Have a disclosure to read, so I'll read that. For important disclosures, please see Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at morganstanley.com/researchdisclosure. The taking of photographs and use of recording devices is also not allowed. If you have any other questions, reach out to your Morgan Stanley representative. Okay, with that out of the way, thank you so much and good afternoon. Thank you so much to Bill Demchak and Rob Reilly, CEO and CFO of PNC. So glad to have you with us this afternoon.
Great to be here. Great to be here.
All right. Okay, so why don't we just start off with the macro and get a sense of what you're seeing now. You know, at the beginning of the quarter, there was a lot of volatility. It seems to have died down a little bit. We wanted to understand how was that vol? How did you manage through it? Did it result in any changes to guidance?
There was volatility in markets. There actually was not volatility in activity. You know, the hard data remains strong. The soft data scares everybody. You know, but what we see inside of our book in terms of credit, client activity, all remains pretty solid. Consumer spending, you know, looks solid. We do not have any change in our guidance. At the margin, you will see NII a little stronger on the back of a little better loan growth. And at the margin, you will see fees a little softer on the back of lower outcomes in our private equity book. Guidance is fine.
Lower outcomes in the private equity book.
We have in our other income, we have small investments in private equity versus what we thought we'd realize this quarter is getting delayed. So it'll be a little less sad.
Oh, okay. So that's realizations in your book, James.
Yeah, yeah.
Oh, okay. That makes sense. Okay. As we look forward, we are going to have tariffs come through. Anything in your book that you're particularly paying attention to? Any, you know, percentage of your book that you care about more with the tariffs on the horizon?
No, you'll remember at the end of the first quarter, we actually took a QFR reserve against, you know, potential exposure that's specific to names. We've obviously refined that through this quarter. There's winners and losers in there. The biggest risk with tariffs is at the margin, you have a slower growth economy. We don't think recession, but slower growth. You have higher inflation. The impact of that on the broader economy and credit quality is what we and every other bank will feel. It's not going to be, you know, this credit because of tariffs. It's going to be corporate margins otherwise shrink and activity is lower. That, you know, potentially impacts credit outcomes. By the way, that's what we have in our, you know, CECL process and reserving and all the above. We're fine.
That's already pulled through.
Yeah.
Yeah, okay. As we're looking for NII up 6-7% this year, right, year on year, which is the highest among my group. Congratulations on that. How do the different scenarios in rates impact that 6-7? You know, no more cuts, let's say, or the steeper curve?
At this point, they do not. We're largely indifferent. At the margin, you know, we're probably long at the front end. If they cut, you know, more than once, maybe it would benefit us a little bit. We're short at the back end. You know, rates go up a little bit more, we'd make a little bit more. Basically, 25 is locked in and not particularly worried about it.
You're laying the groundwork, I would think, already for 2026. Anything you can think of or think there?
I think this probably isn't widely understood by investors. What we're seeing in 2025 continues. I mean, you'll see that compounded outcome, that level of growth in today's yield curve environment for the next couple of years, at least as long as we're forecasting. You know, we're realizing today the benefits of having stayed both short duration in terms of total dollars invested and short duration in terms of the maturity of our fixed rate assets rolling off. This repricing is what's showing up into our income stream. It's fairly mechanical. That continues under the presumption that reinvestment rates stay on or about where they are, which is our expectation.
The 6-7% up NII in 2025, we should, based on what you just said, expect that 2026 is in somewhere in that ballpark.
Yeah. Here we go for guidance. Dollar side of beyond. The point is that the fixed rate asset repricing continues well into 2026 and
Okay.
2027 . I mean, there's a million things that impact years that I don't want to try to forecast anything.
Sure.
But The lift from repricing fixed rate assets is at least as large.
Okay.
You know, maybe that's the simplest way to say it.
Excellent.
In today's rate environment, yeah.
Yes. To your point, you've done a great job on repricing deposits. Your cumulative beta this cycle, in this down beta, is significant.
