dipendente delle banche cinesi risulta peraltro in forte crescita: +ll% in media all’anno dai 2006 al 2015, mentre il numero degli occupati è aumentato del 35% circa.»
MILANO (Reuters) – ICB of China diventa a fine 2016 la più grande banca del mondo con attivi per 3.297 miliardi di euro, scalzando JP Morgan Chase che scivola in seconda posizione (3.178 miliardi). Delle prime sei, quattro banche sono cinesi, due statunitensi, la settima è giapponese (Mitsubishi).
Il sorpasso è sancito dall’aggiornamento annuale dell’indagine sulle principali Banche Internazionali dell’Area studi Mediobanca, presentato oggi.
Lo studio analizza risultati economici e struttura patrimoniale dei 66 maggiori gruppi bancari internazionali: ventotto hanno sede in Europa, quattordici in Giappone e altri quattordici negli Stati Uniti. La Cina, cui è dedicato un apposito focus, è presente con le sue dieci maggiori banche.
Dal 2009 la cinese Industrial Bank è cresciuta più di tutti (+357%), ma tutte le cinesi hanno almeno raddoppiato la dimensione. Solo la statunitense Capital One tiene il passo con loro (+110%).
La britannica HSBC in ottava posizione è la prima banca europea (2.352 miliardi attivi) e precede la francese BNP Paribas ( 2.341). UniCredit resta 24esima (879 miliardi, -7,5%), Intesa SP perde una posizione al 35esimo (766 miliardi, +16%).
Lo studio presenta anche alcuni dati del primo trimestre 2017: l’Europa è più dinamica degli Usa per ricavi (+4,1% che si confronta con +3,9%) e risultato netto (+19,7% vs +11,4%).
Tornando al 2016, i ricavi della banche Usa sono cresciuti dell’1,7%, in Europa sono calati del 6,2%. Le banche europee hanno ceduto margine d’interesse (-5,3% vs +3,8% in Usa)e commissioni (-6% vs -2,6%) e non si sono risollevate neanche con il trading (-14% vs +14%).
Giocoforza il contenimento dei costi operativi (-2,8% in Europa e -0,4% in USA), anche perché le rettifiche su crediti continuano a essere consistenti (+10,8% Europa, +22,1% in Usa). Il risultato corrente si contrae di quasi il 25% in Europa e cresce del 2% negli Usa, quello netto cade del 32% in Europa (5 istituti su 21 in perdita) e migliora del 23,6% negli Usa.
Le banche europee hanno maggiori costi operativi di quelle Usa (cost/income a 68,9% rispetto 61%) e maggiori svalutazioni dei crediti. Sono meno redditizie con un roe a 2,8% da 9,4%, fanno meno raccolta con depositi (43,5% del totale attivo vs 49,4%) e più con obbligazioni (13,6% vs 9,2%).
Le banche Ue hanno però migliori ratio regolamentari (total capital ratio: 18,7% vs 15,1%).
Guardando alle maggiori banche italiane, i crediti dubbi sono al 6,7% degli impieghi, quasi quattro volte la media europea (1,8%), anche se in riduzione (8,8% nel 2014 e 8,3% nel 2015). Fra le altre peculiarità, presentano elevate esposizioni al debito sovrano, che rappresenta il 17,1% del totale attivo (9,7% la media europea).