Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS)

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Global Wealth Management Joint Venture Call

January 13, 2009 5:00 PM ET

Executives

Scott Freidenrich - Head of IR, Citi

James Gorman - Co-President, Morgan Stanley

Michael Corbat - CEO of Global Wealth Management, Citi

Ned Kelly - Head of Global Banking, Citi

Analysts

Guy Moszkowski - Banc of America

Glenn Schorr - UBS

Mark Lynch - Wellington Management

David Trone - Fox-Pitt

Jeff Harte - Sandler O'Neill

Roger Freeman - Barclays Capital

Operator

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this joint announcement from Citi and Morgan Stanley. This evening's call will be hosted by Scott Freidenrich, Head of Citi Investor Relations and Suzanne Charnas, Head of Morgan Stanley Investor Relations.

Taking you through the presentation will be James Gorman, Morgan Stanley Co-President and Michael Corbat, Citi's CEO of Global Wealth Management. Additionally, Ned Kelly, Citi Head of Global Banking, will be available during the Q&A portion of the call.

Please hold all questions until the completion of the formal remarks, at which time you'll be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today. If you have any objections, please disconnect at this time.

Mr. Freidenrich, you may begin.

Scott Freidenrich

Thank you, operator. Good evening. Thank you all for joining us. This joint presentation we will be going through is available on our website at citigroup.com, and the Morgan Stanley website at morganstanley.com. You may want to download the presentation now if you have not done so already.

Before we get started, I would like to remind you that today's presentation may contain forward-looking statements. Citi's and Morgan Stanley's results may differ materially from these statements. Please refer to the SEC filings for a description of the factors that would cause our actual results to differ from expectations.

With that said, let me turn it over to James.

James Gorman

Thank you very much, and thank you everybody for joining us on a very short notice. I'm delighted to be sitting here with Michael Corbat from Citigroup today.

We have a very, very brief presentation, about four slides you can follow through, and then we'll open up for questions. We’re going to try and work through till about 6 o'clock at the latest, and then I'm sure there will be further follow-up questions as we go forward.

We're delighted to announce and did announce this afternoon the joining of Morgan Stanley and Citi's Wealth Management forces to create what will be the industry's leading Global Wealth Manager, and it will be operated as a joint venture.

Morgan Stanley will own 51% of the venture and Citigroup will own 49%. In addition, in consideration of moving Morgan Stanley's contribution to a majority shareholding of 51%, Morgan Stanley will pay Citigroup $2.7 billion in cash and Morgan Stanley will have a majority representation on the Board of Directors of the venture.

The joint venture will not include Citi's private bank here or internationally or Nikko Cordial Securities. This deal gives Morgan Stanley the opportunity to increase its share overtime and Citigroup the opportunity to realize further value in the outgoing years. The sale of future tranches, if any, will be transacted at fair market value.

Morgan Stanley will exchange its Global Wealth Management business platform, which includes our core retail, private wealth management, and international private wealth management into the joint venture. Citigroup, in turn, will exchange United States Smith Barney operations, Quilter in the United Kingdom, and Smith Barney Australia for its share of the venture.

The management team will be jointly determined and will bring together the best key managers from both Morgan Stanley and Smith Barney. I will serve as Chairman of the joint venture and will continue to serve as Co-President of Morgan Stanley. Charlie Johnson will be President of the joint venture reporting to me.

The joint venture will operate under the brand name Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, recognizing the very considerable brand equity and the long history of both institutions. The transaction, obviously, is subject to customary regulatory approvals, but is expected to close in the second half of this year.

Turn the page to a series of statistics that we put together that just frame the approximate size of the venture. These are based on 2008 figures. The combined firm's estimated pro forma net revenues were slightly under $15 billion at $14.9 billion. We believe this transaction creates the largest Global Wealth Management firm as measured by financial advisors. The total number of financial advisors are approximately 20,390 or 20,400.

The national footprint, obviously including those 20,000 plus financial advisors also includes over 1,000 brokerage locations and headquarters. The headquarters will remain in the New York area.

Our broadened scale will enable us to provide an unmatched selection of financial advisors, products and technology, services and intellectual capital. This joint venture will clearly enhance our clients doing business with the firms. They will have a wider range of choices in how to take advantage of the various resources that the parent companies can now contribute.

