摩根士丹利 (MS) 2009 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Welcome to the Morgan Stanley conference call.

The following is a live broadcast by Morgan Stanley and is provided as a courtesy.

Please note that this call is being broadcast on the Internet through the Company's website, at www.morganstanley.com.

A replay of the call and webcast will be available through the Company's website and by phone through May 22nd, 2009.

This presentation may contain forward-looking statements.

You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date on which they are made, which reflect management's current estimates, projections, expectations or beliefs, and which are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially.

For a discussion of additional risks and uncertainties that may affect the future results of the Company, please see the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30th, 2008, and the Company's current report on Form 8-K.

The presentation may also include certain non-GAAP financial measures.

The reconciliation of such measures to the comparable GAAP figures are included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and our current reports on Form 8-K which are available on our website, www.morganstanley.com.

Any recording, rebroadcast or other use of this presentation in whole or in part is strictly prohibited without prior written consent of Morgan Stanley.

This presentation is copyrighted and proprietary to Morgan Stanley.

At this time, I would like to turn the program over to Colm Kelleher for today's call.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us.

Today we'll review our quarterly results and provide an update in our strategic initiatives.

We've been firm in our view that 2009 would be a year of transition, and the first quarter reflects that cautious view.

For the calendar quarter ended March 31 we reported a net loss of $0.57 per share.

Excluding the impact of Morgan Stanley's debt-related credit spreads, earnings per share would have been positive $0.37.

While the rebound in our bond prices drove the loss this quarter, this movement demonstrates the market's confidence in Morgan Stanley's financial strength as an important validation of our franchise.

As you know, the first quarter was punctuated by ongoing government policy to promote market stability.

While these efforts have had some positive impact, economic conditions are still uncertain.

Our economists forecast a base case contraction in world GDP of roughly 2% for 2009, the first decline in more than 60 years.

Market conditions continue to be erratic in the quarter, and real estate markets deteriorated significantly around the world.

Morgan Stanley is a strong beneficiary of the changing competitive landscape as a dominant industry participant with robust capital levels.

We are well-positioned for recovery in the global capital markets, and are not limited by a large loan portfolio or direct consumer exposure.

Already we are experiencing better pricing and market share gains across our principal businesses, resulting in good operating earnings this quarter.

As we navigate these markets, we are executing on a number of strategic initiatives that position us for our performance.

Within institutional securities, we continue to target our capital on a risk-adjusted basis, and we remain focused on reducing legacy positions.

In March, we signed a memorandum of understanding with MUFG to combine our Japanese securities businesses, creating the third largest brokerage franchise in Japan with dominant market presence and global reach.

The MUFG joint venture will form a preeminent leader in both M&A and debt refinancing, with full-year pro forma 2008 operating revenues of $2.5 billion.

This partnership underscores our strong global commitment on our goal of continuing to realize attractive growth opportunities.

In January, as you're well aware, we announced the formation of a joint venture with Smith Barney, creating the largest wealth management firm.

The integration is on schedule and we expect the deal to close in third quarter '09, if not sooner.

Asset Management continues to be constrained by poor performance in the downturn in real estate.

Turning around this business remains a top priority.

We are upgrading investment talent and have implemented a number of cost initiatives.

In November, we committed $2 billion in firm-wide cost savings for 2009.

In the first quarter, we made significant progress towards achieving this goal.

Compensation expense, excluding severance, was down 47% from a year ago, as we managed compensation to reflect the lower revenue environment as well as significant headcount reductions.

We reduced non-compensation expenses by 9% from a year ago, driven by lower brokerage and clearing expenses from lower activity and tighter expense controls around professional services and business development globally.

Now turning to our consolidated results, we continue to demonstrate strength in our industry leading businesses, including commodities, foreign exchange, interest rates, equity derivatives, investment banking and Global Wealth Management.

In accordance with SEC guidelines, we recasted 2008 to a calendar year.

This enhanced disclosure facilitates comparisons across quarters and amongst our bank holding company peers.

This quarter, we are providing even greater transparency in our financial supplement by including firm-wide real estate investments exposures and their corresponding P&L impact, tangible common equity, a currently popular measure, and tangible book value per share.

Turning to page two in our financial supplement, firm-wide revenues are $3 billion, including the negative impact of $1.5 billion for the tightening of Morgan Stanley's credit spreads and certain long term debt carried at fair value.

Net losses on firm-wide real estate investments aggregated $1 billion, which had a sizable impact in our results.

Whilst results in the quarter reflect mark-to-market volatility, Morgan Stanley operates and will continue to operate under fair value accounting rules using conservative assumptions.

