Name: 誰對銀行更有利？拜登還是特朗普？ (Who's Better for Banks: Biden or Trump?)
Uploaded: 2024-07-19T06:27:50.000Z
Duration: 4 min 58 s

Ken Leon research director over at CFR a research joins us now.

肯-里昂（Ken Leon）是CFR a research的研究總監，現在加入我們的談話。

程度副詞

That feels very binary for some of these big banks.

這對一些大銀行來說，感覺非常二元化。

And of course we've seen rotation in the market today and financials have been benefiting really for the last few weeks.

當然，我們今天也看到了市場的輪動，金融股在過去幾周確實受益匪淺。

And they're going lockstep with the S&P 500.

它們與標準普爾 500 指數齊頭並進。

I think bank analysts are always toggling between the large global banks and regional banks.

我認為銀行分析師總是在大型全球性銀行和地區性銀行之間徘徊。

And we're seeing good performance from both.

我們看到兩者都有良好的表現。

But I think overall when you look out to the next six to 12 months and we'll talk about the election we certainly favor those banks with a higher weighting to the capital markets and investment banking.

但我認為，展望未來 6 到 12 個月，我們將討論選舉問題，總體而言，我們肯定會青睞那些資本市場和投資銀行業務比重較高的銀行。

And that would be Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

We see more challenges and perhaps a bit of a slowdown and rate compression in the Bank of America or really even Wells Fargo.

我們看到了更多的挑戰，也許美國銀行甚至富國銀行的發展會放緩，利率會壓縮。

我們在最近的結果中看到了這一點。

I would think I disagree with Bloomberg's conclusion.

我想我不同意布隆伯格的結論。

巴塞爾協議三》的最終遊戲將無疾而終。

Jay Powell at the Basel 3 had a reference to it.

傑伊-鮑威爾在巴塞爾會議 3 上提到了這一點。

But at the end of the day we're not going to see the risk of 15 to 20 percent capital bill.

但最終我們不會看到 15%至 20%的資本法案風險。

這就是《巴塞爾協議 3》的歇斯底里。

是以，我認為還有很長的路要走。

We think some implementation maybe next year.

But but that we're going to take that risk off the table.

但是，我們要把這個風險排除在外。

So basically the capital rules they're going to happen.

是以，基本上，資本規則會發生變化。

But what about the deregulation part of a potential President Trump White House in terms of now is M&A in the space going to become a little easier particularly among the regionals.

但特朗普總統入主白宮後，可能會放松管制，那麼現在該領域的併購是否會變得更容易一些，尤其是在地區性公司之間。

Blackstone reports tomorrow KKR the top eight.

And what we've seen so far we're kind of from the banking underwriting and M&A.

到目前為止，我們看到的都是銀行承銷和併購方面的情況。

So we saw good results high percentage year over year gains for all the banks.

是以，我們看到所有銀行都取得了很好的業績，同比增幅都很高。

But then looking ahead this is important.

The financial sponsors which are the old industry have about over a trillion dollars of equity investments that have to be monetized.

作為老牌行業的金融贊助商大約有超過萬億美元的股權投資需要貨幣化。

It's very hard for them on new flagship funds to get new money from limited partners if they can't go through this seven year cycle of selling out these investments.

如果新旗艦基金不能通過七年的週期出售這些投資，就很難從有限合夥人那裡獲得新的資金。

So that's going to be a huge momentum obviously for them.

是以，這顯然將為他們帶來巨大的動力。

But it's going to benefit certainly Goldman Morgan Stanley and other large banks.

但高盛摩根士丹利和其他大型銀行肯定會從中受益。

So are they still taking on that risk and are they willing to.

那麼，他們是否還在承擔這種風險，他們是否願意承擔這種風險。

I should say you're referring to what specific risk with regards to helping with regards to the private capital deals and the idea of their involvement in that.

我應該說，你指的是在幫助私人資本交易方面的具體風險，以及他們參與其中的想法。

First they play the role as an intermediary or agent to execute those unless they're going to backstop you know any equity IPO you know with their balance sheet but probably less likely.

首先，他們扮演中間人或代理人的角色來執行這些計劃，除非他們用自己的資產負債表來支持任何股票首次公開募股，但這種可能性較小。

Additionally if you're listening to David Solomon Goldman Sachs they are becoming privately equity like but not using their balance sheet.

此外，如果你聽大衛-所羅門-高盛（David Solomon Goldman Sachs）的話，他們正變得像私人股本公司一樣，但並不使用他們的資產負債表。

So it's very interesting to see that when we look at where are the opportunities whether it's private credit in this case private equity which helps M&A and equity underwriting for the next 12 months.

是以，當我們看到未來 12 個月的機會在哪裡時，無論是私人信貸，還是有助於併購和股權承銷的私募股權，都會覺得非常有趣。

But unfortunately not all banks will benefit from this.

但遺憾的是，並非所有銀行都能從中受益。

And that's why it's our goal to pay attention to the capital markets.

是以，關注資本市場是我們的目標。

I am curious just about the general structure of the traditional banking industry coming out of that regional banking crisis last year.

我對去年地區銀行危機後傳統銀行業的總體結構感到好奇。

There was a lot of talk about consolidation not just amongst amongst the tiny banks but even amongst some of those super regionals.

不僅是小銀行之間，甚至是一些超級地區性銀行之間都在談論合併的問題。

I think that kind of died down that conversation died down a little bit.

我想，那場對話已經漸漸平息了。

But when you talk to executives they still say that's still in play.

但當你與高管們交談時，他們仍然表示這一點仍在發揮作用。

And you know from our perspective given that there's additional rules if you're over 100 billion you know.

你知道，從我們的角度來看，如果你超過 1000 億，就會有額外的規定。

是以，對於管理人員來說，這是一場微妙的舞蹈。

There's a lot of Congress persons who like having those small banks that play an important role in the U.S. economy.

很多國會議員都喜歡那些在美國經濟中發揮重要作用的小銀行。

And certainly if there's M&A you know it's regional banks.

當然，如果有併購，你也知道是地區性銀行。

 But I think for institutional investors if you're making allocations in the financial sector and it happens to be part of the banks you're going to be focusing on the U.S. global banks mostly.

但我認為，對於機構投資者來說，如果你在金融行業進行投資，而恰好又是銀行業的一部分，那麼你將主要關注美國的全球性銀行。

字幕列表影片播放

誰對銀行更有利？拜登還是特朗普？ (Who's Better for Banks: Biden or Trump?)

perspective

specific

delicate

basically