At this point, I'd like to turn it over to Michael who will make a few comments on the strategic rationale, the cost savings, and then some closing remarks before we turn it over to questions. Mike?

Michael Corbat

Thank you, James. Good evening, everyone. We believe that wealth management is a very attractive business with long-term growth potential, reflecting favorable customer dynamics and demographic trends that continue to drive growth. This venture brings together two of the leading global brands in the wealth management space, both with distinguished histories and a dedicated track record of serving high net worth clients.

The extensive global networks of both Citi and Morgan Stanley can be assessed by clients for the best market intelligence and investment opportunities wherever in the world they originate from. Citi and Morgan Stanley will retain their deposits accumulated prior to the close of this transaction. New deposits collected in the joint venture will be allocated based on ownership of the new company.

In addition to the 49% ownership stake in the JV as James mentioned, Citi will receive an upfront payment of $2.7 billion in cash. Citi will also recognize a pre-tax gain of approximately $9.5 billion, and an after tax gain of roughly $5.8 billion. Tangible common equity created as the formation of this joint venture is going to be roughly $6.5 billion and tier one capital roughly $6.4 billion.

This joint venture, we believe, will provide an expanded and exceptional distribution network for capital markets as well as asset management products. We also expect to achieve scales of economies and cost synergies as detailed on the next slide.

The combined organization will benefit from significant economies of scale and cost savings by rationalizing and consolidating key functions, including technology, operations, sales support, product development and marketing to mention some. This will also allow the new company to achieve net cost savings of approximately $1.1 billion subsequent to the completion of the integration.

One-time restructuring costs are expected to be equal to the annual cost savings and approximately 15% of the cost base, excluding financial advisor commissions and compensation. Recognizing the market and current dynamics, retention packages will be structured attractively and in line with industry practice. We’re very excited about our new partnership, which brings together two of the leading global brands in wealth management and we are convinced that the strength of this new venture will be extremely attractive to clients and financial advisors from both firms.

Before we open it up for questions, just a reminder, Citi has posted a term and fact sheet to their website. As the operator mentioned, James and I will be joined by Ned Kelly for the question-and-answer portion. We would also remind you that given we are in a quiet period for earnings; the questions we answer will be restricted to those addressed around this transaction.

So with that, Operator, we'd like to open it up for questions.

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

(Operator Instructions). Your first question is from Guy Moszkowski with Banc of America.

Guy Moszkowski - Banc of America

Good afternoon, everybody. I wanted to ask you, first of all, can we assume that the pro forma ownership prior to Morgan Stanley acquiring enough to get up to 51% through the $2.7 billion payment, can we assume that the pro forma ownership would be roughly in line with the earnings contributions that you laid out, so about 40% or so Morgan Stanley, 60% Citi?

James Gorman

Guy, it's James. I think it's roughly in line. There are a number of other considerations of pieces of the businesses and the way the businesses will run that affected that valuation. That's not terribly far off the way we would think about it.

Ned Kelly

I agree with that. It's Ned.

Guy Moszkowski - Banc of America

Thanks. So let me just ask you this. Are you going to have to create a new broker/dealer in order to put these two in or can you keep that outside somehow of a broker/dealer framework, and then just direct transaction volume to your existing broker/dealers at the home shops? How does that work?

Michael Corbat

Guy, there will be the creation of a new broker/dealer in which both entities will be contributing.

Guy Moszkowski - Banc of America

Will that be complete at around the time that you close the transaction?

Ned Kelly

Yes, expected closing, Guy, is probably second half of the year based on the need to set that up, regulatory approvals, et cetera.

Michael Corbat

Guy, the only thing I'd add to that is that our institutional businesses stay outside.

Guy Moszkowski - Banc of America

Right. The $2.8 billion pre-tax number that you gave us, does that incorporate the $1.1 billion of cost saves or would that come on top of that?

Michael Corbat

Well, I'm not sure of the $2.8 billion. The $2.7 billion, Guy, was the upfront payment, which was a function of the math, the economics behind the 51% 49% ownership based on the contributed parts.

James Gorman

Are you referring to the joint venture statistics on slide four?

Guy Moszkowski - Banc of America

Yes. That's right.

James Gorman

The combined pro forma pre-tax profit? Yes. That's before the synergies. That's just taking the two businesses today and adding them together.

