Hey, welcome, everyone, to the analyst briefing. You've heard the media, so we can go straight to Q&A. We've got Piyush and Sok Hui here to take your questions. Some brief instructions before we begin. If you'd like to ask a question, just press the Raise Hand function, and we'll call upon you to unmute yourself. After you ask your question, if you could go on mute again, we'd appreciate that to avoid any echo. So without further ado, the first question from Jayden from Macquarie.
Okay, can you hear me okay, Nick?
Yep.
Great. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Piyush, you know, congratulations on an excellent tenure as CEO and, you know, looking forward to the transition. Just a couple of questions on, I guess, the balance sheet. You mentioned in the briefing earlier that there's SGD 190 billion of fixed-rate assets, you know, which have obviously helped the NIM sensitivity. Is there any hedging that's being put on in addition to that? Or is that sort of part of the fixed rate? If you can sort of elaborate if there's anything in addition to the fixed rate that's helping there.
Yeah, the hedges are part of the SGD 190 billion.
Okay, so it's about 28% of earning assets that are affected-
It's 35%. It's 35% of our commercial book.
Okay, got it. And one other question just on the fee side. The wealth fees have obviously been very strong, but if you do look at the investment banking, they're quite low and have been for some time. Just strategically, how important is having a more vibrant securities market here to making that a bigger part of the business? And I guess, by extension, does that impact the wealth business as well?
So now, honestly, I don't think investment banking is a big fee pool in Asia at the best of times. You know, for us, in a good year, we make, like, $350 million-$400 million bucks maybe on DCM and ECM to combine. On a $20 billion dollar, you know, revenue base, that's not very significant. It's 3%-4%. And if we were to do much better, the market a lot more vibrant, maybe you could make a little bit more, but it's not huge. The reality is that the Asian capital markets are over-concentrated and don't pay. You look at, you know, the wallet size in the U.S., you can get 3%-5% on equity underwriting. In Asia, you get paid 1%, which gets split between 5-10 underwriters, so it's not that lucrative.
Now, I mean, I'm overstating the case. It's not that it doesn't make any difference at all. Of course, it does. But in the primary market, there is only so much upside. Now, in the secondary market, which is the range of products you can offer to your wealth customers and the other attendant activities you can do around that, that is helpful. A lot of our customers increasingly are buying outside our region, right? They're buying China, Japan, U.S., and obviously, they use us to do, and we do structures around all of that. But to the extent there were more vibrant capital markets locally, I think we'd get a lot more activity from our customers. That would be helpful.
Any further questions, Jayden?
I think that's all. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it.
Great. Thanks, Jayden. Next question from Nick, from Morgan Stanley.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes.
Yes.
We can. Well, again, I'd like to just, you know, reiterate the congratulations, Piyush, on a, fantastic term as the CEO-
Thank you.
Thank you for all the value you've delivered to investors during that time. Just in terms of a couple of questions from me, again, just back on the hedgeability of the SGD 190 billion in fixed. Is there any more after the SGD 40 billion this year of those fixed assets that can still be priced up, assuming we have, say, 100-150 basis points of U.S. rate cuts over the next 18 months? And then if you could maybe give us some indication as to what the duration of these fixed rate assets are.
Yeah. So, you know, of the SGD 40 billion, actually 27 matured in the first half. There's SGD 13 billion more which will mature in the second half. Based on the current distinction, in the first half, we got about a 180 basis points to 200 basis point lift. In the second half, we're projecting only a 100 odd basis points lift on the balance SGD 13 billion book. If you look at the next year, as the fixed rate assets come mature, we still get some pickup in the first half of the year. By the second half of the year, there's no pickup. In fact, second half of the year, depends on where the rates go, you might actually see a drag.
First half of the year, there is still a little pickup, and if I remember from our modeling, we get about a $70 million -$80 million lift in income from fixed asset repricing for next year as well. It's not huge, but it's still positive. Your second question, duration. Our average duration is about three and a half years that we've put on between fixed-rate mortgages, some hedges, and long-term fixed-rate bonds.
Perfect. Thank you very much. And then just on Hong Kong property, in terms of the, I mean, you described, I know it's not big, but you described a couple of assets that were in difficulty. Is this sort of the impact of higher interest rates and lower vacancies, and would you expect any relief, especially in terms of that shift of GP as interest rates begin to fall?