We believe fair value accounting provides the best assessment of our business, both in terms of our results and balance sheet; and whilst we did not early adopt the provisions of FAS-B staff position 157-4, we do not expect any impact on our application of mark-to-market accounting upon adoption in the second quarter.

Turning to page three in the financial supplement, you will see that after significantly reducing our balance sheet in 2008, total assets declined to $626 billion at March 31, of which $152 billion is all liquidity.

Nearly one-quarter of our balance sheet was in cash and cash equivalent this quarter; and although this creates a noticeable drag to our earnings, we believe that maintaining a strong liquidity position is currently the most prudent approach.

Our capital ratios demonstrate the exceptional strength of our balance sheet.

This quarter, we moved to Basel I under Fed guidelines.

While we are still finalizing our calculations, we believe our Tier 1 ratio under Basel I will be 16.4%.

Excluding TARP capital, our risk ratio would be 12.9%.

Risk weighted assets under Basel I are expected to be approximately $287 billion at March 31.

The tangible common equity to tangible asset ratio was 4.3% in the first quarter.

As you can see in our supplement on page three, this ratio has continually improved over the last five consecutive quarters.

Additionally, our tangible common equity to risk weighted asset ratio was 9.3%.

The absolute level of our Level 3 assets was down at March 31 and represents approximately 11% of total assets; but clearly, that is on a much smaller balance sheet.

Our funding strategy remains to increase the stable share of funding to roughly 50% of total assets as we further diversify both our sources of funding and our business mix.

This quarter, we continued to make significant progress towards achieving this goal.

At the end of the first quarter, we were at 44%, up from 36% November month end.

The increase was primarily driven by firm-wide deposits, which were $60 billion at quarter end, up from $43 billion at November month end.

Now let's turn to the businesses.

Starting with institutional securities detailed on page five of our supplement, revenues of $1.7 billion include the negative impact of credit spreads discussed earlier.

In additional, principal investment revenues were negative $791 million, the majority of which relates to write-downs in real estate limited partnership interests.

Non-interest expenses were $2.1 billion in the first quarter of '09, 34% below the average quarter in 2008.

Inclusive of the impact of Morgan Stanley's debt related credit spreads, the business reported a pre-tax loss of $434 million.

Turning to investment banking on page six, not withstanding the challenging market conditions, our franchise remains active and delivered a strong performance.

We experienced a strong improvement in market share, resulting in top rankings in the lead tables across a number of categories.

We were number one in announced global M&A, our consistent measurement, and advised the largest M&A transactions of the industry, including Pfizer's acquisition of Wyeth, Merck's acquisition of Schering-Plough and Rio Tinto's strategic relationship with Chinalco.

We led the reopening of the IPO market with Meade Johnson, the first since November and largest since April 2008.

Significant underwriting transactions included concurrent covenant convertible debt offerings for (Inaudible) and (Inaudible), and GE's capitals unsecured debt offering.

The capital markets have remained active in April.

We continue to lead significant deals.

For instance, we led the IPO for Rosetta Stone, which is the first IPO to price above its filing range in a year.

convertible issuance has had a stong start, and we are currently number one in the Global Convertible Lead tables.

In the debt markets, Morgan Stanley led offerings including Crown Castle, the largest sole-managed high yield bond since November '07, and a bond offering for Rio Tinto, which is one of the largest investment grade transactions in the second quarter thus far.

First quarter investment banking revenues of $812 million were up 33% from the fourth quarter of last year, both driven by increases in all products and regions.

Advisory revenues increased 12% sequentially on strength in the US and Asia, even though overall market M&A volumes remained subdued.

Equity underwriting revenues were up 14% from the fourth quarter, driven by rights issue activity in Europe.

Fixed income underwriting revenues more than doubled and increased investment rates bond issuance and loan fees.

Equity sales and trading revenue of $877 million were negatively impacted by $555 million from the narrowing of debt related credit spreads on firm-issued structured notes.

Prime brokerage core revenues and period end client balances were relatively unchanged from the fourth quarter, reflecting a stabilization of this business.

Revenues were flat, driven by a shift in balance mix, despite a decline in average client balances.

This decrease was in line with the overall contraction of the hedge fund industry.

However, client balances of our top 50 accounts increased 10% in the first quarter of '09, and continue to grow in April.

Our industry leading prime brokerage platform continues to provide innovative client solutions, such as our tri-party/trust structures.

Cash equity revenues were down 10% from last quarter, driven by lower market volumes on notionals in Europe Derivatives reported a solid quarter on continued volatility, although client activity remained lower than 2008 levels; and quantity strategies were a positive contributor in the quarter.