Guy Moszkowski - Banc of America

In what timeframe do you think that you could achieve something like those synergies over?

James Gorman

We think we could largely get them over the first 18 months of the venture, Guy. We’ve obviously got a lot more work to do around framing that and we'll spend the next several months seeing that up. We move on a very accelerated pace once the lights turn green.

Guy Moszkowski - Banc of America

Great. One final question, you talked about the calls of the remaining Citi stake that you, Morgan Stanley, could make in the future would be based on fair market value. Do you have some templates or protocols for agreeing on that fair market value or is it really all TBD?

James Gorman

No, it's not TBD. There's a process which involves going to and creating valuation and assuming that we're within certain percentages, then we would agree on a valuation at that point. If not, then we have a process to go outside that to independent valuations and it gets us to a resolution, a fairly standard practice for these kinds of transactions. Ned, I don't know if you want to add to that?

Ned Kelly

No. I think that's absolutely right, James. Guy, essentially, we each pick somebody at the outset, and then to the extent that they are too far apart, there's a further resolution mechanism, and the agreement includes a detailed definition of fair market value.

Guy Moszkowski - Banc of America

Excellent. Okay, very helpful. Thank you very much.

James Gorman

Thank you, Guy.

Operator

Your next question is from Glenn Schorr with UBS.

Michael Corbat

Hi, Glenn.

Glenn Schorr - UBS

Hello, there. The first question for the Citi side of the house. The first quick question, I think we get the financial component on the strategy side. It's not what people would have expected, meaning this is one of your theoretically better businesses, lower capital intensive businesses with good long-term solid growth. Why the change, why the JV structure at this point on one of your better cash flowing, low capital intensive businesses with a call to somebody else?

Ned Kelly

Glenn, if I could answer that, I think a couple of things. One is that, as you well know based on the structure, we own 49% of the combined firm going forward, and we believe that there is a considerable enhancement of value with the two firms together rather than having them separate. Obviously, these are synergies associated with it.

We also think, as James suggested and as Mike confirmed that this is an industry leading competitor at this stage in order to be value enhancement associated with it. The calls are structured so that effectively they are options, not obligations. As I think you are aware, they are basically three to five years out. We are going to be a very substantial participant in this venture for at least the next three years, if not beyond. During that period, we obviously get our share of the earnings.

As Guy's question highlighted and as James confirmed, on the backend, essentially, if the calls are exercised, we get fair market value, which presumably allows us to participate in what one would hope would be an improving market not only for this business but also for valuations generally in terms of multiples.

Our view is that, given the financial benefits that you've acknowledged and given the fact that we own 49% of what is going to be a more valuable business, it struck us as a very sensible and value enhancing thing to do.

Glenn Schorr - UBS

A question on it for either or both, retention payments that you said are basically in line with industry practices, who pays that? Do the two sides contribute to the percentages of the JV?

James Gorman

The joint venture will pay the retention payments because they'll be paid as it is as a going concern so that both sides will participate, if you will, based on their pro rata share.

Glenn Schorr - UBS

Is there any analysis on the client overlap? Do you think that's a big deal and have any revenue dissynergies been thought of?

James Gorman

No, there has not been analysis on it. In my experience, one of the reasons why these kinds of broker-type transactions work and in fact why we recruit so much from each others firms is there's almost no client overlap. There are very few clients who have a relationship with more than one of those firms of the top four firms. It generally just doesn't make sense.

It's not to say there might be some households where there are split relationships, and often they keep those, but it's very rare. You might get a relationship with a trust company and a broker/dealer or obviously banking end of the broker/dealer, insurance company, but very rare the two. I don't think is going to be an issue.

Michael Corbat

The number looks like it comes out somewhere about 6.8 million households.

Glenn Schorr - UBS

I think strategically, James, everybody gets that this gets Morgan Stanley down the path of reshaping and improving the business mix, and hopefully, funding mix at some point. Financially, there is the $2.7 billion upfront. I'm assuming because it wasn't mentioned, there is no gain or write-up on your side of the fence.

Can you talk about, a), is there any impact on the valuation of Morgan Stanley's stake; and b), initial thoughts on $2.7 billion, do you raise it, or do you paid cash, because you have a huge tier one?