I'm hoping that as the rates come off, the worst should be behind us because a lot of this is you know, developers who are at the high rates, unable to service loans. The rates come off, the ability to service improves. So we should see some improvement in that portfolio. I think the big thing is really the salability of the underlying, right? Because you know, we keep adding GP when we see some deterioration in the NIM. But in the ultimate answer, if the person doesn't pay, then your best thing is you foreclose and sell the property. So the real question is, does the property sell, and how much haircut do you take?
Our loan-to-values are very conservative, so, you know, we could easily stomach a 30%-50% drop in property values without actually having to take any significant write-offs anywhere.
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thanks, Nick. Next question from Tan Yong Hong from Citi.
Hi. Thanks for the opportunity. This is Tan Yong Hong from Citi. Congrats on your fantastic quarter. Maybe I'll just ask three questions. For the first question, on the NIM sensitivity, is this NIM sensitivity referring to the group NII? Versus previously, your SGD 8 million guidance was just referring to your commercial book. So I think the difference will be coming from the hedges and your expected easing funding costs from the markets book. The follow-up would be, what are the assumptions that you guys use, such as the pass-through to SORA? And based on the duration of your hedges that you said was 3.5 years, will the NIM sensitivity change next year and in 2026? Yeah, this is my first question.
Yeah. So the SGD 4 million is actually for the whole group. It adds everything up. And you've got to remember that next year, rates come off, the funding drag on the markets book will reduce. And so actually, the markets book has a reverse NIM sensitivity, but the SGD 4 million is an entire base. But that includes the hedges we put on, the fixed rate assets we put on. It also includes the fact that a large part of our CASA moved to fixed deposits, and therefore, the sensitivity you have to, you know, rates when you have a large CASA book is obviously not there when you've already given up the margin by moving that money into fixed deposits. It's just, it's all included. On the duration, yes, of course.
I mean, right now, our modeling covers up to the middle of next year, the sensitivity. Obviously, as fixed-rate assets roll off and you put on assets at different level, that sensitivity number could change. Also, if you have fixed deposit and CASA ratio changes, the sensitivity number can change over time, but over the next 12 months that we modeled it, the sensitivity holds.
Okay, got it. Let me follow it up with that on your commercial NIM. I think the margins expansion for your commercial NIMs appears to be driven by others, if I look at your segmental breakdowns. Can we just get more color on what is driving these other segments?
We didn't know that-
Sorry, can you refer me to the?
Performance?
table that you're looking at?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because the bulk of our commercial book is driven by fixed asset repricing.
Okay. Because within your commercial book, we have that, IBG, we have the others. I think there are three sections within the commercial book. I think it's page ...
Are you looking at the NII page?
Yeah, I'm looking at, page, page 14.
Fourteen?
Yeah, of the financial performance summary. And if you, if you look at half on half for second half 2023 versus first half 2024, the others in the commercial book, I think the NII grew quite a, quite a fair bit, and the profit before tax was also essentially more than doubled.
Which one is he referring to?
Just, just-
I mean, or maybe you can take it offline.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay, the others in the commercial... The others in the commercial book will be some corporate treasury activities. So within the commercial, within the sort of others column, there are a few activities. It is also shareholders' funds deployment. It is the duration portfolio that we put on. It is structural FX positions that sometimes in overseas locations, we get sort of some noise, which we had, the SGD 100 million I told you about in the first quarter. So those are the items that go under others in-
But I think the most important is all our duration management is being done in that line.
Mm-hmm.
We do it in corporate treasury-
Mm
which we hold centrally under the CFO office. So all of the bond purchases we do, as well as the hedges we put on, are all captured under that line.
Okay, got it. Maybe final questions on loans. Loans growth appears to be driven quite well by your wealth management lending. And just wanting to get more color, whether there has been lending to private banking clients using their property as collateral, either for DPS or is it happening, or do you see it happening in the market? And of course, if the recent market volatility has been a cause of concerns for these clients. Yeah, this is my last question.
Yeah, wealth management lending hasn't gone up. If you look at the last six, eight months, our wealth management lending has been quite flat. So we haven't got loan growth from there at all, because people haven't been using leverage. If anything, a lot of the private bank clients have been paying down leverage. And no, we generally speaking, we haven't done a lot of property-based lending on that. A large part of it tends to be on financial securities and loan to value. We might have some property, but it'll be very small.
Okay, got it. Thank you.
Thanks, Yong Hong. Next question from Harsh, from J.P. Morgan.
Hi. Thanks, Piyush. Many congratulations, and thanks a lot. Amazing value creation over the last 15 odd years.
Thank you.