Fixed income sales and trade revenues of $1.3 billion were reduced by $980 million from the narrowing of credit spreads on firm-issued structured notes.

Excluding this, fixed income demonstrated strength across all businesses relative to 2008.

Commodities reported one of its best quarters on wider margins, and healthy customer activity driving broad based strength across all segments and regions.

Trading revenues were strong across all desks.

Interest rate credit and currency trading revenues combined were up substantially from the last quarter on strong volumes.

Interest rate products reported an exceptional quarter in high volumes and wider spreads.

Revenues were up over 150% from the quarterly average of last year.

Currency had strong quarter, benefiting from market volatility and strong customer activity.

Emerging markets recorded losses on the continued deterioration of the Eastern European credit market.

Credit trading reported very strong positive results compared to a loss in the fourth quarter, reflecting higher customer activity levels and favorable positioning on credit spreads.

Details on pages 14, 15 and 16 of the financial supplement are our mortgage-related gross and net exposures.

On page 14, you will see that we have streamlined our presentation given the remaining magnitude of our US subprime exposures.

Simply put, all information previously contained on this analysis have been aggregated into one schedule.

We have combined our ABS CDO subprime positions with the investment grade rated top prime exposures in our subsidiary banks.

Our super senior mezzanine net exposure remains zero, with $300 million losses driven entirely by the investment portfolio in our subsidiary banks included within other sales and trading.

On page 15, within non-subprime residential mortgage, we reduced our gross exposure by 8% and our net exposure by 18% from December.

These exposures include Alt-A, which declined further to $1.2 billion.

Overall net write-downs and losses were $200 million.

On page 16 within CMBS commercial home loans, our gross exposure remained relatively unchanged.

Whilst we reduced aggregate commercial loans, CMBS bonds and warehouse lines in our gross basis by 15%, our total net exposure increased as we continued to take CMBS directional positioning, as we have informed you in the previous two quarters.

Overall, we recorded a net gain of $600 million.

Other sales and trading revenues of negative $808 million were primarily driven by our lending businesses, which includes leverage acquisition, finance and relationship lending.

Net losses here were $437 million.

We continue to reduce our non-investment grade leverage acquisition portfolio, which is now $4.2 billion, as you can see in the footnote in page seven of the financial supplement.

Also included in other sales and trading are losses of approximately $200 million from the investment portfolio in our subsidiary banks.

This includes losses of $300 million related to subprime securities that I mentioned earlier, partly offset by gains of $100 million in non-subprime securities.

Total average trading and non-trading value at risk VaR increased to $142 million from $129 million in the fourth quarter.

Trading VaR increased to $115 million from $105 million, primarily driven by higher levels of market volatility.

Non-trading VaR increased to $83 million from $66 million, driven by widening credit spreads and higher spread volatility.

Turning to the page eight supplement in our Global Wealth Management business, revenues were stable despite the slowdown in the retail market.

Revenues of $1.3 billion increased 2% from the fourth quarter of last year, reflecting an increase in principal trading revenues partly offset by lower commissions and fees.

Principal trading revenues were higher, primarily due to strong fixed income trading activity.

Non-interest expenses were relatively flat sequentially, excluding $177 million of expenses related to auction rate securities in the fourth quarter of last year.

Progress from our cost reduction initiatives was offset by higher compensation expenses.

Profit before tax is $119 million, and the PBT margin was 9% for the quarter; but excluding approximately $39 million of our JV-related integration costs, PBT margin was actually 12%.

On page nine, you can see the productivity metrics.

Total client assets decreased 5% as market levels continued to decline during the quarter.

Net new assets were $3 billion, while bank deposits grew substantially over the last quarter to $47 billion as clients moved more of their assets to cash.

The number of FAs was was down slightly for the quarter, as we hired fewer trainees in anticipation of the joint venture with Smith Barney.

Turning to Asset Management on page 10 of the supplement, Asset Management was a pre-tax loss of $559 million, driven by investment losses within merchant banking and a $310 million pre-tax loss on credit.

Core Asset Management revenues returned to profitability in the first quarter.

Revenues increased substantially from last quarter due to lower investment losses and gains on SIVs Management and administration fees declined, resulting from lower average assets under management.

Merchant banking revenues were negative, $319 million, and included.

Principal investment losses of $374 million in real estate, including $99 million on Crescent financial assets; and $56 million on private equity investments.

Non-interest expenses for Asset Management decreased 24% from the fourth quarter of last year, and included a $131 million impairment charge related to Crescent.

Excluding Crescent impairment charges in both quarters, non-compensation expenses declined 38%, sequentially driven by our cost reduction initiatives.

Turning to pages 11 and 12 of the supplement, you can see the assets under management and asset flow data.

