Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

giteam OP t1_jcyp6de wrote

UBS knocked Fidelity Investments off the podium with their acquisition of Credit Suisse, bringing their total assets under management (AUM) to $5.9T - over 7x the GDP of Switzerland.

Sources: ADVRatings Reuters

Newsletter

Tools: Figma

11

killerparrot6 t1_jcyv6wz wrote

They won't be 3rd anymore after they realize losses from all the horrible swaps CS was engaged in..

36

tilapios t1_jcz3ad3 wrote

Your infographic says "UBS and Credit Suisse together hold combined assets of over 7x Swiss GDP", but the Reuters article you link to says "The banks, two of the most systemically relevant in global finance, hold combined assets of up to 140% of Swiss gross domestic product..."

I think this is because you're using assets under management and total assets interchangeably, which doesn't seem correct. UBS's 2022 annual report lists its total assets as $1.1 trillion, which is different from the $4.5 trillion of assets that it manages.

63

lostcauz707 t1_jd06mcx wrote

The hilarity being they are all banking on getting bailed out as they continue to lose assets and market confidence.

11

chillord t1_jd084f6 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,282,922)

Just from a semi-layman perspective: BlackRock is a company that's dishing out a ton of ETFs like the MSCI World. So they have these assets "in management" but actually just buy the underlying shares and earn management fees. There isn't really any risk involved for this type of business since it's 100% collaterized.

To gain a full perspective, we would need to see a diagram that explains in detail which asset classes are managed and how the percentages add up.

3

TouchGrassRedditor t1_jd08qv7 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,284,447)

You know that literally every economic sector and every possible risk profile is represented across the trillions that these firms manage, right? Blackrock doesn’t put 100% of its client’s assets into the same stock lmao, it’s small cap, mid cap, large cap, international, and everything else

2

laserdruckervk t1_jd0epvi wrote

American Billion is German Milliarde and American Trillion is German Billion and it confuses the hell out of me

3

brock_h t1_jd0in32 wrote

Schwab has 7T+ AUM. What am I missing?

6

ICanFlyLikeAFly t1_jd0kuic wrote

Replying to laserdruckervk (#2,284,876)

The problem is there is a long and short system. Even in English - but it's not used anymore.

1 milionen x1 000 = 1 milliarden 1 millionen x 1 000 000 1 billonen 1 billonen x 1 000= 1billarden 1 billonen x 1 000 000 = 1 trillionen

2

geos1234 t1_jd0plde wrote

Small distinction, UBS’ wealth management arm is huge. Their asset management arm is comparatively small. Wealth management and asset management are two separate businesses, with wealth management generally catering towards wealthy individuals whereas asset management caters to institutions like endowments, pension funds etc…

4

curiosity-12 t1_jd0wrjj wrote

Why is it relevant to compare a stock (assets under management) to a flow (Swiss GDP)? Perhaps a more relevant comparison would be the assets of a large pension fund (eg Calpers).

2

jonny_wow t1_jd1cugx wrote

Okay but CS's portfolio is toxic enough to wipe out all of UBS's worth a million times over.

3

LinCashew t1_jd1dpum wrote

Vanguard is simply great, i rarely see ETFs from the others being able to compete with the low cost that Vanguard offers.

1

rajhm t1_jd2da0g wrote

Replying to brock_h (#2,285,143)

I am guessing for that number, Schwab is the brokerage, not the asset manager. At Schwab's brokerage people have money in stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, bonds, etc. Some of the funds and ETFs are like iShares ETFs and contributing to Blackrock's AUM number.

Basically for the number being quoted, Blackrock has voting rights for the stock shares portion of that AUM. Schwab only has the same for those invested in Schwab's own funds.

3

eierwerfer t1_jd2e519 wrote

CH will split up the new bank in the upcoming years 🇨🇭

1

Cooperativism62 t1_jd45mo3 wrote

Replying to curiosity-12 (#2,286,037)

Because if the Swiss government acted as dealer of last resort, buying up the assets under management, then Swiss dept to GDP ratio skyrockets.

So yes, it is good to compare a stock (like a lambo) to a flow (your income) in the event of a purchase.

3

jonny_wow t1_jd4bi5r wrote

Replying to Cooperativism62 (#2,293,795)

They tried to naked short sell Gamestop into bankruptcy and the gamers fought them and won, now CS has bad positions open that nobody in the world can afford, so the only play they have is to keep opening shittier and shittier positions every day until the world runs out of money.

1

Cooperativism62 t1_jd4irli wrote

Replying to curiosity-12 (#2,294,435)

Data representation always comes with pros and cons, it's rarely perfect.

I think its fair as a simple respresentation to show their assets and compare them to Swiss GPD since the Swiss government may eventually play a role through a bailout, and I believe that's what OP is implying. Obviously you can and should do deeper analysis, like cross-country comparisons and so on, but hey, this is r/dataisbeatiful not "thisismyPHDthesis".

1