富蘭克林資源 (BEN) 2019 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, and welcome to Franklin Resources Earnings Conference Call for the Quarter and Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019. Please note that the financial results to be presented in this commentary are preliminary. Statements made in this conference call, regarding Franklin Resources, Inc., which are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward looking statements involve a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from any future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These and other risks, uncertainties and other important factors are described in more detail in Franklin's recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including in the Risk Factors and MD&A sections of Franklin's most recent Form 10-K and 10-Q filings.

早安，歡迎參加富蘭克林資源（Franklin Resources）截至2019年9月30日之季度及會計年度盈餘電話會議。請注意，本次說明中將呈現的財務結果為初步數據。本次電話會議中就富蘭克林資源公司（Franklin Resources, Inc.）所作、非屬歷史事實之陳述，均為《1995年私人證券訴訟改革法》（Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995）所定義之「前瞻性陳述」。此等前瞻性陳述涉及多項已知與未知之風險、不確定性及其他重要因素，可能導致實際結果與該等前瞻性陳述所明示或暗示之任何未來結果存在重大差異。上述及其他風險、不確定性與其他重要因素，已於富蘭克林近期向美國證券交易委員會（SEC）提交之文件中更為詳盡地說明，包括富蘭克林最近期Form 10-K與10-Q申報文件中的風險因素（Risk Factors）及管理階層討論與分析（MD&A）章節。

Good morning. My name is Rob, and I'll be your call operator today. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. (Operator Instructions)

早安。我叫Rob，今天將擔任本次電話會議的接線員。（接線員指示）提醒各位，本次會議將被錄音。（接線員指示）

At this time, I'd like to turn the call over to Franklin Resources' Chairman and CEO, Mr. Greg Johnson. Mr. Johnson, you may begin.

現在我想把電話交給富蘭克林資源董事長兼執行長Greg Johnson先生。Johnson先生，您可以開始。

Thank you. Good morning, and thank you, for joining us to discuss the fourth quarter and fiscal year results. Joining me today is Matthew Nicholls, our CFO; and Jenny Johnson, President and Chief Operating Officer.

謝謝。早安，感謝各位加入我們，一同討論第四季與會計年度的業績結果。今天與我一同出席的有：我們的財務長Matthew Nicholls，以及總裁兼營運長Jenny Johnson。

Our industry remains in the midst of rapid change that we worked diligently to address in fiscal year 2019 by evolving certain parts of our business or remaining steadfast in our core convictions. We were pleased to see improved sales and share in the U.S. retail channel. Our U.S. equity sales also improved again this quarter, reflecting strong performance in recent sales momentum continued in our U.S. fixed-income strategies. Overall, investment performance improved throughout most of the year but trended down in the final months following global events that negatively impacted certain strategies.

我們的產業仍處於快速變動之中；在2019會計年度，我們透過調整部分業務、並在核心信念上保持堅定，努力因應這些變化。我們很高興看到美國零售通路的銷售與市占有所改善。本季我們的美國股票銷售亦再度改善，反映出近期強勁表現所帶動的銷售動能；同時，我們的美國固定收益策略也延續了這股動能。整體而言，投資績效在全年大部分時間有所改善，但在最後幾個月，受全球事件影響、對部分策略造成負面衝擊，績效趨勢轉弱。

Capital allocation remains a very important focus for our Board and management team. We continue to actively evaluate the industry landscape for opportunities to grow and enhance our business through acquisitions, and we rewarded our investors through dividends and repurchases this fiscal year that amounted to 107% of net income.

資本配置仍是董事會與管理團隊非常重要的重點。我們持續積極評估產業版圖，尋找透過併購來成長並強化業務的機會；同時，我們也透過股利與庫藏股回購回饋投資人，本會計年度合計回饋金額相當於淨利的107%。

I'd now like to open the line to your questions.

現在我想開放電話線，接受各位提問。

Our first question comes from the line of Craig Siegenthaler with Crédit Suisse.

我們的第一個問題來自瑞士信貸（Crédit Suisse）的Craig Siegenthaler。

I just wanted to start with Benefit Street first. Can you provide us an update on fundraising and AUM growth since the deal has closed? And also, do you have an AUM target for the senior opportunities fund to note?

我想先從Benefit Street談起。交易完成後，能否請您更新一下募資進度與資產管理規模（AUM）的成長情況？另外，針對senior opportunities fund，是否有可供參考的AUM目標？

Yes. I would -- as we said on the last call, I mean, we were very pleased with the progress with Benefit Street. And I think in -- the last year has really been getting our distribution platform up to speed and training, and we had over 350 global meetings and introducing the new funds that they're offering. And I think we're excited about what that means for this year in terms of flows.

好的。我想——如同我們在上次電話會議所說，我們對Benefit Street的進展非常滿意。我認為過去一年主要是在讓我們的通路平台加速到位並進行訓練；我們進行了超過350場全球會議，介紹他們所提供的新基金。我們也對這對今年資金流入（flows）可能帶來的意義感到興奮。

And as you know, on the institutional side, you have not a steady flow, but when you close funds, you have, obviously, a large onetime lower. And we're expecting to see 2 or 3 of those events in the next year. And hopefully, we'll target somewhere over $3 billion, $4 billion range of flows if everything works and market stays steady.

如你所知，在機構端，資金流入並非穩定連續；但當你完成基金募集結案時，顯然會出現一次性的大額——我們預期未來一年會看到2到3次這樣的事件。如果一切順利且市場保持穩定，我們希望資金流入目標可落在約30億到40億美元的區間。

We've also registered funds and are in the process of getting retail products out there, whether it's a BDC with some of our major distributors as well as the potential of introducing interval funds for more of the retail and wealth management platforms.

我們也已完成基金註冊，並正推進將零售產品推向市場的流程；不論是與部分主要通路合作推出BDC（商業發展公司），或是可能推出區間基金（interval funds），以更貼近零售與財富管理平台。

So very pleased with the progress to date there. And I would say, in the last quarter, we had 1 CLO close that -- you asked about flows for $233 million or so, but that was the only really fund raise in the last 4 to 6 months.

因此，迄今為止我們對那邊的進展非常滿意。我也會說，在上一季我們完成了1筆CLO結案——你問到資金流入，大約是2.33億美元左右；但那是過去4到6個月唯一真正的募資。

And just one follow-up on the 55.8 basis point fee rate. When you exclude market appreciation and any kind of divergent beta, what are your thoughts on the overall fee rate going forward given organic mix shift? And also, any potential pricing adjustments that you could do to enhance growth?

另外追問一下55.8個基點的費率。若排除市場上漲以及任何不同的beta影響，考量有機的產品組合移轉（organic mix shift），您對未來整體費率走勢有何看法？此外，是否有任何可能的定價調整，可用以強化成長？

It's Matthew, Craig. I would say that it's a very tough question to predict, fee rates. Our mix of products is evolving somewhat. The past quarter, for example, fee rate came down slightly based on the fact that our international global products came down a little bit through increased redemption activity there that we talked about. But I think further guidance on the average fee rate is difficult to predict.

Craig，我是Matthew。我會說，費率確實很難預測，這是個非常棘手的問題。我們的產品組合正在一定程度上演變。例如在上一季，平均費率略有下降，原因是我們的國際／全球產品因我們提到的贖回活動增加而略有下滑。但我認為，要對平均費率提供進一步指引仍然很難預測。

You're next question comes from the line of Patrick Davitt with Autonomous Research.

下一個問題來自Autonomous Research的Patrick Davitt。

My first question, there's been a few high-profile Morningstar downgrades of some of HAZMAT status funds. Historically, there have been a high correlation between flows and these ratings. I'd be curious to get your thoughts on if you think that correlation is still as strong given all the changes in the distribution ecosystem. And through that lens, are your expecting accelerated outflows as a result?