Total assets under management decreased 12% to $356 billion during the quarter on a continued decline in global financial markets and net asset outflows.

Virtually all of the quarterly outflows were in our core business, primarily from fixed income funds, which include our money market funds.

Equity performance has had a significant rebound for US and global strategies year-to-date, and we continue to see good long-term performance in small cap, large cap value and international equity.

We have also seen significant improvements year-to-date in the global fixed income performance against our peer group.

This improvement is largely due to restructuring the portfolios and some key staffing changes.

As I mentioned earlier, we are providing additional disclosure on our firm-wide real estate exposures on page 17 of the supplement.

Our total real estate gross exposure.

as reflected on our statement of financial condition, which includes Crescent and other consolidated interests, direct investments in real estate and infrastructure funds in bridge financing was $4.9 billion at the end of the quarter.

Including $1.9 billion of contractual commitments, our total exposure would be $6.8 billion.

This exposure excludes assets and investments for the benefit of certain deferred employee compensation, or co-investment plans.

Our page 19 of the financial supplement, we have reported the results for the stub month of December.

We reported a net loss from continuing operations at $1.62 per share.

As you know, December was particularly difficult for the industry, as the extreme market conditions experienced in November extended into December.

The loss was principally due to fixed income sales and trading losses, specifically in credit products and leverage lending.

Along with extreme movements in our debt-related credit spreads, trading losses in November and December drove the dramatic swing in our recast results, which you will see in the supplement between the third quarter and fourth quarter of '08.

Q1 '09 results include a $331 million income tax benefit resulting from the repatriation of non-US earnings at tax rates lower than those previously estimated.

Excluding this, the effective tax rate was 41%.

Preferred dividends and other related charges of $401 million reduced earnings by approximately $0.40 in the first quarter of '09.

The Board of Directors approved a reduction of our quarterly dividend of $0.05 from $0.27, enhancing our already strong capital position.

Now just a few words on the outlook.

Global financial markets are in the midst of a profound cyclical and structural change which will likely continue through 2009.

While banks have made significant progress in deleveraging, the process of consumer deleveraging will take time.

In order to move towards a constructive environment, we must see a deceleration in credit-related losses and a significant reduction in funding costs.

Government coordination globally is critical in accomplishing this.

We are uniquely positioned to benefit from the changes transforming our industry.

Despite near-term headwinds, we are gaining market share and executing on our strategy.

Institutional securities remains core to the franchise, with a range of industry leading benefits -- businesses benefiting from market share gain and improved pricing power.

The Morgan Stanley/Smith Barney joint venture is a game changer.

It contributes the quality and diversification of our earnings and is a significant differentiator of our distribution network, and we are confident we can fix Asset Management.

While we remain cautious, we are capitalizing on our dominant position for long-term outperformance.

We are one of the only financial intermediaries with the scale, global footprint and range of capital markets expertise sought by institutional retail clients worldwide.

And with that, I would now take your questions.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions).

And your first question will come from the line of Mike Mayo.

Please proceed.

Good morning.

Hi, Mike.

Could you comment on your appetite on returning TARP capital?

If you're able to do it, are you ready to do it and do you think you'll be able to do it?

Well, first let me say that our Tier 1 capital ratio under Basel I is 16.4%.

Excluding TARP capital, it's 12.9%.

Our tangible common equity to risk-weighted asset ratio is 9.3%.

We are more than comfortable with all these numbers.

Having said that, we await the results of the stress test and guidance from our regulators as to what they will permit us to do.

This is a topic of great debate at this point by many parties, and much comment has been made.

All that we will say is that at the completion of the stress assessment, if permitted and supported by our supervisors, we would like to consider the repayment of TARP capital.

We would like to repay TARP capital.

And then a separate question on kind of potential structural changes that you have.

You've ramped up deposits, you said, from 43 to 60 billion.

What's your appetite in buying, say, a regional bank?

And then separately, your joint venture with Smith Barney, it looks like Smith Barney had 40 billion of client outflows in the first quarter.

You know, how do you think about that if your partner might not be as strong as you thought before?

Well, there are two very different questions there, Mike, so let me deal with them.

Our retail banking strategy is very much a function of being supplementary and complimentary to what we're doing in Global Wealth Management.

It needs to feed into a high network strategy, which we've been consistent of.

So, of course, we will look at things that fit into that strategy, right?

So I think that answers question one, and we've been quite clear in it.

Under Smith Barney, they clearly are having some attrition; but if I look at the Baron survey of the top 100 FAs, we have -- you know, of the top 100FAs, we have -- a huge amount of those -- or 33 of those -- are actually Morgan Stanley and Smith Barney.