Yeah. It's 51%. And by the way, if you compared our funding cost across our peer group, our retail funding deposit costs are lower than anybody's. Yet we've been able to aggressively grow DDA accounts. I mean, there's a lot of research out recently on who's growing deposits. I'm much more interested actually in who's growing DDA and non-interest-bearing deposits than total, because you can grow deposits wherever you want, depending on what you pay on them. We've had a lot of growth without having to pay up. You see that in the rate paid. On a go-forward basis, you know, we would otherwise expect that to kind of stay stable, you know, until and if the Fed starts cutting again.
Okay. You talked about loan growth in the beginning, Bill and You know, the guidance for loan growth is stable for the year. I get the sense you're seeing some acceleration here.
You know, maybe a pull forward. We've been terrible at predicting loan growth, which is why we're not dependent on it in our guide. To the extent we expected it, it's pulled forward a little bit. We saw the utilization increase in the first quarter. That's held through the second quarter as we've just seen inventory levels continue to remain high. They're still turning inventory, but they're just holding more, you know, I guess on the presumption that eventually tariffs are going to hit and eventually the cost of inventory will go up. Might as well hold more for this cycle. We've, you know, both the pipeline and the actual execution, particularly in the new markets of new clients and exposure, has been really strong.
New clients, new exposures.
Yeah. We have twice, I want to get this right and correct me where I go off here, Robert. Out of our newer markets, we're getting twice the number of pre-screens, new clients coming in that we're seeing from our legacy markets.
In our commercial businesses.
In our commercial businesses, yeah. You know, that's accelerated.
Which is encouraging in terms of potential loan growth. [crosstalk] When did that acceleration start?
We saw it early on, right? Post-conversion, we had all these opportunities. What's happening now is the bulk of those new exposures are new clients. It's not renewal of clients that we had from BBVA or somebody else or someone we picked up. We're actually getting big looks at big volumes of new clients who we do not yet bank.
Okay.
You know, I'd remind you, something like 80%-70% of every client that we end up having exposure to, we also have a TM relationship with. You know, if you look at our new markets and you just look at fees to NII, we've maintained a bias towards fees, even as we are growing all these new clients and new CNI exposure.
What's driving that new client throughput? You've been in these new markets for quite some time. What's changed that's delivering this outcome?
We have been in the new markets for two or three years. If you will remember going back, we always tell the same story. You go back to when we bought, you know, RBC USA, it took us about three years of continuous calling good ideas to start getting into the rotation of then getting these clients. That is what you are seeing. We are harvesting, right? You go into a new market and you plant seeds for three years. You do not go out and try to bank the people who want to bank with you day one. You actually pick who are the clients you should bank in that market and then call on them consistently and persistently over time until they are your clients. It is very different than saying, "I am going to go to market and whatever comes my way, I am going to take." We do not do that.
We pick our targets, we call on them, and eventually, you know, we have a long track record of being able to do this. We gather those clients.
Okay. So the inflection, you have another level of acceleration in your new markets right now in commercial.
Yeah.
Okay.
That is part of our expectation in terms of growing into these new markets, that we would continue to grow these relationships. So we're exploring .
This isn't new news. I mean, this is, you know, that's why we're so excited about the expansion that we have and the opportunity we have organically to grow.
Okay. So you've had it in your spreadsheet for quite some time, and now it's going to hit ours.
Yeah.
Accelerating loan growth.
That's not what we said. I said I'm not going to predict loan growth.
Okay.
We will have accelerated client growth.
Okay.
Yeah.
How about.
Maybe even DHE growth, but not necessarily funded.
All right. Very good. Let's talk a little bit about the non-depository financial institution category here. It's a category that the FDIC recently changed the definition of, right? It suggests that it's growing leaps and bounds in your PNC. Could you help us understand what is not only the strategy for NDFI, but how do you underwrite these loans? And somebody who.
Let's just back up for a second.
Okay.