我的第一個問題是，Morningstar近期對一些具HAZMAT狀態的基金做了幾個高知名度的評等下調。歷史上，資金流向與這些評等之間有很高的相關性。我想請教，在通路生態系統發生諸多變化之後，您認為這種相關性是否仍然同樣強？從這個角度看，您是否預期因此出現加速的資金流出？

Yes. I think, clearly, there's a correlation. And obviously, the more recent underperformance puts pressure on some of the Morningstar ratings. But I think this fund is really in a category of its own and there's no real one clear peer group for this kind of unconstrained global bond that tends to have no correlation with beta or duration. So I think it always has a place and a portfolio regardless, and people are -- that have used the fund in the past understand what it brings to a typical 60-40 or typical portfolio at a lower risk, and that hasn't changed. But no, we don't expect any -- I think the relative performance is the key in the short run more than the ratings. And obviously, the fourth quarter, September with Argentina, you had some -- what was up until that point very strong relative performance, a downturn in that. But that turns fairly quickly in that market because every fund looks so different. So we aren't as optimistic on flows right now based on that September, but as I've said before, that can turn very quickly as the markets move.

是的。我認為很明顯存在相關性。而且顯然，近期的相對弱勢表現會對部分Morningstar評等造成壓力。但我認為這檔基金其實自成一類；對於這種不受限的全球債券策略而言，並沒有一個明確的同儕組別可直接對照，而且它往往與beta或存續期間（duration）沒有相關性。因此我認為它始終在投資組合中有其位置；過去使用過這檔基金的人了解它在典型60/40或一般投資組合中、以較低風險所能帶來的價值，而這點並沒有改變。不過，我們不預期會有任何——我認為短期內關鍵更在於相對績效，而非評等。而且很明顯，第四季、9月在阿根廷事件影響下，你看到——在那之前相對績效其實非常強勁——出現了一段下滑。但在那個市場中，因為每檔基金表現差異很大，情況往往會很快反轉。所以就目前而言，基於9月的表現，我們對資金流入不會那麼樂觀；但如我之前所說，隨著市場變動，情況可能很快就會改變。

Great. Okay. And my follow-up. Matthew, now that you've been in the position a bit longer now, any updated thoughts on the potential to get even more lean on the expense side heading into next year?

了解。好的。那我的追問是：Matthew，您上任也一段時間了，對於明年在費用端進一步精簡的可能性，是否有任何更新的看法？

Yes. I think that we've just been through a very disciplined budget process for 2020. When we last commented on this, I think we had referenced guidance again to -- for 2020 to be at just about 2019 flat. I think we can say now that we believe we can come in a little bit below that target. And I also believe that we have a little bit more flexibility than I first thought before we started the budget process, but I'd still continue to point to the guidance that we've provided beforehand on just a little bit below 2019 for expense in 2020.

是的。我認為我們剛完成一個對2020年非常嚴謹的預算流程。上次我們談到這點時，我想我們提到過對2020年的指引——費用大致與2019年持平。我想我們現在可以說，我們相信實際結果可略低於該目標。我也認為，相較於在開始預算流程之前我原先的想法，我們的彈性稍微更大一些；但我仍會指向我們先前提供的指引：2020年的費用將略低於2019年。

The next question comes from the line of Mike Carrier with Bank of America.

下一個問題來自美國銀行（Bank of America）的 Mike Carrier。

I guess just one more on expenses. You guys did a lot over the past years or so just in terms of driving efficiencies but also investing in the business. And you mentioned like the '20 outlook in terms of down a bit. I guess just, like, kind of bigger picture, how you're thinking about the investments in the business? And if we do get into an environment where -- whether its flows or markets are weaker, are there other -- whether it's outsourcing or kind of chunkier, big things that could drive the expense base lower over a longer period of time?

我想再問一個關於費用的問題。你們在過去一年左右做了很多事情，一方面推動效率提升，另一方面也在投資業務。你們也提到對於 20 年展望，費用會略有下降。我想從更宏觀的角度來看，你們如何思考對業務的投資？如果我們進入一個環境——不論是資金流入/流出或市場走弱——是否還有其他方式——例如外包或一些更大、更具結構性的措施——能在更長期間內把費用基礎降得更低？

Yes. I think we have been working hard on that. As you pointed to, we've announced the outsourcing of our fund administration business, which we're ahead on that, which is why our IS&T expenses went up a little bit more than planned for the quarter. And I'd say as well that we spent a lot of time reviewing other parts of our IS&T business and we think there is some opportunity there to decrease our expenses a little bit more if we had to. But generally speaking, as we've already referred to, where we've saved, we've tended to try and reinvest that in other very important parts of our business, in particular on the investment side.

是的。我認為我們一直在這方面努力。如你所指出的，我們已宣布將基金行政管理業務外包，而且進度超前；這也是為什麼本季 IS&T 費用比原先計畫略高一些。另外我也想說，我們花了很多時間檢視 IS&T 業務的其他部分，並認為如果有需要，還有一些空間可以再把費用稍微降低一些。但一般而言，正如我們先前提到的，我們在節省下來的部分，往往會嘗試再投資到業務中其他非常重要的領域，特別是在投資端。

Yes. I mean one of the things on the technology is just investment and data science around -- for our investment teams with a centralized data lake and data scientists embedded in the team. And so that's been an area of growth in our expenses on the IS&T side. So we're trying to figure out where we can save so that we can reinvest it.

是的。我的意思是，在科技方面，其中一項就是圍繞投資團隊的投資與資料科學——建立集中式資料湖，並把資料科學家嵌入團隊。因此，這一直是我們 IS&T 端費用成長的領域之一。所以我們正在思考可以在哪裡節省，以便把節省下來的資源再投資回去。

Okay. And then just on the follow-up, so on the strategic growth initiatives, you also -- you've been active whether it's solutions, EPS, a lot of different areas, and it sounds like on the M&A front, you're still spending a good amount of time looking at potential opportunities. I guess if we don't see something, let's say, over the next year, is it mostly about price, especially if you're going after growth areas? Or are there other factors that you think are challenging in this environment to pursue some of those strategic initiatives?

了解。再追問一下，關於策略性成長計畫，你們也一直很積極，不論是 solutions、EPS，很多不同領域；而且聽起來在併購（M&A）方面，你們仍花了不少時間在看潛在機會。我想如果我們在接下來一年左右沒有看到合適的案子，主要是因為價格因素嗎，尤其是當你們鎖定成長領域時？或者在這個環境下，還有其他你們認為會讓推進某些策略性計畫更具挑戰的因素？

Yes. I mean I would characterize our progress in terms of M&A and acquisition targets as quite good progress in all the areas that we have focused on and referred to in the previous call. And we feel cautiously optimistic about our options in that regard. I'd also add a nuance to our commentary from last quarter, which is to say that while we value our cash and conservative balance sheet, we are ready and willing to utilize a meaningful portion of our cash to help meet these strategic objectives. As mentioned last quarter, any pro forma scenario would continue with low leverage and strong financial flexibility, but this should not be confused with our willingness to use our cash.

是的。我會把我們在併購與收購標的方面的進展形容為相當不錯；在我們聚焦、並在上一通電話會議中提到的所有領域，都有良好進展。我們對於在這方面的選項抱持審慎樂觀。我也想對上季的評論補充一點細節：也就是說，雖然我們重視現金部位與保守的資產負債表，但我們已準備好、也願意動用相當一部分現金來協助達成這些策略目標。如上季所提，任何備考（pro forma）情境仍會維持低槓桿與強勁的財務彈性，但這不應被誤解為我們不願意使用現金。

I'm just going to add, is it mostly about price? I mean obviously price matters, but our approach in thinking around M&A is absolutely around a growth story. So it has to hit a category where we're filling product gaps that we don't have, where we're getting distribution capability that we may not be as strong in or a geography, and that's first and foremost. Cost cutting then gets to be a secondary benefit of that. And then, of course, it has to be at the price.