I think of the top 10, eight are Morgan Stanley and Smith Barney.

So the there will be some attrition at the lower levels.

We look at the top quintiles and so on.

What we're absolutely confident about is that when you merge these institutions together, you will get the synergies and economies that we spoke about, and you will get, you know, incremental profit margin, because it is a scale business.

So you would expect some attrition in the merger, but the attrition we're seeing is not of concern to us.

Thank you.

Your next question will come from the line of Kian Abouhossein from JP Morgan.

Yes, hi.

The first question is regarding your number of shares.

Can you just explain the increase quarter on quarter?

I don't think it's significant at all.

There will be some employee -- let me just have a look at that.

Period end shares was a little bit from the ICP programs that were coming through, but I have -- it's 1074 was December '08, and we're at 1081 now.

So it's all EICP-related.

Okay.

On the mark-to-market of the -- or your real estate write-downs, can you discuss how we should look at that going forward?

Well, mark-to-market, as you know, Kian, is mark-to-market.

I can't give predictive valuations.

So the only way I would discuss it is that there are a few issues.

First of all, Crescent is a fully consolidated subsidiary.

Our results include all of the revenues and expenses there.

That includes impairments, sales of certain assets and so on.

Remember that I previously told you that approximately $0.90 plus of Crescent, which is in the schedule, they're asked to hold at costs, which is subject to depreciation unless we have impairments on sales and so on.

On the rest of it, which is fair value, we do that on, you know, tests, disposals and so on.

So we've given you a schedule that gives you all of those real estate exposures.

In terms of -- all I can say about -- I'm confident that the valuation as of March 31 are in line with what we've given you.

The exposure we're giving you, you then make your own assessments going forward.

And on the movement of revenues, can you talk a little bit about month to month in fixed income and equities?

Sure.

You mean the trend of revenues?

Yes, please.

Okay.

Look, January was a strong month.

February was less strong but pretty fine; and, you know, we were not comfortable predicting the quarter at that point because we'd seen volatility in the past.

And March was a weak month; and as you know, you tend to get a path of things being said at the end of certain months, in this case at the end of March.

We have some recovery on the back of the TALF and PPIP announcements, but up to that point it was very thin volume.

What I do -- can say is that our customer volumes were robust across most asset classes and showed signs of increasing market share through the period.

And can you give us an idea of how much of the first quarter revenues in fixed income equities was related to hedging or prop gains?

And some of it, I assume, coming back from the fourth quarter?

Nothing came back from the fourth quarter.

As far as I'm concerned, our core operating revenues are very much a function of flow, and I didn't get anything specific from hedging gains.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Your next question will come from the line of Guy Moszkowski from Banc of America Securities.

Yes, good morning.

Hi, Guy.

You talked a little bit about the CMBS revenues, but I just wanted to drill in on that a bit more.

You generated about $1.5 billion in net revenues from your hedges in the quarter it looked like, if I interpret the table correctly, after making about 2.5 billion on that last year.

Clearly, good risk management results, which made the CRE P&L positive in both periods.

But I also noticed that you reduced your overall hedging in the quarter by about two billion; and as a result, as I think that you alluded to, your net CRE position did bump up at the end of the period.

Maybe you can talk a little bit about what in particular the reduction in the hedges?

Well, that's interpretative.

As I said to you in previous quarters, while we were actually managing down our gross exposure in CMBS with bonds loans and the warehouse lines down 15% at March 31.

With the widening spreads and the volatility we saw in the marketplace, we've actually acted upon opportunities within these asset classes to take directional positions from which we benefited.

And I think I alerted you last year to the fact that that schedule would show trading activity and you'd have to look at it in a line by line item.

Yes.

No, fair enough.

I just wanted to follow up on that and make sure that I understood that correctly.

It is trading, Guy, yes.

Okay.

I also noticed that real estate equity exposure on the P&L -- sorry, I noticed that your real estate equity exposure only fell by about 200 million, even though the P&L was a negative one billion.

Are you actively adding to your exposure in funds in Crescent, or is there something else that would explain that?

I think the combination of losses recognized, partly offset by additional investments.

We disclosed our commitments during the quarter.

Principally, those committed capital caused by the funds has kept that balance relatively consistent between December 31 and March 31, so we actually do show you the disclosure and the commitments.

Okay.

That makes sense.

On fixed income -- and maybe I'm not really looking at this the right way -- but if I do a quick adjustment of your fixed income revenues by aggregating the other, which as I think you pointed out is largely credit portfolio, and then adding back the related fair value of the debt mark and all the other identified marks that you gave us in the quarter; and if I compare it to similarly adjusted figures for your main competitors, it still seems like you're running significantly lower than Goldman, Citi or JP Morgan, and I'm wondering, despite the fact that you say that you're seeing improvement in market share, whether there's something in terms of risk appetite or something else which might be driving that.

