Sergio, strong numbers. Anything stand out?
Well, first of all, I think that what's standing out is that we are getting almost at the end of the tunnel. So three years ago, we reported our first consolidated number as opposed to the acquisition of Credit Suisse. And now seeing the full results of all the hard work we put down and the hard decisions we had to take in the journey are starting to pay off. And so stand out is good momentum across all our businesses. You know, you can see that in the 45% increase of our underlying PBT and so basically the synergies and the top line developments are working well. And net assets are up 7.2, 7.3 trillions of assets. We manage good inflows and the integration is almost done. Still not fully done, but I'm very pleased with the momentum near the end of the tunnel.
Let's talk about the buyback. Everybody's been very eager to hear what you had to say on the buyback. You've announced 3 billion over six months, but 1 billion over three months. Why? Why that structure? Why not go 50/50? Is it because you think maybe in three months time we might have more clarity on the Swiss capital rules? Can I read something into that structure?
Not really. Because really, I mean, the issue is that what we have is these programs that we have to file with the stock exchange in terms of buyback programs that we can execute in theory over two years. And our capital return policy and ambition has been set at the beginning of 2026, when we say that our aim was basically to start with 3 billion and then assess the situation at the end of the first half. And so what we do now is we have a new plan, a new program, and we intend to execute it over the next 12 months. But the pace and size will be determined by our capital position. So staying at 14% and also the ongoing development in the business, which we are very positive of, but also the ongoing discussion on too big to fail like we did in the last two years. The language hasn't really changed.
The language hasn't really changed. So I shouldn't expect in three months time something, some countdown to this fail?
The deal has to be seen as a minimum commitment that we will do it. And you know, putting a clear indication on anything more than that.
Equities very strong, plus 53% I think is the number. That's a nice number. The surprising thing is that you've done it without any extra capital. That's the real standout here. Let me ask you the same question Alice Van Castle, Barclays yesterday, if you'd have given that division a bit more extra capital, if you'd have funded it differently, if you'd have provided more for it, could that number have been significantly higher? Are you throttling back equities at the moment? Like how, like, could that number be?
Not really. Actually, what we did, the point you raised is a good point. But you know what we did within the investment bank? We also shifted some capital from the fixed income businesses to the equity business to help them. But our focus is really, which I also believe that the numbers are very strong because they are mainly driven by intermediation activities. So and rather than deploying capital in prime brokerage. And so, but going back to your story, this is more about our strategic capital allocation at group level. We made that decision in 2012. That's, you know, our investment bank fits strategic ambitions that we have to support our wealth management clients, our institutional clients, our corporate clients, but with a defined capital allocation. So we had ups and downs in times in which was very rewarding to have that and times in which you may have some opportunity cost. But when I look at the full results, a 23% return on allocated capital for the investment bank is pretty strong results. So we are very happy with that.
Okay, but let's look at the opportunity cost. Let's just talk about the opportunity cost. It's 86%. Yeah. Could you have done that kind of number?
Yeah. But it's not something if and when. It doesn't matter because I think our philosophy, our capital allocation and our stock is rewarded by this business mix and not by taking opportunistic and tactical view on momentum in any of our businesses.
Do you think if you were a US bank, you'd do something close to what was it, 86% for JPM? Goldman Sachs did 71%. If you were a US bank, do you think you'd get those kinds?
It's too hypothetical to answer that question. Well, it's kind of US bank. We are a Swiss bank. And we are very happy with that.
Okay. You can see where I'm going with that. If you, if you redomiciled, is there a cost to being a Swiss bank?
I think there are also a lot of good opportunities. But of course, things have to be fully balanced. But I'm very happy with our results and what we achieved as a business mix.
All right. So if you look at wealth management, you look at the Swiss business, asset management and the investment bank all together put up a very strong set of results. Just going back to what you did in equities and why you did it, as you say, not extra capital. The reason was because markets like there's volatility. The volatility is extraordinary at the moment. Do you expect that to continue? Is that something that we should expect? Are the markets so frothy to you right now? What do you see?