我再補充一下，是否主要是價格？當然價格很重要，但我們思考併購的方式，絕對是圍繞成長故事。因此它必須符合某個類別：例如補足我們目前沒有的產品缺口、取得我們可能相對不強的通路能力，或是取得某個地理區域的布局；這是首要考量。成本削減則是其次的附帶效益。然後，當然也必須是在合適的價格。

And I think the -- just to add on price, it's not like going out and deciding when you're going to buy a specific security, I mean, it's one of the right needs are available. And sometimes, you end up paying a little bit more, but it's got to be -- we look at it as something that we're going to build over many market cycles and have that time to grow in an asset class that will be around for a long time. So I think it -- sometimes, it's easy to look at the world and say, "Well, gee, I'll buy this when you have excess sell-off." But that's not realistic sometimes as sellers aren't selling in that bottom part of the cycle.

我想——再補充一下價格——這不像出去決定你要在什麼時候買某一檔特定證券；而是要看合適的需求/標的是否出現。有時候你最後會多付一點，但必須是——我們把它視為要跨越多個市場循環去打造的事情，並有時間在一個會長期存在的資產類別中成長。所以我認為——有時候很容易看著市場說：「嗯，我會在你出現過度拋售時買進。」但那在某些時候並不現實，因為賣方不一定會在週期底部那一段出手。

Yes. And the current valuations of asset classes frankly reflect the -- well, the valuations of companies that contain certain asset classes reflect the reality of where the market is, I would say, in a number of the cases that we've been interested in.

是的。而目前資產類別的估值，坦白說反映了——嗯，包含某些資產類別的公司之估值，反映了市場所在位置的現實；我想在我們感興趣的若干案例中都是如此。

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Bedell with Deutsche Bank.

下一個問題來自德意志銀行（Deutsche Bank）的 Brian Bedell。

Maybe just to move back on to the global macro/global bonds complex. It's -- I understand that this -- the shift in the recent few weeks and months has moved more to a cautious stance, and my goal hasn't stopped as kind of, I believe, almost something like half in cash in at least some of the big funds. So just in terms of maybe that macro view and how it's being read by the sales force and advisers, and do you expect that repositioning if that sort of a more of a -- sort of a, I guess, more of a -- permanent is the wrong word, but more of a strategic shift, do you think that will significantly impact the sales engine for that complex?

也許回到全球總經/全球債券這個組合。我理解最近幾週與幾個月的轉變，使其立場更偏向審慎；而且據我所知，在至少一些大型基金中，幾乎有一半是現金，這樣的目標/作法似乎也沒有停止。所以就總經觀點，以及銷售團隊與顧問如何解讀而言；如果這樣的再配置更像是一種——我想說更偏向策略性的轉變（用「永久」這個詞不太對），你認為這會對該產品線的銷售引擎造成顯著影響嗎？

I mean it's hard to say. I think it is clearly a more conservative stance in derisking a lot of the EM currencies that -- again, this goes back to my point about how markets move and how relative performance can swing so quickly. So I don't think there's a lot of funds that have a similar defensive position today, which sometimes I think you bring up correctly that what does that mean for a sales environment, and I think we've stood behind the PM's convictions in doing what's right, again, for the long-term. And having cash in that kind of fund, it has never really been a problem that it would be more of an equity fund, obviously. But because of the liquidity constraints, sometimes that -- having that higher cash is important. And if you get in a disruptive environment, which that team feels like there's a serious potential for, that cash can be very efficient in not having to sell securities but going in and buying during the dislocation.

我的意思是，這很難說。我認為這顯然是更保守的立場，對許多新興市場（EM）貨幣進行去風險——同樣，這也回到我先前提到市場如何變動、相對績效如何能如此快速擺盪的觀點。所以我不認為今天有很多基金採取類似的防禦性部位；而你提出的問題是正確的：這對銷售環境意味著什麼？我想我們一直支持投資組合經理（PM）的信念，做他們認為正確的事——再次強調，是為了長期。而在那類基金中持有現金，從來不會像在股票型基金那樣成為問題，這點很明顯。但由於流動性限制，有時候——持有較高現金是重要的。如果進入一個具破壞性的環境，而該團隊認為確實有很高的可能性，這些現金就能非常有效率：不必賣出證券，反而能在錯位時進場買入。

So I think some of the best track records over time are built when you have that ammunition to buy instead of sell, and that's really what that fund is positioned for. But I think it's hard to say what impact will that have on the sales. But as I said in my earlier comments, this is a little bit different of a product. People are used to the higher cash in this fund and some get comfort from having that when issues come up with certain holdings on liquidity, and that's part of the combination here.

所以我認為，長期來看一些最好的績效紀錄，往往是在你有那種「彈藥」可以買而不是賣的時候建立的，而那檔基金正是為此而定位。但我想很難說這會對銷售造成什麼影響。不過如我先前所說，這是一個有點不同的產品。大家已習慣這檔基金較高的現金水位；而且當某些持倉出現流動性問題時，有些人會因為有這樣的現金部位而感到安心，這也是這裡組合的一部分。

Right. And has that hedge to higher rates been reversed largely in the fund as well?

了解。那麼基金中對沖利率上升的部位，也大致已經反向調整了嗎？

Not reversed, it's on the shorter to medium-term and still negative duration on the longer. But definitely, focused on the longer end of the curve and no longer on more medium and shorter end.

沒有反向調整；在短到中期端仍是如此，而在長端仍是負存續期（negative duration）。但確實是把重點放在殖利率曲線的長端，不再著重於中短端。

Got it. And then just my follow-up is on the outsourcing of the fund administration. Can you just review, again, like what parts of the fund administration are outsourced and what you still have in-house? I believe you were still doing, from recollection, fund accounting in-house, but I think the custody is outsourced. So maybe just to clear that up between middle office. And is it across most of you mutual fund complex or just portions of it? Trying to get a sense of what could be further outsourced in the future and how much you have now?

了解。接著我想追問的是關於基金行政管理（fund administration）的外包。你能否再回顧一下，基金行政管理哪些部分是外包的、哪些仍由內部處理？我記得你們仍在內部做基金會計（fund accounting），但我想託管（custody）是外包的。所以也許可以釐清一下中台（middle office）之間的分工。另外，這是涵蓋你們大多數的共同基金體系（mutual fund complex），還是只有其中一部分？我想了解未來還可能進一步外包哪些項目，以及你們目前已外包到什麼程度？

I mean you're correct that we historically had outsourced the custody, of course, and had kept the fund administration in-house. And part of that was because with our global footprint, it was difficult to find somebody who could cover all the areas that we tend to cover. And now the providers have stepped up, and so we're looking to outsource all the fund administration. And many of the work that's done in custody you have to do in fund administration. So we found some amount of duplication. But because we were early into lower-cost environments, it was hard to find providers that could be competitive pricing wise. And now as others have done that, we found that the coverage of what we do as far as geography as well as the cost is now much more competitive.

你的理解沒錯，我們過去確實一直把託管外包，當然，同時把基金行政管理留在內部。其中一個原因是，因為我們的全球佈局，要找到能涵蓋我們通常涉及的所有地區的供應商並不容易。但現在服務供應商的能力已經提升，所以我們正考慮把所有基金行政管理都外包出去。而且託管所做的許多工作，在基金行政管理中也必須做。因此我們發現存在一定程度的重複。不過，由於我們很早就進入低成本環境，要找到在價格上具競爭力的供應商一直很困難。而現在隨著其他人也這麼做，我們發現無論是地理覆蓋範圍，還是成本，就我們的業務而言都變得更具競爭力了。

Okay. And just the timing of the outsourcing of this? Is this going to be converted in the next couple of quarters? Or is it longer term?