That whole bucket, there's nothing new that we're doing that we haven't done for years. What's happening is they've continually kind of refined this definition. By the way, our number, which went from 20-something to 29 or something in the first quarter, it's probably going to double again. Not because we're doing anything differently, but it's capturing, for example, our two big buckets. One is straight-up receivable securitization, bankruptcy remote, the stuff that used to be done in public offerings, but on our balance sheets. I think an investment grade issuer secured by receivables, literally no risk to.
Bankruptcy remote.
Yeah. It's not a, it's a convenience product for clients that has a spread of SOFR plus 100, you don't lose money. That's more than half of that balance or close to it. The other big chunk of it is capital commitment lines, which we were in. You know, we accelerated with the purchase out of the FDIC of whatever that.
Signature Bank.
Signature Bank. That business is a high-return business for the risk. It's underwritten. You know, there's a handful of big players in it. We're one of them. Basically, you are underwriting and advancing against LPs who have legally committed capital. As you'd imagine, we haircut the LPs on how much we would advance. And we underwrite each one of them as a function of an internal rating. There's never been a loss content on it. It's worked its way through courts in a few instances where there were troubles. That is kind of the, those two things are the big bulk. Then there's just all sorts of cats and dogs. There's real estate exposure. We have some CMBS warehouse lines to Fannie and Freddie Dust program. We have, you know, we have one small leasing company in there.
I mean, it ends up that they, you know, frankly, by throwing all this in there, it becomes useless information. We are not doing anything we have not done. That whole book, we would consider investment grade and good return and.
It's simply a recategorization of a lot of low-risk assets. Importantly in there, we have very little, de minimis loans to intermediaries that lend to consumers or subprime consumers.
We do not lend, like there is a bucket lending to private equity. We do not lend to private equity. Like we do not lend to a general partner. We do not lend straight leverage into a private equity fund.
What does that category mean then?
It means nothing. That's my point. I mean, it's a lousy title for it. Because we're doing a capital commitment line against this fund. It's not to the GP, it's to the fund, and it's against these LPs. It's, you know, I'm lending money to California teachers.
Private equity is capital commitments.
Yeah.
Okay.
All of that stuff is, yeah.
One of the questions I've gotten from folks is, well, how should I think about the loss content in the NDFI asset class? Is it.
There's no loss. That's the problem. You're going to have to ask banks, hey, some guys will lend straight to the GP, right? They're putting liquidity into the principals in a private equity fund. That's pretty risky. You're lending right against that future interest stream. We do not do that. The loss content in our asset back receivable books is zero. Our loss content in our capital commitment lines is zero. You know, the riskiest stuff we have in that whole book, you know, I don't know, the dogs and the small amounts we have in our leasing stuff, there's none. If you ask somebody else what's in their bucket, it might be different. That's the problem. It's just not a descriptive category for anybody to draw a conclusion from.
It is very broad.
For you, the way you're describing it, it seems like it should have a loss content that's below CNI portfolio.
Yeah. It's actually, it's actually on average better credit quality than our entire book. That's the first thing.
No question.
Okay. All right. That's very helpful. Thank you. So much to do about reclassification.
Yeah.
All right. While we're on the topic of private credit, can you just help us understand how you interface with the private credit ecosystem, services you provide, and competition you incur?
Private credit in many ways is symbiotic to what we do. What has happened over the last multiple years is private equity owns more companies than they did before. When they buy a company that previously was our client and they average leverage to it, you know, where we get hurt is not because private equity all of a sudden grows. We get hurt when private equity gets bigger and takes away our clients. That has been a trend that's been going. What we do in response to that, number one, you know, and by the way, the way we lose them is all of a sudden a loan that we like, we do not like anymore because there's too much leverage, and then we lose fees. If we were the paying agent for that client, you know, the leverage lender is arguably going to want that.
Our response to that, you'll see recently we announced and have been executing on a partnership with TCW, where now when that happens, we simply refer that transaction into our joint fund. We keep the fee-based relationship and we have a, what I'll call, preferred return in the equity component of that fund. You know, beyond that, we don't want to, I don't want to do the loans these people are doing. I want the transaction business that comes with the loans.