Definitely.

It is about risk appetite.

Look at our VaR numbers, which are significantly lower.

Look at our balance sheet.

I mean, we did not see on a risk-adjusted return basis this quarter the sort of opportunities that others may or may not have seen.

We have been clear that we will take risks when we think the risk adjustment return appetite is -- warrants that, and that is reflected in VaR numbers, balance sheet and positions.

What I can tell you is we know what our market shares are and we feel comfortable in making the statements we've made.

Okay.

That's fair.

And then just finally, one update.

Do you have an update on the pro forma impact of the Smith Barney joint venture on book value and tangible book value per share?

Yes.

In -- well, we are currently at the end of the quarter.

Tangible book value per share, 24.65.

We think that tangible book pro forma would be 22.20, but our book value per share would go from 27.35 to 28.99.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Your next question will come from the line of Howard Chen from Credit Suisse.

Good morning, Colm.

Morning, Howard.

Thanks for taking my questions.

First, could you provide us with where your marks stand for commercial real estate, residential real estate and levered loans at the end of the March quarter?

Sure.

Well, CMBS bonds will trade -- are marked in the mid-40s.

Mezzanine commercial loans are marked in the low 50s.

Alt-As are marked in the mid-20s.

Subprime -ABSCDO or mezzanines in the low teens; and legacy leverage acquisition finance portfolio loans are valued in the low 60s.

Have I missed anything?

No.

I think that covers it all from my end, thanks.

And then, Colm, could you provide us with respect to the December sub-month, some more detail on the magnitude of the debt spread gains and potential write putdowns that you may have taken in that month?

Sure.

Basically it's $1 billion of write-downs between leveraged lending write-downs and resi and commercial mortgage loan write-downs; and then we have the best part of $300 million in DVA.

Okay.

And then finally from my end, how should we think about compensation accrual going forward?

I know there's a bunch of moving parts to the P&L this quarter and just wanted to get your sense of how that maybe smooths out or changes over the course of the year.

Sure.

Well, I mean, in compensation, we look at a predictive basis on how we're going to pay people during the year, all right?

So consistent with our policy, our compensation accrual is a result of our best estimate of compensation at year-end, considering our results, market environment and accrued based upon quarterly revenue.

Now, so this quarter we're expecting the trajectory of our revenues to improve during the year.

We are comfortable that we will pay competitively based on market.

Obviously, estimating compensation has been difficult.

So away from that, is there anything else you want to know?

No.

I think that covers it.

Thanks, Colm.

Thank you very much.

Your next question will come from the line of Steve Stelmach from Friedman Billings and Ramsey.

Please proceed.

Hi, good morning.

Morning.

Just real quick, you've indicated in the past that you may contemplate issuing non-guaranteed debt.

Yes.

Is that a condition of repaying TARP?

No.

No?

Okay.

And then secondly, why would you issue the non-guaranteed debt, presumably if that's at the higher cost of funding?

Are you running out of capacity there or is it just --

No, we're not, actually.

If anything, I have excess liquidity, Steve.

The issue is really a signaling thing.

We need to get the unsecured markets reopened.

There have only been two deals done by two competitors; and, you know, obviously people are paying, as you're intimating, relatively high spreads for that; but I think it's important to show that the unsecured markets will reopen.

Okay.

Great.

And then in your prepared remarks, just lastly, you mentioned the deleveraging of the consumer, and presumably that's baked into, you know, your expectations for the joint venture.

How should we think about that impact on the retail brokerage unit?

Is it just a matter of the mix of assets, what investors will choose to invest in, or is it lower asset better management?

How should we think about that phenomenon?

Well, I think it is baked, and it's certainly baked into the consideration we paid as a price; but actually, the attraction of the Global Wealth Management business is that it's an economy of scale.

The more scale you have, the more you can reduce your cost basis, and you can actually get attractive PBT margins on that base.

So, you know, we have a forecasted reduction in revenues that is more than offset by the economies of scale itself.

Perfect.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Your next question will come from the line of Chris Kotowski from Oppenheimer.

Please proceed.

Hi.

A couple of little questions.

First is, I noticed there's sort of a shift out of net interest income into trading income it looked like; and I was wondering, especially with, you know, the extra free funds, as it were, from the preferred going up, I would have thought that net interest income -- all things being equal -- should have been higher.

And I was wondering, is there something to that?

Is there a fundamental reason for that?