好的。那關於這次外包的時程呢？會在接下來幾個季度內完成轉換嗎？還是屬於更長期的計畫？

No. This will be -- over 2020 is the conversion, and we'll start realizing benefits in 2021.

不。轉換會在2020年期間完成，我們將在2021年開始實現效益。

Got it. Okay. And that's in your guidance already for the expenses for '20?

了解。好的。那這已經反映在你們對2020年費用的指引（guidance）裡了嗎？

Yes. That's correct.

是的。沒錯。

Our next question is from the line of Ken Worthington with JPMorgan.

我們的下一個問題來自摩根大通（JPMorgan）的Ken Worthington。

You mentioned a number of large-block withdrawals in the coming quarter or, I guess, the current quarter. $800 million global fixed income, $1.6 billion for mutual shares, and there were some larger block redemptions this past quarter. Now we expect the institutional business to be. Your lumpiness is really more on the redemption side. So any common themes to the bigger-block outflows? Are you hearing -- is it performance issues, distribution issues, active to passive pricing? So any common themes in the sort of different asset classes and what you're seeing?

你提到在接下來一個季度，或者我想是本季度，會有幾筆大額贖回。包括8億美元的全球固定收益、16億美元的共同基金股份（mutual shares），而上個季度也有一些較大的區塊式贖回（large block redemptions）。我們原本預期機構業務會是這樣。你們的波動性（lumpiness）其實更多是在贖回端。那這些較大筆資金流出有沒有什麼共同主題？你們聽到的是——是績效問題、通路問題、主動轉被動的定價因素嗎？所以在不同資產類別上，你們看到的情況是否有一些共通點？

And ultimately, Franklin has been in redemption for, I don't know, 6-or-so plus years. What is the path back to inflows for Franklin? What, if any, are milestones that you're holding out for yourself with that regard?

而且歸根結底，Franklin處於淨贖回狀態已經有，我不知道，大概6年多了。Franklin要回到淨流入的路徑是什麼？就這點而言，你們是否為自己設定了任何里程碑（milestones）？如果有，是哪些？

Yes. First of all, it's probably all the above on some of the lumpy redemptions, but in particular, the larger one coming this quarter with mutual shares, in particular, was really a large broker-dealer distributor that's moving assets to their in-house funds and not really performance related but more about funds just moving in-house.

是的。首先，這些波動性較大的贖回原因可能「以上皆是」，但特別是本季度即將發生的那筆較大的共同基金股份贖回，主要是一家大型券商/經紀交易商（broker-dealer）通路商把資產轉到他們自家的基金，並不是績效相關，而更像是基金資產內部化（moving in-house）。

The -- Templeton continues to be under pressure, and this relates to what -- you talked about inflows and 6 or 7 years, and obviously, for us, having a lower base of U.S. assets, our U.S. funds are doing extremely well, growing market share, very strong inflows, accelerating, but that pales compared to the large Templeton deep value, Mutual Series deep value assets that we have. So that's really -- the catalyst is going to be the rotation of value and growth. And then also the -- we talked earlier about many of the new initiatives that we've funded, whether it's around the solutions' side, the SMA side, a lot of resources have been put into that. We've been very successful, I would say, in the last year or 2 getting on platforms. We are a multi-asset solutions group, just recently got on 2 major platforms, and I think those are going to drive flows over time. Now they'll drive flows at a little bit lower of a margin maybe than your traditional 40 Act Funds, but ones that we think can be very positive and only a few players are going to be competitive in that space that have the scale to do that. And ETFs as well continue to be an area of growth for us and just crossing $5 billion. And again, getting to the size where we have a better -- more distribution opportunities opening up and having been on platforms now for -- or been in existence for 3 years minimum, in some cases, getting on platforms. And that's really, I would say, is where the most progress has been made on the U.S. side is these new multi-asset solutions, ETFs and getting onto traditional platforms as well as, hopefully, getting onto new technology platforms that emerge.

Templeton仍然承受壓力，這也呼應你提到的淨流入以及6、7年的問題。顯然，對我們而言，由於美國資產基數較低，我們的美國基金表現非常好，市佔率在提升，淨流入非常強且正在加速，但相較之下，這仍不及我們所持有的大規模Templeton深度價值（deep value）以及Mutual Series深度價值資產的體量。所以真正的催化劑將是價值與成長風格的輪動（rotation）。另外，我們先前也談到許多已投入資金的新計畫，不論是解決方案（solutions）端、SMA端，我們都投入了大量資源。我會說，過去一到兩年我們在上架平台方面非常成功。我們是一個多元資產解決方案團隊，最近剛上了兩個主要平台，我認為這些會隨時間推動資金流入。當然，這些帶來的資金流入，其利潤率可能會比傳統的《1940年投資公司法》（40 Act）基金略低一些，但我們認為仍可能非常正面，而且在那個領域只有少數具備規模的業者才有競爭力。此外，ETF也持續是我們的成長領域，規模剛突破50億美元。同樣地，當我們達到一定規模後，會有更多通路機會開啟；而且我們的ETF產品已存在至少3年，在某些情況下也因此得以上架平台。我會說，美國端目前進展最大的，就是這些新的多元資產解決方案、ETF，以及上架傳統平台，同時也希望能上架新興的科技平台。

And I'll just add a note on the institutional side. There were some big headwinds this year in that, obviously, Argentina, Greg talked about it. We also had a new CIO introduced on the Templeton Global Equity Group. You're playing defense in those meetings. They had a sub 20 clients representing $40 billion in assets hitting 13 cities in 5 days. That's what your conversation ends up being. Having said that, we've got $4 billion in unfunded international institutional business. Our pipeline in the U.S. institutional has doubled in size. We actually converted 9 new prospects. And so there are green shoots underneath, it's just you're mixing it in the time which has some big headwinds. And I think we have some good green shoots, as Greg mentioned, on the retail side with some big placements of our model business and some good growth there.

我再補充一點關於機構端。今年有一些很大的逆風，顯然包括阿根廷，Greg也提到了。我們在Templeton全球股票團隊（Templeton Global Equity Group）也引入了一位新的投資長（CIO）。在那些會議中你基本上是在防守。他們在5天內跑了13個城市，拜訪不到20個客戶，但這些客戶合計代表400億美元資產。你的對話最後就會變成那樣。話雖如此，我們有40億美元尚未到位（unfunded）的國際機構業務。我們在美國機構端的案源管線（pipeline）規模已經翻倍。我們實際上也轉化了9個新潛在客戶。所以底下是有一些正向跡象（green shoots）的，只是同一時間也混雜著一些很大的逆風。而且我認為，如Greg所提，在零售端也有一些不錯的正向跡象，例如我們模型業務（model business）有一些大型配置（placements），並且有不錯的成長。

And I would give another example, I mean, our Emerging Markets Group that has a new leadership and excellent performance and institutional quality process and, really, we think an opportunity for institutional assets for the first time. And we're excited about that as that team now is getting on platforms for institutional searches, and we haven't had that opportunity in the past.

我再舉一個例子：我們的新興市場團隊（Emerging Markets Group）有新的領導層，績效表現優異，具備機構等級的流程（institutional quality process），而且我們認為這讓我們第一次真正有機會爭取機構資產。我們對此感到興奮，因為該團隊現在正在上架平台以參與機構端的遴選（institutional searches），而過去我們沒有這樣的機會。

Great. And then the follow-up, there was a delay in the 2 institutional fundings, I think it was $2 billion. Is there any risk that they don't fund? Or is funding just a -- is funding a certainty and it's just the timing that is unknown?