Okay. The payments.
Yeah.
The payments piece. Do you retain that typically?
Historically, that's been a bleed for us. That's my point. Historically, we would lose good clients. You'd fight to keep the TM, but if another lender came in, you know, and offered that, they could demand it because they were providing the capital. We no longer have that exposure. In some ways, this new partnership actually sets us in a better position. The other thing that is important to us is this ecosystem of private equity as clients. Our top three or four clients across our whole book are probably all private equity. You know, between what we do with them, with Harris Williams, with Solberry, we just bought Aqueduct, business credit lends to them. We do TM service, white label across their portfolio books. We do securitizations back to asset-backed receivables. We'll do securitizations for their portfolio companies.
That's a big opportunity, sort of a coordinated coverage of our skill sets into private equity, not to provide them cheap capital. That's the lowest return out of all of this, but rather to be inside of their basic transacting and fee business, which we have a very good product suite for.
Yeah. As a result, in fact, having a leverage loan move off your balance sheet onto private credit, but you retain the payments business.
Big jump in return on equity.
Right?
Yeah.
Is this a positive trend that we should be considering?
I don't worry about it.
Okay.
I mean, I think a couple of things are going to happen. One is I think private credit funds have gotten out a bit over their skis on leverage and what has happened vis-à-vis interest rates. I think it was pretty easy to sell private credit when you would show a chart that had 10 years and no defaults because we have not had any in 10 years, and you put one turn of leverage on it and you get 12% return. And private equity was in the gutter and somebody wanted to return, so they raised a lot of money. That is not how private credit works. That is how it worked over the last 10 years, but it is not how it works through any sort of cycle. I think things will normalize out here, and we are seeing evidence of that play out.
How so?
You'll remember in our asset-based lending business where we hold the senior secured position and would be agent on a loan where we might have a subordinated piece or a B piece behind us. In any given year, we liquidate a lot of companies. We don't lose money because we're secured. The people behind us, their losses have accelerated in the recent environment.
Okay.
Look, our economy is still strong. You know, assume we growth slows down a little bit as you go through tariffs and so forth, there'll be exposures.
Zero interest rates is not the norm.
Yeah.
When there's zero interest rates, those models work pretty well.
Right.
Right. Okay. So then talking about the fees, you brought up treasury management, which is clearly a key source of strength in your fee line. Can you tell us about how that growth, well, we talked a little bit about new customer acquisition, right?
Yeah.
Two X prior in the new regions. I know you're always improving the product offerings to the verticals that you are focused on. One of the questions we've been getting over the past week is regarding this whole debate around real-time payments, stablecoin. Does stablecoin offer a solution to the need for cross-border real-time payments or even domestic real-time payments?
No better solution than exists. Let me go back to our TM business. We have a payments business today that made $1.5 billion last year, probably at a margin. I do not know that we disclose that.
No, we don't.
Super high.
High margins. Attractive margins.
Very high margin and a business that's grown low double digits actually if you back out a business that we sold a couple of years ago. The thing's grown at 10-15% per year. Now, why is it doing that? It's doing that for two reasons. One is we're gathering new clients. And, you know, 75% of the time plus or minus that we get a new client, we actually get a TM relationship along with that. Now, that isn't necessarily exciting because everybody will tell you that they have a TM relationship with all of their clients. That simply means you have a DDA account that they can draw and fund on. From that base, we penetrate, right? In the BBVA markets, we had a lot of these people with basically a transactional account. Over time, you add products.
You know, our priority products are payments. Now, we do receivables and that's great, but ultimately the wallet is controlled by payments. The payments business for corporates is basically one where the competitors right now are ERP systems, not just banks, but ERP systems who want to be data aggregators on all banking information and control the payment flows across efficient types. And it's us and it's one or two others where basically we get a payment file from a corporate. By the way, we have TM clients that make us $50 million a year. We get a payment file from a corporate. They tell us how to most efficiently move their money in the slowest way possible. Now, why do they want to do that? Because they want the float and the payment.