James Gorman

I'll deal with the second part first. We pay the $2.7 billion in cash. We did not need to raise it. We have, we believe, well sufficient equity to cover that. That is frankly fairly straightforward. I'll let Colm take you through when we talk about the broader company balance sheet, the implications for a potential gain to our equity and our book value, we certainly don't think that will be negative. Again, as we frame those numbers, I'll let Colm take you through. We've not quantified them for the purposes of this call, but I wouldn't read anything more into it than that.

Glenn Schorr - UBS

The last one, is there anything you tell us about a pro forma book or impact to book when all is said and down? Is it just the $2.7 billion payment?

James Gorman

The equity and book value will increase as a result of the transaction, but it will not have any result in any P&L impact as a result of FAS 141R.

Glenn Schorr - UBS

I can follow-up.

James Gorman

The tier one capital ratio, Glenn, will go down by approximately 1% as a result of the transaction.

Glenn Schorr - UBS

You said book actually goes up?

James Gorman

Yes.

Glenn Schorr - UBS

Thanks and congrats.

James Gorman

Thank you. Any other questions, operator?

Operator

Yes, sir. Your next question is from (inaudible) with Deutsche Bank.

Unidentified Analyst

Hi.

James Gorman

Hi, [Mike].

Unidentified Analyst

Following up, I understand the potential for cost savings, but it's the revenue side that I'm focused on. $15 billion of pro forma revenues, what kind of revenue loss are you factoring in? Why don't you just buy the whole entity, so you don't have the joint venture issues? You are combining management teams.

If you could discuss how the strategies are similar and different between the two firms, how do you plan to meld those and what do you think the impact might be on potential revenue lost?

Ned Kelly

James, I'll let you answer that, and then I'll take a shot at it as well.

James Gorman

Firstly, I've been in and around this industry for an awfully long time and I have a pretty good feel of what the cultures of the firms are. I've had the pleasure of knowing Charlie Johnson, who runs the business here. We are on a board together for several years, and I've done several of his predecessors.

The culture of the organizations is very similar. The management structure, the approach to business, the kind of business is very similar. If anything, the Smith Barney business does and was a path breaker in the annuitized managed money arena, but very similar operations. Culturally, I think the fit actually is going to be fantastic. I think that's a real plus.

On the revenue side, we're not taking into account any significant revenue dissynergies. Will there be financial advisor attrition? It's possible, but frankly, the retention payments in there offsetting the obviously hot recruiting market out there, we think the retention payments will clearly ameliorate any significant attrition. By definition, we're taking away two competitors from the recruiting market, so that's a positive.

We think there are some positive revenue opportunities with different products and services each of the companies have. We've not factored those revenue opportunities into the framework, and we think there are also some very strong competitive opportunities for us in markets where we will now be dominant, which we've also not factored into potential revenues.

The way we look at it, [Mike], at the moment, is if you take into account potential revenue dissynergies that might come from excessive attrition, which we don't believe there will be, by the way, and you combine it with the potential revenue positives that come from all the things I've mentioned, we think that's a wash. That is not dissimilar to what Wachovia planned when they put together the AG Edwards deal or what they saw with their financial deal.

Ned Kelly

[Mike], it's Ned. I'm not sure what the background noise is. It seems to have gone away. To address your point, I think to address it head on, I think part of the reason that there wasn't an acquisition of the whole is because the whole was not…

Unidentified Analyst

Sorry, you broke up.

Ned Kelly

Yeah, I know. I'm afraid there is background noise. I was going to say that the whole, by its terms, was not for sale. In other words, we wanted to participate in enhanced value going forward, unique opportunity with Morgan Stanley to create the industry leading competitor in our view. We're able to preserve, obviously, earnings over the next three years and then beyond that, depending on what the outcome of the optional call structure is.

Moreover, we've got connectivity agreements between our institutional business and the joint venture in the areas of order flow and distribution, for example, which allow us to continue to conduct business on that basis. When we thought about it, just in terms of enhancing value going forward, creating an industry leading competitor and being able to get out as I said, at some point, assuming that that's how it's resolved, several years, three to five years down the road, it made an awful lot of sense to us to sell the business at this age where we believe we can contribute to enhanced value overtime.

Unidentified Analyst

One final follow-up, on the Citigroup side, if you have a branch manager in a Citibank branch, what incentive does that person have to refer the customer to the new joint venture? In other words…

Ned Kelly

[Mike], just to stop you for a second, the branch-based brokers stay with us.