很好。那追問一下，兩筆機構資金到位（fundings）有延遲，我想是20億美元。是否存在它們最終不撥款/不到位的風險？還是說資金到位是確定的，只是時間點不確定？

It's either -- if the money is not in hand, there's always a risk, but there is nothing that indicates that there's any kind of risk that -- we believe they will be funded.

如果——只要資金還沒實際到手，就總是存在風險，但目前沒有任何跡象顯示有任何風險——我們相信它們會到位。

The next question is from the line of Dan Fannon with Jefferies.

下一個問題來自Jefferies的Dan Fannon。

Just on the $4 billion of the international kind of backlog or unfunded wins, I guess in context of -- I think we've gotten a number like that from you before versus a year ago or other points in time. How do we think about that relative to previous periods just so we can have, as I said, some context?

關於那40億美元的國際端積壓量（backlog）或尚未到位的得標（unfunded wins），我想放在脈絡中——我記得你們之前也曾提供過類似的數字，可能是一年前或其他時間點。相較於過去期間，我們應該如何看待這個數字，讓我們能如我所說，有一些脈絡可供參考？

I mean I think a good question, and that's probably why we haven't talked about that number in the past because I think the hard part is the timing for you to figure out when those assets come in and sometimes, they take longer than you'd think and could be a year out, could be next month. So we've always been kind of hesitant to even talk about that. And that number is really just what's in the offshore international institutional flows, there's is a few more domestically. But I'm not sure what you do with that number, actually. So good point.

我的意思是，我覺得這是個好問題，這大概也是為什麼我們過去沒有談過那個數字，因為我認為困難的部分在於時點：你要判斷那些資產何時會進來；而且有時候它們花的時間會比你想的更久，可能要一年之後，也可能下個月就進來。所以我們一直對於是否要談這件事都相當猶豫。而那個數字其實主要就是離岸的國際機構資金流，國內還有一些額外的。但老實說，我也不確定你實際上要怎麼運用那個數字。所以你提得很好。

All right. And just a follow-up on kind of the global bond. It's been -- a lot has been written about the performance, earlier you talked about some Morningstar changes. I guess can you talk about what you're doing internally with your sales force and your distributor to basically play more defensive, I assume, to kind of keep assets in? I don't think it's so much as a growth sales issue, it's also a redemption, given the kind of level of underperformance and, as I said, the headline that's created. So is there some campaign or something that you guys are doing internally to get in front of this and be more proactive?

好。另外再追問一下關於全球債券的部分。關於績效已經有很多報導——你先前也提到 Morningstar 的一些變動。我想問的是，你們在內部對銷售團隊與通路商（distributor）做了哪些工作，基本上是採取更防禦性的作法——我猜——來把資產留住？我覺得這不完全是成長型銷售的問題，也涉及贖回，考量到相對落後的表現程度，以及如我所說所造成的新聞標題效應。所以你們內部是否有什麼活動或計畫，來提前因應、更加主動？

Well, we are. And we're trying to do as much as we can, and we have a new piece going out that talks about the repositioning and some of the recent moves with the fund. But again, I mean, I still point to the long-term performance that's really unparalleled in this, and we've had plenty of periods where you've had things not work out in the short run. And you just point to that long-term record and how it lowers your risk in a portfolio and focus on those things. And as you can -- it's a risky world out there with highly valued assets on every metric. And the story here is going forward what's going to defend your portfolio. And I think that's an important message and one that our sales force is working on.

有的。我們正盡可能做更多事情，而且我們有一份新的資料即將發出，內容談到該基金的再定位，以及近期的一些調整動作。但再說一次，我仍然會指向那個在同類中幾乎無可比擬的長期績效；而且我們也經歷過很多次短期內某些策略不奏效的時期。你就回到那個長期紀錄，以及它如何在投資組合中降低風險，並聚焦在這些重點上。而且如你所見——外面的世界風險很高，各類資產在每個衡量指標上都處於高估值。這裡的故事是：往前看，什麼能夠保護你的投資組合。我認為這是很重要的訊息，也是我們銷售團隊正在努力傳達的。

And we just came out, in October, with a piece called the 4 pillars that face a world of uncertainty, which is -- we're positioning it as -- you want this in your portfolio because it's a hedge to many of the other positions that people have taken and trying to lay it out very clearly, and it's been well received. So very recent.

而且我們在 10 月剛推出一份名為「面對不確定世界的四大支柱（the 4 pillars that face a world of uncertainty）」的資料；我們把它定位為——你會希望把這個放進投資組合，因為它可以對沖人們已經持有的許多其他部位，並且嘗試把邏輯講得非常清楚；市場反應也很好。所以是非常近期的。

Our next question is from the line of Jeremy Campbell with Barclays.

下一個問題來自 Barclays 的 Jeremy Campbell。

First -- sorry, if I missed this in your answer to Craig's question earlier, but what was the revenue in AUM contribution from Benefit Street during the quarter?

第一個問題——抱歉，如果我剛才在你回答 Craig 的問題時漏聽了：本季 Benefit Street 在 AUM 貢獻的營收是多少？

We don't break it out like that, Jeremy.

Jeremy，我們不會那樣拆分揭露。

Okay. No rough sense?

了解。那有沒有大概的概念？

We -- well, we had revenue as stable with the last quarter's. It's about $51 million.

我們——嗯，我們的營收與上一季大致持平。大約是 5,100 萬美元。

Okay. Great. And then just kind of more broadly speaking, just kind of wondering what your thoughts are around what's happening over at UBS right now with the elimination of SMA fees to asset managers? Do you think this is kind of like a new front on the industry-wide fee pressure? And does it dampen your outlook at all about growing Franklin to SMA footprint or your -- kind of your desire for wealth management M&A target like you guys called out in the prepared remarks?

好的。很好。接著更廣泛地問一下：你怎麼看 UBS 目前正在發生的事——取消對資產管理人收取 SMA 費用？你認為這會不會像是全產業費率壓力的新戰線？這是否會在任何程度上削弱你們對擴大 Franklin 在 SMA 版圖的展望，或你們對於尋找財富管理併購標的（你們在事先準備的講稿中提到的）之意願？

So -- I mean interestingly, with our fiduciary trust high net worth business, we've never charged a fee on top of our own proprietary products, right? There was always kind of a conflict around that. So they've reversed that a bit by making the product free and trudging the fee at the top of the house. It is just one of those -- it just feels like a conflict when you do that. But our experience has been that clients absolutely want open architecture, and they desire to have outside products in. So I think that not everything in SMA is going free. Having said that, it's -- there's fee pressure all over the business, and we're all going to have to prove out our value on our fees no different than you've had to do on the institutional side and the retail side. And I think this is just an extension to that.

所以——有趣的是，就我們的受託信託（fiduciary trust）高淨值業務而言，我們從來沒有在自家專有產品之上再額外加收一層費用，對吧？那樣一直存在某種利益衝突。所以他們的作法有點反過來：把產品端變成免費，然後在整個平台／機構層級收取費用。你那樣做就是會讓人覺得有利益衝突。但我們的經驗是，客戶絕對希望有開放式架構（open architecture），也希望能納入外部產品。所以我認為 SMA 並不會所有東西都走向免費。話雖如此，整個業務到處都有費率壓力；我們都必須證明我們的費用所對應的價值，這跟你在機構端與零售端一直以來要做的事情沒有不同。我認為這只是那個趨勢的延伸。

And I think there's been a little bit of market confusion over that change that it was really an entity that was not getting the fee, but there's still a fee being charged around the WRAP account, and the underlying managers are still being paid a fee, is my understanding. So we all know, SMA is a way to accelerate shrinking margins versus your traditional 40 Act Fund because the pricing is controlled by the distributor. And that's not a great trend, but it's a trend you can't ignore and one that we believe is a business we're going to be aggressively in versus trying to defend against it. So I think that's part of our solutions' thinking, it's a change of mindset we have, and we think an important growth area for us. And I think you're correct that it will result in a lower margin. But it will result in larger assets and, hopefully, that'll offset it.