Can I ask 3 questions, please? First is on margins. To next question, if I got it right, it seems you have 3.5-year duration on the asset side. So does it mean if you think about this SGD 4 million per bip of sensitivity, how does that evolve over the next couple of years?
Well, it depends on how rates do, because right now, we've locked in the fixed rate assets, right? We gave up some earnings in the short term. If we had put the money to work in the short term, we could have made 5%-5.5%. Instead, we locked in assets at 4.5%, and those assets will continue to give us 4.5% for the next two, three years, even as interest rates go down. So that locks it in. As and when those fixed assets roll over, then we will have to be subject to whatever assets are available in the market at that point in time.
So the right way to think about it is that we protected the net interest income and NIM over two, three years, but as and when that rolls over, it depends on what the external interest rate environment is then.
It's a market view that we take as well to decide how much to hedge and how much we want in fixed versus floating.
Right. So basically, if the current, that's a futures curve, holds, we should expect this 4 basis point sensitivity to stay intact for next couple of years? Sorry, SGD 4 million per basis point to-
I think till next June, we modeled it for sure. Then beyond that, we have to go back and take a look at what else is maturing and how much it would move. It won't be very different. It'll be marginally different, but not massively different.
The reason I'm asking, and thanks for that. The reason I'm asking is, there is a structural sensitivity for the bank's business and then what you were able to take a view and shift it. So has the organizational duration and sensitivity changed? Because DBS has always been a very rate sensitive business for multiple years. Or this is a blip and then we kind of go back to that four going back to 15, 20 over a longer period of time. That's what I was trying to understand.
Harsh, it's not a structure, it's a management choice. By the way, the only structural change is the shift from CASA to FD. The shift from CASA to FD means that in the past, if my money is liabilities and CASA, and I have loans in this thing, let's assume I have 200 basis point spread, and if the rates keep coming down or going up, all of it accrues to the bank. That's what drives maximum interest rate sensitivity. But in the last 18 months, there's been a massive conversion from CASA to FD, so people are already earning 3% on the FD, right? And so if rates go down, I don't see that compression or repression. That's a structural shift. I think it will reverse. When rates go down, I think you'll start seeing money flow back from FD to CASA.
When that happens, our interest rate sensitivity will go up, if and when that happens. You could argue that that's a structural shift in the nature of the bank. But beyond that, it's always a choice on how much you want to, you know, lock in and how much you want to let float. Structurally, if we have a large savings pool and CASA pool, and against that, we are happy to ride the market, then we'll always have very high interest rate sensitivity. You eliminate the sensitivity by locking in, both on the deposit side and on the fixed. So it's a management choice, how much you lock in.
Fair point. Thanks. So now follow on from that is to capital and payout. So the two parts, PPOP seems to be doing quite well and as you said, locked in. Asset quality seems to be quite okay. So then how do we think about over the next two, three years, SGD 10 billion-SGD 11 billion seems to be... And you earlier said margins will do what they will do, rate cut, potentially higher volume. So in terms of absolute dollar amount of money that can be further returned, plus you have Basel III Endgame. So how do we start thinking about a very elevated payout ratio for next three, five years? Is it in theory possible, but is-
Yes, yes.
The board okay with that?
So not only in theory, in practice, I told you last time that we recognize we've got too much capital, and we, you know, if we factor in the Basel III Endgame, the five-year transition, then we have, you know, $8 billion -$10 billion surplus capital to pay out. If we ignore the transition because we only look at the endgame, which means that, you know, at the end of five years, we'll have to come back to this thing, we still have $5 billion -$7 billion that we can pay out, right? So it's in that ballpark. Whether you look at the endgame or don't look at the endgame, it's in that range of the surplus capital that we can afford to pay out. And it's something that we have exercised.
Last time I told you the board would look at it, we've actually spent a lot of time looking at it and thinking about it. We have some specific ideas, but like I said, in the earlier calls, you know, today is Su Shan's first day. So we just need her to also get comfortable with the capital plans and strategies before we're ready to announce anything.
Okay. Fair point. And just to understand, to close that point out, anything which you think, any franchise, any geography that you can add inorganically, or there is no need, you think the organization is full and complete? Like anything big, small, SGD 300 million is fine, but anything big in an order of magnitude larger than a few SGD 100 million?
Well, you know, I've always said that we are always open to doing bolt-on in countries and that makes strategic sense to us. So if we find something appropriate, you know, in India, we would look at it, Indonesia, we'd look at it. But also, the minute you get much beyond anything we've done so far, the biggest deal we've done so far is Citi Taiwan. Most of the other deals we've done is a few hundred million, maybe $1 billion. So if we look at something, it'll be that kind of deal. But, yeah, we'll be happy to look at any of the countries that you said, make sense to us. You know, one country, for example, we've talked about in the past that we've been tested in Malaysia, we never get access to it because of G2G.