Unidentified Analyst

Okay. But is there still any potential conflicts to say, hey, let's get deposits in the Citibank branch as opposed to the new joint venture? Have you thought that through?

Ned Kelly

The Citibank branches are obviously not part of the deal. As I said, the branch-based brokers remain with Citi. With respect to the deposits that are generated by the venture itself, I think Mike described that at the outset. We each retain the deposits we have today, and then new deposits that are generated are split pro rata with ownership.

Unidentified Analyst

Okay. Thank you.

Operator

Your next question is from Mark Lynch with Wellington Management.

Mark Lynch - Wellington Management

Good evening, a question for the Citibank side. You were very careful to say what the after tax gain was, in addition to the pre-tax. I was wondering if you happen to have an offsetting $9.5 billion write-down in legacy assets when this closes, do you still have to pay taxes on this gain?

Ned Kelly

Mark, as you might imagine, we are confining our comments to this deal and I'm not in a position to answer that broader question.

Mark Lynch - Wellington Management

Why not?

Ned Kelly

I'm not. I'm not the CFO. As Michael pointed out at the outset, we're obviously in a quiet period with respect to earnings. I'm not going to answer the question.

Mark Lynch - Wellington Management

Is there anything unusual about this deal from a tax standpoint?

Ned Kelly

Not that I'm aware of.

Mark Lynch - Wellington Management

Okay. Thank you.

Operator

Your next question is from David Trone with Fox-Pitt.

David Trone - Fox-Pitt

Hi. I had a question on the $9.5 billion in pre-tax gain. Could you tell us the carrying value of the contributed unit?

Ned Kelly

The carrying value, David, the fact is that there are accounting issues around this, but my recollection is, and don't hold me to this, I think the carrying value is somewhere between $3 billion and $4 billion.

David Trone - Fox-Pitt

So the gross value of the deal looks like 13?

Ned Kelly

I leave that inference to you because, as you know, there are certain complicated accounting issues around it, and the numbers we gave, as you know, are approximate for present purposes and they will be refined overtime.

David Trone - Fox-Pitt

That utilizes FAS 160, right?

Ned Kelly

That's my understanding.

David Trone - Fox-Pitt

Okay, just quickly, the differential between your projected after-tax gain and the TCE?

Ned Kelly

Goodwill.

David Trone - Fox-Pitt

Okay, good. One last question on the call option for Morgan Stanley. I'm not exactly clear. Is it at the three-year point and the five-year point there is an option to acquire more or the balance?

Ned Kelly

The way the deal works basically, and James will correct me quickly if I'm wrong, is that after the third anniversary, Morgan Stanley has an option to acquire an additional 14%, after the fourth anniversary, the option to acquire an additional 15%, and after the fifth anniversary, they can acquire the balance.

If they get to that point, in other words, if they get to 80% within a year of that, we would have the option to put the balance to Morgan Stanley.

David Trone - Fox-Pitt

Okay, great. Thank you.

Ned Kelly

Sure.

Michael Corbat

Operator, we have time for one more call tonight.

Operator

Okay. Your next question will come from Jeff Harte with Sandler O'Neill.

Michael Corbat

Hi, Jeff.

Ned Kelly

Hi, Jeff. Jeff?

Jeff Harte - Sandler O'Neill

Is this better?

Ned Kelly

Yes.

Jeff Harte - Sandler O'Neill

Sorry about that. In coming to this agreement, were there any other bidders involved or was this a closed negotiated transaction?

Ned Kelly

No. The point is that given the structure of the transaction, it clearly had to be a negotiated transaction, because, as I said, unique opportunity to combine with Morgan Stanley and create what I think is on its face a pretty impressive combined entity.

Jeff Harte - Sandler O'Neill

Are there any stake sale restrictions for Citigroup or Morgan Stanley kind of moving forward here? Do you have the ability to sell a portion of this if you so choose?

Ned Kelly

Yes. Having said that, there are some technical issues in the agreement, Jeff. James, correct me if I'm wrong; but by and large, I think the short answer to that is yes.

James Gorman

Yes.

Jeff Harte - Sandler O'Neill

When we look at some of the commercial agreements you talked about, research, execution of things kind of being split up between Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, is the thought process at this point to maintain something like that or are those important things that eventually the joint venture needs to actually have ownership of itself as opposed to outsourcing?