而且我認為市場對那項變動有一些誤解：實際上是不再由某個實體收取那筆費用，但 WRAP 帳戶周邊仍然會收費，而底層的管理人仍然會拿到管理費——這是我的理解。所以我們都知道，相較於傳統的 40 Act 基金（1940 年投資公司法下的共同基金），SMA 是一種會加速利潤率下滑的方式，因為定價由通路商控制。那不是一個很好的趨勢，但你不能忽視；而且我們相信，與其防守它，不如積極投入這個業務。所以我認為這是我們解決方案思維的一部分，是我們心態上的改變，也是一個我們認為很重要的成長領域。而且我想你說得對，它會導致較低的利潤率。但它會帶來更大的資產規模，希望能夠抵銷。

The next question comes from the line of Bill Katz with Citi.

下一個問題來自 Citi 的 Bill Katz。

So Matt, just coming back to the expense discussion for a moment. I guess you've been on a month to month with the AUM and sort of discussing the flow dynamics, so dance around with different adjectives and so forth. So I'm just trying to understand your sort of phraseology here in terms of doing a little bit better on the costs side. So I guess, is there a way to think about that? Are we talking down 0% to 5%? More than that? And then what is the revenue and/or flow assumptions that you're counterbalancing that with the expense outlook you have?

Matt，我想先回到費用的討論。我想你們一直按月更新 AUM，並討論資金流向的動態，所以用不同的形容詞等等來描述。我只是想理解你這裡的用語：在成本端做得「稍微好一些」到底是什麼意思。所以，有沒有一個思考方式？我們是在談 0% 到 5% 的下降嗎？還是更多？另外，你們在費用展望中，用哪些營收和／或資金流向的假設來做對沖／平衡？

Look, I'd say, Bill, that it's too early to get a much further than what we said. But if forced to go into more detail, we'd say probably 0% to 2.5% down from 2019 in the expenses.

Bill，我會說，現在要比我們已經說過的內容再更深入，還太早。但如果一定要更細一點，我們會說費用大概會比 2019 年下降 0% 到 2.5%。

Okay. And there's no revenue backed up you said?

好的。那你剛才說沒有營收方面的支撐假設？

And I'll -- and revenue is largely consistent. And I've also just -- I don't think we addressed a question, which is also related to this earlier on about the average fee rates. I think we confused that with what we thought it's something different. But if the question was, where do we think the average fee rate is heading for our overall mix of business, we forecast that to be roughly flat, and that's based on a whole series of assumptions around the mix about business internationally, domestically, the growth will return to assets, offsetting some of our business that is more under pressure from a fee perspective.

另外——營收大致一致。我也想補充一點——我覺得我們先前沒有回答到一個問題，也跟這裡相關，就是平均費率（average fee rates）。我想我們把那個問題跟我們以為的另一件事搞混了。但如果問題是：我們認為整體業務組合的平均費率接下來會往哪裡走——我們預測大致持平；這是基於一系列關於業務組合的假設，包括國際、國內的組合，以及資產成長將回歸，去抵銷我們部分在費率面臨較大壓力的業務。

Okay. And just my follow-up, staying with you, Matt. So you sort of mentioned the nuance of a potentially more sizeable deal, I think that's what I interpreted. What's changing your thinking? And then when you look at the landscape of other sizeable deals that have gone on over the last several years, what gives you confidence that the market would be receptive to those types of things?

好的。我再追問一個，還是問你，Matt。你剛才提到一個可能規模更大的交易的細微差異——至少我是這樣解讀的。是什麼改變了你的想法？另外，當你看過去幾年市場上其他大型交易的版圖時，是什麼讓你有信心市場會接受那類型的交易？

I think as Jenny mentioned, we think when we look at some of the opportunities that exist in the marketplace, certainly not easy. And I think we discussed that last quarter. But we see areas that we can fill at Franklin. And we have a tremendous chassis and a core business with leading products on a global level across many countries. But we think we can grow that further by filling some of the gaps that we have, whether it's becoming a larger institution in the U.S., whether it's having a little bit more alternative assets. Then there's some other, frankly, products, if you will, that we already have but we're quite smaller. And if we were larger, we think we would be more successful. So I wouldn't guide you towards thinking we're going to do, some mega transaction. But the short list of ideas that we thought about, we think create growth opportunities for us, given our current business, without having to drive down expenses as sort of the number one bullet point. However, we should state that there are, obviously, some cost aspects to all of this consolidation and the business that we would be able to capitalize on it.

我認為如 Jenny 所提到的，當我們檢視市場上存在的一些機會時，確實並不容易。而且我想我們在上一季也討論過。但我們看到在 Franklin 有一些我們可以補上的領域。我們擁有非常強大的平台與核心業務，在全球層面、跨許多國家都有領先的產品。但我們認為，透過補足我們的一些缺口，我們可以進一步成長，無論是成為美國更大型的機構，或是擁有更多另類資產。此外，坦白說，還有一些其他產品我們其實已經有了，但規模相當小。如果我們規模更大，我們認為會更成功。因此我不會引導各位認為我們將進行某種超大型交易。但我們所思考的那份精簡想法清單，我們認為在不必把削減費用當作首要重點的情況下，基於我們現有業務就能為我們創造成長機會。不過，我們也應該說明，顯然這些整併以及相關業務中存在一些成本面向，而我們將能夠加以利用。

The next question is from the line of Brennan Hawken with UBS.

下一個問題來自 UBS 的 Brennan Hawken。

I think earlier, Matthew, you flagged that outsourcing the cost to shift to greater amount of outsourcing is included in your expenses guide for 2020. Are there any other sort of unusual or what you would expect to be nonrecurring items that would be included in that guidance?

Matthew，我想你先前提到，將成本結構轉向更高比例外包所需的外包成本，已包含在你們 2020 年的費用指引中。在該指引中，是否還包含任何其他較不尋常、或你們預期屬於一次性（非經常性）的項目？

Not for the moment.

目前沒有。

Okay. And then when we think about the -- it looks like of the $201 million or so of nonrecurring and acquisition-related expenses, there's some portion that's recurring, so let's call it $150-or-so million that's not occurring. That would suggest like a 5% core growth rate in expenses in your guide. You've flagged that you're doing some investing and everything like that, but number one, is that right to -- a fair way to think about it? And number two, can you talk about what kind of returns or what kind of ROI that you guys have? What's the hurdle for making some of these investments just given the really challenging backdrop that we have here for the industry?

好的。接著，當我們思考——看起來約 2.01 億美元左右的非經常性與併購相關費用中，有一部分是經常性的，所以我們先假設約 1.5 億美元左右是非經常性的。這似乎暗示你們指引中的核心費用成長率大約是 5%。你們提到正在進行一些投資等等，但第一，這樣理解是否合理——算是一種公平的看法？第二，你能否談談你們這些投資預期帶來的回報或 ROI？在目前產業環境非常具挑戰的背景下，你們做這些投資的門檻（hurdle）是什麼？

Yes. I think -- well, there's lots of questions in that. I would say that we should follow up separately to go through that in more detail. I think the assumption about an increase in expenses built into our modeling, I think that is not accurate. If -- and I would say, the reason why we outlined the nonrecurring items -- you're correct that there's an element of this associated with our Benefit Street acquisition. It does include around $79 million for the next 3 years, which is recurring, but then that drops off. So we wanted to try and make that clear, or otherwise, you'll be looking at our Benefit Street acquisition assuming that it's a 0-margin business, which is very misleading. So that's the reason why we wanted to put that into the table.