If something opens up and they change their mind, then of course we'll go look at it, but nothing has ever happened, right? I mean, I've been saying this for 10 years, nothing's happened.
Right. Thanks for that, Piyush. The final question, I don't know if Su Shan is also in the room, but any quick thoughts on how you guys work-
Su Shan's not here.
Similarities and differences, or anything that you could guide us as we prepare for transition in your thought process, in the way bank is run in terms of vision, between similarities as well as differences. Anything that you would want to share, that'd be great. Thanks, Piyush.
No, so I think you talk to Su Shan later, but I will tell you something, that when external, you know, ratings agencies and banks and people come and talk to us, the one thing I worry about the most is they think we have a lot of group speak, because from the top to the bottom of the company, we use the same language and have the same focus and have the same agenda and priorities. So there's a lot of—because a lot of what we do, we share, we sit together every week, and we sit for 3, 3 hours every week to discuss what we want to do and where we want to go. So there's a lot of commonality in thinking and views, and what we've built has not just been my agenda, it's been a common agenda.
So I would be surprised if there's some fundamental and, you know, different strategy or way of working. Stylistically, of course, different. Su Shan's style is very different from my style. So there will be stylistic differences, but I don't think any structural, fundamental differences.
Any further questions, Harsh?
No, that's it. Thank you so much.
Thanks, Harsh. Next question is from Aakash from UBS.
Great, thank you for the opportunity. Just first, before my questions, I do want to express my admiration, Piyush, for your incredible leadership over the last so many years. Not just for me, I think almost any banking analyst on this call. It's been an exceptional journey learning from you and, you know, seeing you transform DBS and the banking industry.
Thank you.
So all the very best to you and a big, big thank you. I'm sure your next chapter will be equally remarkable. The first question I have is, just I think out of the Cs that Su Shan talked about, I guess, as you can also imagine, from tomorrow onwards, the one C that investors will really focus on will be continuity. And I think as part of that, you know, you said that it's first day for Su Shan, so we don't know what's gonna happen, but can you tell us something that investors can take comfort from, that there will be continuity on the capital plan and there won't be, like, a complete U-turn, you know, in six months' time? Anything on that front.
Aakash, the first thing you're going to be start with is the board. So, you know, you think about capital and capital management, this is not a management decision. The board drives this. I, of course, have conversations and I express my views to the board, but finally, the choice of where we put our capital to work is a board call. And what you've seen in our posture over the last 15 years, I, we eschewed and kept away from outsized M&As, we've kept away from doing M&As in non-distinct markets. We focused... This is very, very clearly a board-driven agenda, right? So I don't see it changing, because the board is not changing. The board is still consistent with what it wants to do.
So that's the first comfort level you should take, that, you know, the board manages a lot of these things, and the OB markers and how to run this thing is actually determined actively by the board. The second is, like I said, that, you know, Su Shan's not new to the team. We've worked together for 12 years, and so when we—I got her to run the private bank, then she ran consumer bank, then she ran IBG. All of those, you know, I bounce off, I give guidance and advice, but finally, you know, the business has run the businesses. And therefore, when you look at what we've achieved in any of these businesses, they're a reflection of their own views, which are consistent with my own thinking of what we should do and where we should go.
But, that's why I made the point earlier, the fact that we have board continuity and the fact that we have senior management team continuity, that's what you should take a lot of comfort from. It's not just an individual decision that drives this thing.
Okay, makes sense. Thanks for that. And then just on the same topic, you know, given the very strong results that you had in Q2, strong capital generation, high CET1, and the willingness to pay out this capital that you have reiterated many times, what was going on in the thinking in terms of when you decided not to pay a, you know, increase the payout in Q2 or pay a special dividend in Q2?
The thinking was very simple. We are announcing Su Shan today. So, so the issue was really that, you know, we've not had that- had a chance. You know, I, as I said, I'm quite transparent. Now, what am I going to use the next seven, eight months for? I do want to make sure that things which she's going to be responsible for, her charter, she gets an opportunity and chance to think about it and influence it. A lot of times I've seen that, you know, the big thing is, oh, the previous CEO did one, two, three, four, five , and now I've got left with a lemon. I've got, you know, he stripped the place clean, the larder is bare, we don't have... I don't want any of that stuff.