Michael Corbat

What we have here is a structure which, as Ned described, at a minimum survives in its current form for three years and possibly for much longer. Clearly, it's important for the structure to benefit from the product, which is originated by both firms' parent companies. We have appropriate (inaudible) to reflect that. Similarly, both parent companies would want access to the order flow, stock lending and so on.

In addition, the joint venture itself would want access to the parent company's research. Again, this is in the spirit of bringing what is the best from the parent companies to benefit our joint 6.8 million households and make this the leading enterprise in the industry. All of those agreements, obviously, have been worked on and will continue to be flushed out as further details as we proceed here.

Jeff Harte - Sandler O'Neill

Then, finally, I suppose as much out of curiosity, as you look at the systems and kind of integrating on to one platform, is there one systems platform versus the other you plan to transition to?

James Gorman

There are many parts to that question. There is the simple sort of what's the broker workstation, which, in our case, we run on the Thomson platform. Citi, I believe, runs on Reuters. There are what are the applications that the financial advisors have, the tools that they have for asset allocation, things of that kind.

We'll obviously pick best of breed. There is how we do client reporting, performance reporting and statementing. Again, much of the technology that exists here at Smith Barney is outstanding. There are the various back office operations, datacenters. As we look at all of the components of what make up broad infrastructure, not just the front-end workstation, all of those components, I think you'll find overtime that it will be a case of taking wherever we find best of breed.

Mike, I don't know if you want to add to it, but that's something that we're very excited about. There's a lot of tremendous capability here at Smith Barney and there's a lot of tremendous capability I know at Morgan Stanley. One thing we've both done is made the right investments over the last several years. We are well positioned to move aggressively forward here.

Jeff Harte - Sandler O'Neill

Finally, are there any break-up restrictions or penalties if one of you decides to pull out?

Michael Corbat

If one of us decides to pull out?

Jeff Harte - Sandler O'Neill

If one of you were to decide not to go through with the joint venture, is there some kind of a cancellation, termination penalty?

Michael Corbat

No, there is not.

Jeff Harte - Sandler O'Neill

Okay, thank you.

Scott Freidenrich

We have time for one more, operator. We have a little bit of time left.

Operator

Okay. Your next question will come from Roger Freeman with Barclays Capital.

Roger Freeman - Barclays Capital

Hi. In terms of retention bonuses, did you say what percentage of the FAS you expect to pay retention bonuses on?

James Gorman

No, we didn't, Roger. We will look at that as we go forward.

Roger Freeman - Barclays Capital

As you're looking at your competitors for talent, you made a good point, there's obviously few in the market. How big of a threat do you actually look at the independent channel?

James Gorman

Firstly, it's been a trade, if you will, a competitor for many, many years. I think this joint venture, the threat diminishes because what we will be able to offer our financial advisors is more capabilities here, not less, as a result of having the combined resources of the firms. The independent channel is a legitimate, competitive channel out there, but I don't think this changes that metric to the negative one iota.

Roger Freeman - Barclays Capital

Looking at the offices, how much overlap is there, like what percentage of those would you expect to be closed or is it too early?

James Gorman

It's too early. We've got 1,000 locations, and Mike might want to answer this, but we've got 1000 locations. In every major city in this country, there are multiple Smith Barney, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia locations already. It’s not a question, really, of overlap.

What we will find is that there will be some under capacity, what they call capacity utilization, where 60% of the desks are filled in one particular office and across the street it's 40%, and obviously, that's a homerun. What it will enable us to do is to optimize the real estate footprint going forward as we map this out, but I don't that you're going to see wholesale office closures. What we care about is keeping the financial advisors in their seats and being productive, but this will let us sensibly manage our real estate footprint going forward.

With that, operator, unless Mike or Ned, do you have any closing comments?

Ned Kelly

I don't, James. Thank you.

James Gorman

I think, folks, we're going to have to go. We've got a very busy evening ahead of us here. I appreciate all of your efforts and I'm sure there will be follow-up questions to each of our respective Investor Relations groups. We’ll be meeting with you individually over the next several months. We look forward to it. Thank you.

Michael Corbat

Thank you.

Operator

This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Global Wealth Management Joint Venture Call Transcript
This Transcript
All Transcripts