是的。我想——這裡面有很多問題。我會說，我們應該另外再跟進，做更詳細的說明。我認為你對我們模型中內含費用增加的假設並不正確。另外，我會說，我們之所以列出非經常性項目——你說得沒錯，其中有一部分與我們收購 Benefit Street 有關。其中包含未來 3 年約 7,900 萬美元的經常性項目，但之後就會消失。因此我們想把這點說清楚，否則你們可能會在看 Benefit Street 這筆收購時，假設它是一個零利潤率的業務，這會非常誤導。所以這就是我們想把它放進表格裡的原因。

But in terms of our future costs and how we look at investments, I wouldn't say we apply a classic ROI to it. We -- it has to work for our business in terms of scaling or creating more opportunities for our investment teams, our distribution efforts. And we certainly don't look at things on a 3-month or 6-month or 1-year bases, it has to make sense over a multiyear perspective.

但就我們未來成本以及我們如何看待投資而言，我不會說我們套用傳統的 ROI 方式。我們——它必須在擴大規模或為我們的投資團隊、我們的通路推廣工作創造更多機會等方面，對我們的業務有用。而且我們當然不會用 3 個月、6 個月或 1 年的時間尺度來看事情；它必須在多年期的角度下說得通。

The next question is from the line of Chris Harris with Wells Fargo.

下一個問題來自 Wells Fargo 的 Chris Harris。

Can you guys talk a little bit about your international distribution capabilities today and what you might be trying to do to improve them, which you cite as a focus area for the firm going forward?

你們能否談談目前你們的國際通路分銷能力，以及你們可能打算如何改善它？你們也提到這是公司未來的重點領域之一。

Yes. I would say, not a lot has changed. I mean -- and for the international capability, it doesn't have the benefit of some of the momentum we're seeing in the U.S. in terms of municipal bond sales and muni funds. That -- the flows there are more -- rely more on global bonds, Templeton. We are seeing strong flows in the Franklin U.S. growth products. K2 would be more of a focus there as well. So I think it -- for us, it is a huge value of the company and franchise and one where in the year ahead. Part of it's getting Benefit Street, getting some products up on -- in Luxembourg-based C-cap fund which we're in the process of doing. Leveraging Benefit Street on the institutional side as well would be one. And just I think relating to the acquisition side is we feel like there's some underutilized capacity for more product under that distribution network. But again, if you look at pockets for us, where it's not -- it's a different story where you have -- India had a very strong year of growth and inflows. Taiwan, very strong year. So there are pockets that are doing very well throughout the globe that have a different product mix than maybe our traditional one. But I think just generally speaking, we feel like we can take on more, and that's part of our acquisition thinking on that.

是的。我會說，變化不大。我的意思是——就國際能力而言，它不像我們在美國看到的市政債銷售與市政債基金（muni funds）那樣享有某些動能。那邊的資金流入更——更依賴全球債券、Templeton。我們看到 Franklin 美國成長型產品有強勁的資金流入。K2 也會是那邊更聚焦的方向。所以我認為——對我們而言，這是公司與品牌特許經營（franchise）的巨大價值之一，也是我們在接下來一年會著力的地方。其中一部分是把 Benefit Street 的一些產品上架——放到以盧森堡為基地的 C-cap 基金上，我們正在進行中。在機構端也運用 Benefit Street 會是其中一項。另外我想，與併購面向相關的是，我們覺得在那個分銷網路之下，還有一些未被充分利用的產能，可以承載更多產品。但同樣地，如果你看我們的一些區域，就不是——情況不同；例如印度在成長與資金流入方面有非常強勁的一年。台灣也是非常強勁的一年。所以全球各地都有一些表現非常好的區塊，其產品組合與我們傳統的可能不太一樣。但我想整體而言，我們覺得我們可以承接更多，而這也是我們在該方面併購思考的一部分。

The next question is coming from the line of Michael Cyprys with Morgan Stanley.

下一個問題來自 Morgan Stanley 的 Michael Cyprys。

Just wanted to circle back on expenses. Hoping you could help put the some of the moving pieces here. So we hear the guidance that should be slightly down next year. So that's a combination of investment spend and expense cuts. But I guess if you could just help quantify how much you're cutting, where specifically? I know you mentioned fund admin, and I just -- what else? How meaningful is that? And then conversely, you're also making investment, I think, on tech side with the data lake. How much are you guys investing, if you could help quantify that? And if you could provide any sort of color around these investments?

我想再回到費用的問題。希望你能協助梳理這裡的一些變動因素。我們聽到你們的指引是明年應該會小幅下降。所以這是投資支出與費用削減的組合。但我想如果你能協助量化一下你們削減了多少、具體在哪些地方？我知道你提到基金行政（fund admin），我只是——還有什麼？這有多大程度的影響？相對地，你們也在做投資，我想是在科技端、像是 data lake。你們投資了多少？如果你能協助量化一下。以及能否就這些投資提供一些說明（color）？

Yes. I think what we'd say is that we think that on information systems and technology, we have some room to move on that and, as I mentioned a moment ago, perhaps up to several percentage points more efficiently there. I think beyond that it's very early to give guidance on any specific line item. And I would just keep referring back to the fact that we are confident all else remaining equal that we would be able to be down slightly on our 2019 expenses as a whole.

是的。我想我們會說的是，在資訊系統與科技方面，我們認為還有一些可以推進的空間，而且如我剛才提到的，或許在那裡可以再提升效率，幅度可達數個百分點。除此之外，現在要對任何特定費用科目給出指引都還太早。我只會再次強調，我們有信心在其他條件不變的情況下，我們整體 2019 年的費用總額將能夠小幅下降。

And I just would add. I mean I think we look at this, we recognize where the pressure that the industry is under and it is very top of mind with all senior management to look at spend control on every kind of saving that we can generate to continue to invest in the parts that we think are going to be incremental to getting inflows in, in a few years. So I think we're all very focused on that. But just very hard to come out with what does that number look like in 2 or 3 years other than we're kind of attacking every angle.

我再補充一下。我的意思是，我們看待這件事時，我們認知到產業所承受的壓力，而這也是所有高階管理層非常關注的重點：在每一項支出上做控管，尋找我們能產生的各種節省，以便持續投資在我們認為能在幾年後帶來增量資金流入的部分。所以我想我們都非常專注於此。但要具體說出 2 或 3 年後那個數字會長什麼樣子非常困難，只能說我們正從各個角度全面著手。

Yes. I think we also demonstrated in the fourth quarter that the discipline we have around our import expense, which is the variable compensation and compensation for the firm, I think we demonstrated that we get the balance right and do what's right for the company but also do what's right for shareholders. And then when it comes to the other components of our expenditure, I think we have very clear reasons why there were moves in each item. So IS&T, we actually expected that to be down but it was up just because we wanted to do the right thing and continue to make more progress than we expected, that's what we did. And that does not mean that, that increase is likely to continue. Actually, that's going to come down. Our G&A and other included some intangible impairments both this quarter and last quarter. We don't -- well, we would hope that wouldn't repeat, we don't expect it to. And when we analyze and drill down into G&A, we think there's some room there also. On occupancy expense, we've talked a fair amount about this, the reason why that spiked very much in the last quarter, as guided the previous quarter, it's because we've completed our campus in San Mateo. We also have new real estate in Poland. But that's going to be all offset by an increase in revenue attributed to our efficiency drives across our real estate ownership, including some very attractive lease streams that frankly pay both the building of our headquarters here in San Mateo and the running of them.