Well, I think it's really -- the problem is that we're a strange animal.

We're not a bank, and, you know, as we're moving towards being a bank -- I mean, we are a bank.

Don't get me wrong.

We're a bank holding Company; but the core of our business is institutional securities, so you would not see similar trends from a commercial bank, and I think that's something we just have to try and explain a bit more.

But nothing untoward in that at all, Chris.

Okay.

And then also, you talked before about interest in acquiring a branch system.

Can you talk about your appetite for assuming credit risk and a big loan portfolio, in any kind of acquisition like that?

Sure.

Well, we haven't spoken about an interest in acquisition of branches.

We actually have a branch system of 1,000 branches on a pro forma basis with Smith Barney.

What we've spoken about is that we will acquire things insofar as they add to our high net worth strategy within Global Wealth Management; but we're really not in the business of adding to loan exposures, except for what will support our existing business and clearly defined strategy.

Okay, good.

And then finally, the tax rate of 41%, is that something we should be using going forward?

Or was that abnormally high, and why?

Well, it is our best guess of where we are at the moment based upon our regional spread of revenues, and, you know, other tax planning strategies we've been doing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Your next question will come from the line of Roger Freeman from Barclays Capital.

Hi.

Good morning, Colm.

Roger, how are you?

Good, thanks.

Just wanted to come back to elaborate on a few other questions that have been asked.

So I guess first within fixed income trading, you know, how do you think about sort of your risk taking appetite going forward?

It sounds like, you know, you may move to a more, you know, risk loving position, shall we say, in subsequent quarters if markets improve.

But actually, the gist of the question here is, how much risk actually had to be taken this quarter to make money?

Because a lot of what we hear is that, you know -- which is wide bid as spreads and decent client flow generated pretty healthy profits, and it really wasn't about taking a lot of risk.

So any thoughts around that?

Well, look, I mean, I would just repeat what I've said earlier, Roger, and I don't want to call anybody else, you know.

It's a question of interpretation.

If I look at our market share, which we can measure on various markets, we've gained market share in fixed income markets broadly.

I mean, we see that in investment grade credit.

We see that in interest rate flow.

We see that in commodities and so on, right?

So we certainly are getting our share and an increasing share in the flow businesses.

We are prepared to take more risk to support our client businesses, but it has not impacted our share of the flow in our opinion.

So moving forward, when we feel on a risk-adjusted basis it warrants taking more risk, we will do that.

Okay.

That's helpful, thanks.

And then I guess in the equities business -- and you commented on some of the things that contributed to some weaker spots there -- you know, but you mentioned, you know, equity volume being down.

I mean, actually equity volumes were up 4% sequentially from the fourth quarter.

And I guess, is that a comment about the flow you saw across your desk?

I know more flow --

I think it's more about the flow across our desk.

It's also really a comment on the absence of hedge funds in the market to a large extent, and the prime brokerage revenues.

Prime brokerage revenues have traditionally been a reasonable chunk of our business.

As you know, we're resizing that business, you know.

Our market share has slipped.

We said at the end of the third quarter earnings call we were moving away from the market share strategy to a much more contiguous strategy, and that's what we're doing.

And as I've said, we've seen evidence that our balances from our strategic or contiguous clients are coming back up.

So I expect that that will improve over time within a resized prime brokerage business, given the constraints of our balance sheet, which we've also been clear about.

Did you say the balances there earlier were actually flat sequentially in (inaudible)?

Yes, pretty much flat sequentially; but what's interesting is in the end of March and beginning of April, we started seeing increases in those balances from our major accounts.

Now, our balances were flat; but you've got to see that in the context of a market where in the first quarter there was significant redemptions from hedge fund.

That would seem to imply that relative to the market, we were increasing share from our low point.

Okay.

And then, you know, given the mark that you just disclosed in, I think, Howard's question, what are your thoughts about selling into the (inaudible) fixed securities program if that gets off the ground?

Looks to me like you could make some money off of that.

Most people seem to be saying they're not going sell into this.

Well, we don't know at the moment what to do, because we're unclear what the circumstances and conditions surrounding those programs; and we actually implored the initiatives of the regulators and the Treasury to get these programs up and running, but there has been a certain degree of confusion coming into the market about what are the implications of using these programs, either as a buyer or seller.

So frankly, we have to wait and see what those implications are.

Okay.

And then just lastly around -- to come back to commercial real estate.

So, you know, I'm a little confused, I guess.

Crescent is where most of your actual equity in real estate investments is -- like, you know, office, multi-family, et cetera is, and the marks there are very light, it sounds like because you carry investments at cost.