So I want to make sure that the new CEO has every opportunity to influence what she thinks is the right thing to do in the future. And of course, because I'm still CEO, so we will talk about it, and hopefully she will you know respect my guidance and the guidance of the board. But to make these announcements without discussing and consulting with her would be inappropriate.
Okay, makes sense. Thanks for that. The next question is a bit more specific, and I think there's a lot of moving parts, and you've talked about them in this call. So if I just look at the cost of funds change, half year on half year. It was roughly 15 basis points for DBS. And when I contrast this with UOB, which is only 2 basis points, it does look a little bit higher. So can I just understand what was driving this increase in cost of funds? And on the contrary, your asset yields are actually much faster and much higher, so they went up, you know, a lot more than the peers. So what were the moving parts here that led to this?
Do you know that, Sok Hui?
I think,
I haven't looked at it.
I think the cost of funding will reflect the actual market rate, so we are quite transparent. I think in the case of UOB, which we have been also kind of watching, I think they've paid up a lot more in the past to secure more CASA and savings accounts, and therefore, I think they have. They said quite publicly that they are cutting it, so you should see a lower cost of funds.
Okay, so that's really what is driving the difference here. Understood.
That's my guess, because-
No, I think it makes sense.
They are public.
I just wanted to confirm that. It does make a lot of sense, because they did cut deposit rates in the first quarter, and on the asset piece-
Well, if you have... I mean, without getting into nitty-gritty, if you look at this in there, NIMS went up very sharply in the beginning. I think they. And then they course-corrected. So I think they started cut, they, they raised money very quickly. They went and tried to build up CASA, and then they started dropping the rates because they taking cost of funds quite high. That's my read of it, but I'm only guessing.
Right. Okay, and the asset yield improvement that we saw, again, half and half. I think it was roughly quite big, actually, 10 basis points plus.
You're looking at the interest-bearing asset yield?
Yes.
Yeah, from 4.22... No, from 4.56, second half, to 4.64. That's quite consistent with the rising interest rate environment, right, during this period?
We don't-
I think a large part of it-
We can do some homework and let you know if there's something there. I haven't focused on it.
Okay. Got it. And then again, I think on wealth management, this was a pretty strong quarter. I would think stronger than expectation, given your Q1 was pretty strong, with, you know, all-time highs. How much of this strength was because of the investment shift, like you pointed out, 1% increase in the investment portion versus the net new money coming in?
I think both, because the net new money came in, but we also lost some money this quarter. So, you know, typically in a quarter, what happens, we get, like, between SGD 10 billion and SGD 15 billion comes in, but then some of it flows out, so we get this net SGD 6 billion. This quarter, we still got that 10-plus money coming in, but more flowed out. And some of it, you know, a couple of clients went to buy some large real estate properties, so they took money out. But a couple of cases, they took money out to fixed deposits in some other international banks who are paying really high interest rates and so on. So, but the first part, the net new money continued to be consistent, so a large part of the growth comes from that.
But also the shift, the 1% lift from deposit to investment is important, but it's not the only thing. What they invest in is also important. So what's been happening is customers are actually adding more tenure and doing more products, which are better, better margin products. If they invest in just, like, govies and securities, we hardly make commission, but when they start investing more in structured product and they start investing more in equity-linked structures, we make more margin. So.
Right. And how is July, August been so far? Which has it been, in line or better?
July has been in line with that same trend. Both net new money and actually income growth in July has been right up there. August is too early to say.
Got it. Based on the past experience, this 55% number, what is the peak usually? Is it 60%? Is it 70%?
About 60%. Yeah. It actually varies. So I'm telling you the average. In the highest end, the high net worth, the private bank, it goes up to 85%. In the private client business, it goes up to about 65%. And in the Treasures, the lower mass affluent business, it tends to get up to about 40% or so. So, it can average about 60% or so, if I remember.
Okay, got it. Just the last question I have is: so you talked a little bit about the Hong Kong CRE portfolio as well. I think one of the numbers that the peers have shared is the LTV on that book. And I think you said you can afford to have prices falling 30%-50%. Does that mean that the LTV on the Hong Kong CRE portfolio is roughly 50%?
It's actually south of 50%. So for example, the NPA, I said we declared our LTV, and that was 29%, right? And which is why I think that'll get resolved this week, and we'll recover all our money, because we've got a bid for the property. So that LTV was only 29%, but on the portfolio, if I remember, it's south of 50%, about 50%-ish maybe.