是的。我認為我們也在第四季證明了，我們對於進口費用（也就是公司的變動薪酬與薪酬）所秉持的紀律；我認為我們證明了我們能在做對公司有利的事與做對股東有利的事之間取得正確平衡。接著談到我們支出的其他組成部分，我認為我們對於每一個項目為何會有變動，都有非常清楚的原因。因此在 IS&T 方面，我們其實預期會下降，但它卻上升了，原因只是因為我們想做正確的事，並持續取得比預期更多的進展，我們也確實這麼做了。而這並不代表那樣的增加很可能會持續。事實上，那將會下降。我們的 G&A 與其他項目在本季與上季都包含了一些無形資產減損。我們不——嗯，我們希望那不要重演，我們也不預期會。而當我們分析並深入拆解 G&A 時，我們認為那裡也還有一些空間。至於辦公場地費用（occupancy expense），我們已談過不少；如同前一季所指引的，上一季之所以大幅攀升，是因為我們已完成位於聖馬刁（San Mateo）的園區。我們在波蘭也有新的不動產。但這些都將被收入增加所抵銷，該收入歸因於我們在不動產持有上的效率推動，包括一些非常有吸引力的租賃現金流；坦白說，這些租金同時支付了我們在聖馬刁這裡總部大樓的建置成本以及其營運成本。

So I think with each one of our items, whether it's comp and benefits, IS&T, occupancy expense, G&A and others, we have plans under each one of these. We think we have flexibility under each one as needed. We've described the fact that some of that's offset by the investment that we are adamant we want to continue to make, which is why we don't refer to a forecasted margin. But it doesn't mean that we won't take that action, as we demonstrated in the fourth quarter where we took action across all the key items.

所以我認為在我們每一個項目上，不論是薪酬與福利、IS&T、辦公場地費用、G&A 與其他，我們在每一項之下都有計畫。我們認為在需要時，每一項之下我們都有彈性。我們也說明過，其中一部分會被我們堅持要持續投入的投資所抵銷，這也是為什麼我們不會去談預測的利潤率。但這不代表我們不會採取行動；正如我們在第四季所展示的，我們在所有關鍵項目上都採取了行動。

Okay. And then just maybe on China given the regulatory change and marketing up -- market opening up in China, can you just give us an update on where your business stands today in China? How you're thinking about the opportunities out there over the next couple of years? And what sort of actions are you taking to capitalize on this?

好的。那接著也許談談中國：考量到監管變化以及中國市場的開放，你能否更新一下你們目前在中國的業務狀況？你們如何看待未來幾年那裡的機會？以及你們正在採取哪些行動來把握這些機會？

Well, we are, I think like most, looking at taking control of our joint venture. We were one of the early ones with Sealand, and we are in the process of taking a majority stake in that. And we have other options and other licenses that we can take different tax. And I think China size wise is -- I'm looking at Jenny, but I -- because we don't include it in our assets, I'm trying to -- I think it's $5 billion. It's profitable. It's not, obviously, a major contributor to our earnings, but it's a profitable number and growing and it's had good performance. But I think, like many, we look at China as a very tricky market. We think it's a tremendous opportunity for growth. But the thought of continuing with a partnership versus going alone in that market, I think, is one that you have to think very carefully on.

嗯，我們——我想和大多數人一樣——正在考慮取得我們合資企業的控制權。我們是較早與 Sealand 合作的公司之一，而我們正在進行取得其控股權的流程。我們也有其他選項與其他牌照，可以用不同的方式來處理稅務。我認為就規模而言，中國——我在看 Jenny，但我——因為我們沒有把它納入我們的資產，我在試著——我想是 50 億美元。它是獲利的。顯然它不是我們獲利的主要貢獻者，但它是個獲利的數字，且正在成長，表現也一直不錯。但我認為，和許多人一樣，我們把中國視為一個非常棘手的市場。我們認為它是極大的成長機會。但在那個市場繼續以合作夥伴模式經營，或是選擇單獨經營，我認為這是一個必須非常審慎思考的問題。

And I'll ask Jenny if she's got any additional...

我也請 Jenny 看看她是否有任何補充……

No. I think that's right. I mean I think it's -- for us, it's been about -- we'd like to own 100%, if that can make sense. And -- but whether or not we can -- we end up doing there, we always have also our [Wolfey] option, as Greg said. So it keeps our options open. A big area of focus has been integrating some of the investment capabilities with our Emerging Market team so that they can collaborate on a shared research, which we think is important, and that has been going very well as well as it gives us opportunity when we get institutional interest and mandates to either talk to our Wolfey team or our JV team.

沒有。我認為那是對的。我的意思是，我想——對我們而言，重點一直是——如果合理的話，我們希望能 100% 持有。而——但不論我們最後在那裡能否、以及會做成什麼樣，我們也一直保有我們的 [Wolfey] 選項，如 Greg 所說。所以這讓我們保有彈性。一個重要的聚焦領域是把部分投資能力與我們的新興市場團隊整合，讓他們能在共享研究上合作；我們認為這很重要，而目前進展也非常順利。同時，當我們獲得機構投資人的興趣與委託時，這也讓我們有機會去與我們的 Wolfey 團隊或我們的合資團隊進行溝通。

Your last question comes from the line of Patrick Davitt with Autonomous Research.

您的最後一個問題來自 Autonomous Research 的 Patrick Davitt。

You mentioned the potential for $3 billion to $4 billion from Benefit Street, but chunky. Should we expect a placement fees on expense side with that? And if so, is that in the expense guidance?

你提到 Benefit Street 可能帶來 30 億到 40 億美元，但會是較大筆、較不平均的。我們是否應該預期在費用端會有配置費（placement fees）？如果是的話，那是否已包含在費用指引中？

We would have some placement fees. Although, we're really trying to have our own institutional team do the big push there. So I think we've kept it where we have divided that up a bit, but we are hoping that it comes through our institutional team.

我們會有一些配置費。不過，我們其實正努力讓我們自己的機構團隊來主導那一波大型推進。所以我想我們已把那部分稍微做了些分配，但我們希望能透過我們的機構團隊來完成。

We'd have to look into that. I mean I'm assuming that's built into their model for the year, but I don't -- we don't have that at the top of our head there.

我們得再查一下。我的意思是，我假設那已經納入他們今年的模型裡，但我——我們現在一時之間沒有那個數字在腦中。

And then on the $4 billion pipeline, one last one, could you just give us a little bit more color maybe on the fee mix of that, and you'll be -- even if it's just better or worse than the average? And maybe broadly, if there are any kind of signals you think might start unlocking that? Or there's just no color at all on the second part there?

然後關於那 40 億美元的管線，最後一個問題：你能否再多給我們一點細節，例如其中的費率組合（fee mix）？即便只是比平均更好或更差也行。另外更廣泛地說，你是否看到任何可能開始解鎖那個管線的訊號？還是第二部分完全沒有可提供的資訊？

I think that would just be embedded in the guidance I gave earlier on about fee rate for the year. It's -- Benefit Street across the board has a much higher fee rate, as you know, given the business versus the rest of our franchise, so that actually helps us across the year be confident that we -- in our statement that we think our fee rate will remain stable.

我認為那會反映在我先前給的、關於今年費率（fee rate）的指引之中。如你所知，Benefit Street 整體的費率遠高於我們其餘業務版圖，因為其業務性質不同；因此，這其實有助於我們在全年更有信心地表示，我們認為我們的費率將維持穩定。

At this time, I'll turn the call back to Mr. Greg Johnson for closing remarks.

此刻，我將把電話交回 Greg Johnson 先生作結語。

Well, thank you, everyone, for participating on our call, and we look forward to speaking next quarter. Thank you.

好的，感謝各位參與我們的電話會議，我們期待在下個季度再與各位交流。謝謝。

Thank you. This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time, and we thank you for your participation.

謝謝。今天的電話會議到此結束。您現在可以掛線，感謝您的參與。