I guess my question there is -- I mean, tell me if I'm wrong about that -- but I guess my question is, you know, what do you think the difference in the value on a fair market basis is from where you're carrying at, and are there refinancings coming up inside those portfolios on those properties this year that would force you to take impairments?

Well, I can't foresee those.

Possibly.

Number one, Crescent, remember, has -- we've shown you the gross in the non-resource financing against that, so our net exposure, were I allowed to speak in those terms, is significantly smaller.

And we have taken impairments and write-downs where we can.

In our LP commitments, they are what they are -- the 1.9 billion we referred to -- and everything else, we've disclosed you the gross.

And as always with real estate, you've got to be aware -- or one has to be aware -- that there's always refinancing risk.

So, you know, we're dealing with those accordingly, and we're disclosing as much as we can.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Your next question will come from the line of Meredith Whitney from Meredith Whitney Advisory Group.

Hi, Colm.

Hi, Meredith.

How are you?

I'm very good, thank you.

Roger asked a lot of my questions, but I wanted to take, then, an opportunity to ask you about the Wealth Management division.

Do you have an option to buy original bank, or are you fully at maximum capacity with respect to your Wealth Management business, because they are going to be obviously assets for sale, and that's another way of generating deposits?

And then the follow-on to that is, are you gaining share there, and does anything have to do with the Switzerland/US tax issues, and can you elaborate on the competitive market specifically to attracting brokers?

Well, on the tax issues, we have none of those issues.

No, I know; but do you benefit from the fact that you don't have any, and others may?

I think -- look, yes.

I think first of all, let's begin -- we're going to be the largest wealth manager -- by certain measures, anyway -- and we think that that will give us significant profitability.

So if you remember in the fourth quarter, we lost some FAs.

It's clear now that we've got net new money coming in -- $3 billion, it's clear that we're attracting high quality people, and you see that from the Baron's survey of our quality people that we have.

So we actually think that we are very well-positioned -- as I said my comments, it's a game changer -- and we are now getting a lot of interest in people coming to us.

You're absolutely right.

There was a period where one of the firms was attracting headcount on various deals.

I think that that has stopped or slowed, and I think the market is in flux; but we're pretty comfortable with our dominant position where we are, and what we now need to do is to optimize it.

In terms of deposits, as you know on a pro forma basis, we're slewing off a significant amount of deposits, and we've given the liability strategy about how much deposits feed into our network.

But I want to repeat something on deposits again.

Deposits are only useful insofar as you can use them, right?

So what we have to do is to continue to convert -- you know, grow our bank, move eligible activities into our bank -- and that will dictate the pace at which we can grow further deposits.

Okay.

So I'm -- I guess I'm just going to reask my question, which is, it seems that the economics of a wealth management model --

Meredith, hello?

Are we lost?

Sorry, Meredith, you went dead there.

Sorry.

One moment.

Your next question will come from the line of Richard Ramsden from Goldman Sachs.

Hi, guys.

Good morning.

Hi, Richard.

I just have a question on the structured credit notes, which are getting marked.

Can you give us the size of the portfolio that is getting marked, and how that's changed since the start of the year?

Well, the portfolio is continuing to run off.

In our Level 3 disclosure at the end of November, I think we showed you a gross size of -- from memory, of about 28 billion.

And not all of those are fair valued, but the great majority of them are.

The average duration is about 3.5 years; and I think you can probably work it from that if that's okay, Richard.

Yes.

That's very helpful.

And is there a specific hedging policy, as well, in place?

You know, we have looked at hedging our DVA.

It's -- as you know, it's GAAP earnings.

I don't think there's any real correlation for that.

The problem is that our spread has been very volatile, and that's why we don't hedge it, which is why we've always disclosed it.

Okay.

That's great.

Thanks.

Your final question comes from James Mitchell from Buckingham Research.

Hi.

Good morning.

One just -- most of my questions have been asked and answered, but maybe just follow up on the DVA.

Is there any ability to buy back debt at discounts to kind of lock in the gains that we saw in the fourth quarter?

Obviously, they recovered in value a decent amount, but I still think they're trading below par.

Or are you kind of constrained by TARP and other things from doing buybacks like that?

Well, it's a very good question.

You are constrained under the term of TLGP from buying back debt, other than from normal debt defense and so on; but also, you've got to look although these structured notes, you know.

We have to make a market in terms of debt defense.

The nature of these structured notes are primarily small investors who buy them with embedded options and so on.

So it's not like doing a tender for a public bond issue.

Right.

Fair enough.

Okay.

Thanks .

Well, that's the last question.

Well, thank you very much, everybody.

Appreciate the time.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference.

This concludes the presentation.

You may now disconnect.

Have a wonderful day.