Okay, understood. That's all my questions. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Akash. Next question from Weldon from HSBC. Weldon, go ahead. Weldon, you can take yourself off mute and ask your question. I think we can't hear you, so maybe we'll just move on. The next question is Tej Kiran from White Oak Capital.
... Hi, thanks for the opportunity, and, congratulations and all the best, Piyush, for what's to come.
Thank you.
So, I have two questions. Maybe I'll take them one by one. But the first was a comment you had made on, you know, excess deposits being invested into high quality liquid assets. I wanted to understand how you think about, let's say, the decision to deploy them in liquid assets versus not taking the deposits and maybe reducing the cost of funds. How do you think about what's more beneficial for the bank? And, sometimes, do you perhaps end up taking deposits at higher cost than you want to maintain the client relationship in the hope of, you know, customer level profitability? How do you generally think about it?
So, two different things, but first of all, if you're getting money, which I can actually deploy at a positive, spread and high ROE, I will always take it. So what's happening right now, a large chunk of money, all the central banks, you can just place money with the central bank. You don't even need to go and buy any paper. And by and large, you place money with the central bank, you can make an 80-100 basis point spread. That's zero risk. You know, if you take money, put it in the central bank, make 100 basis points, it's risk-free, so why would you not do it, right? It's like, straightforward. And that kind of money we'd always do.
Then second, in some cases, we take money, but you've got to swap and put into central bank with a swap this thing. So we do that as well. So we get money, you can swap it today, swap money from dollars into renminbi, go place it into, you know, assets in renminbi, you can make even more than that, 120 basis points. It's a good trade, but there you're taking some risk, because you're now taking some country risk and wrong way risk. So that'll. There's a finite limit on how much you want to do of that, right? If you're taking any of this thing. But it really depends on. And then, so we calibrate that. Now, the trade-off we're willing to make is these trades might be dilutive for margin.
Because if I go and put an 80 basis point trade, my margin is 200 basis points. Obviously, at the margin, the margin will come down, forget the pun. But it's ROE, it's like fantastic ROE. There's no risk in the trade, so I would do it. I would trade off NIM for putting on that trade. Your other question is, how do you think about client considerations? There are two things that we do sometimes. One is on the private bank. It's a well-known thing that, you know, you take in money, you pay high interest rates with the hope that you can convert that deposit into investments. A lot of our competitors do a lot of that. I told you we lost some fixed deposit money. People were paying 5.7%-5.8% fixed deposit rates.
Now, you know, if you're paying 5.8% fixed deposit rates, you're obviously losing money because you can only earn 5.3% in this thing, market, right? But they do it because they hope they will convert it later. We don't do that in the private bank. So we tend to make sure that when we bring in money, we can make money on the deposit, and then we obviously convert to investments. So we generally don't do that. The other time that you sometimes wind up paying more and high fixed deposits, if you really have large corporate clients, and to preserve the relationship, you've got to pay high rates. We do it once in a while. It's unusual, but I do what we...
We give every business unit what we call a relationship pot, and it's a finite sum of money, you know, maybe $5 million -$10 million or something. So you can use this to do that kind of stuff. We want to manage a client differently, incentivize. But it's, it's, the volume of that are small and marginal.
All right. Thank you very much. That's really helpful. My second question is on the wealth management AUMs, right? So now, across many Asian financial centers, I think, we, we're seeing a common trend across banks of, you know, strong fee income being generated through wealth management. So, is there any, let's say, Asia-wide benchmarking or, any study you've done to kind of understand, where Singapore stands compared to, let's say, Dubai and other financial centers, and the, the AUM of DBS, any sense of what kind of market share in Asia or APAC that might represent?
You know, there are a couple of global benchmarks which are issued, right? I think the total wealth and assets in the industry is Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong, and we don't do any of our own. So we just rely on what the third party, secondary benchmarks are in terms of total. But what we anecdotally is quite clear to us that within Asia, if we exclude Dubai, I don't know Dubai AUM, but within Asia, Singapore is starting to get a disproportionate share of money flows coming in. And within Singapore, we use other factoids, anecdotal. Of the 1,000 or 1,100 family offices that have got opened in Singapore, for example, we have some 50% market share of those family offices, DBS.
We do know that we are punching above our weight in some of the new flows that come in.
Thank you very much. That's very helpful. Those are all my questions.
Thanks, Tej Kiran. Final check, if Weldon from HSBC, can you ask your question? I think we still can't hear you. Maybe we can take this offline. So with that, there's no more questions in queue. Thanks everyone for dialing in, and we'll see you next quarter.