It's our job to figure out, and we actually use AI and other ways to figure out what is the least cost, highest float payment rail that we can move this money anywhere in the world to the person who's on their payment list. That is our job as a payment provider. By the way, if somehow stablecoin shows up and somebody wants for whatever reason to move a stablecoin from their ERP system, in our payment file, we'll have the capacity to do that. That choice isn't going to be the cheapest choice. We have real-time payments today that are 24/7. We can do that anywhere, anytime. We had connected a real-time payment system cross-border. You could do real-time payment cross-border into Europe.
We built it out of the clearing house and then we shut it off because there is no commercial demand for it. It sits there. If that ever becomes something, we'll just turn it back on. You see in consumer payments, you have real-time payments through Zelle or B2B on just real-time or even FedNow. You go all the way back to the beginning, it's going to go in a circle. I get a payment file from a corporate. My job is to save them money the most efficient way I can move that money with them getting the most float that I can give them with clean records back to them. There are five or six different rails we use today to accomplish that task.
One of those could become a stablecoin, but in today's world, stablecoin is not the least expensive way to move that money for that corporate client in that payment file.
The least expensive way is through.
Oh, it depends. If somebody accepts a card, then the best outcome for the corporate is oftentimes through a P card where we put back the interchange to the receiver of the money. Sometimes it is a real-time payment as a function of their due date. Sometimes it is really slow. I am going to take this. You do not owe it for 30 days. I am going to backfile and I am actually not going to move this thing for 30 days because you do not have to pay them in 30 days. We figure that out for you. In 30 days' time, I might move it with a real-time payment.
Yep.
That is what payments is. It is not like I am going to get in my wallet and I am going to send this dollar coin, you know, to Europe because, so just think through that. By the way, it is absolutely free and fast to send a stablecoin anywhere you want. One stablecoin already created from one wallet to another, instantaneous, free. The problem is you have to go through the process of taking fiat from your bank, creating the stablecoin, which there is a fee for, moving the stablecoin to whoever you are giving it to for commerce. They have to take that stablecoin. They have to have a bank that can convert that to fiat, and then they have to do an FX transaction. That collective cost is way more than what we have, what companies spend today.
The only thing that's highlighted is the fact that you can move a stablecoin for nothing, which is true. For that to actually be an ecosystem, the stablecoin has to be the form of commerce beyond the fiat currency that somebody's going to lose using their local currency and running their business. We've got a million miles to go. If that happens, that's terrific. We'll put it in our wallet. It'll be in the payment file. We'll execute it and off it'll go. The company's going to pay us because we're optimizing their payables.
Interesting, you mentioned that real-time payments does exist and had existed cross-border, but there was no demand. Nobody wanted this.
We built in a clearing house and there just was not a commercial. We could not see a commercial opportunity for it. You have to remember these payments are not new to corporates. It is like somehow like somebody invented, hey, we are going to move money. I mean, for God's sake, we have 50 different ways to move money that is really inexpensive. You know, the biggest opportunity for corporates is to quit writing checks. You know, let us make the leap from checks to ACH. You know, then maybe we will go to real-time payments. You know, but like, you know, I am going to leap from checks to stablecoin. We have got a lot of work to do.
Okay.
You know, consumers are advanced in payments relative to what's going on in the corporate world. That whole universe of corporate payments is very underdeveloped, really exciting. We're really good at it. It's a high-growth engine for us.
Okay, great. Just lastly on this, we've got the Genius Act working its way through Congress. Let's assume this goes through. What does it mean for you and your aspirations for either servicing crypto or providing clients with crypto capabilities?
Yeah. You should assume we have the ability in the moment to turn on crypto capabilities for our brokerage and asset management clients if somebody wants to do that. We'll have it available at some point on our Pinnacle. That's our treasury management platform if some corporate wants to do it for whatever reason they want to do it. None of that will make us any money. You know, much more interesting to us is actually the fiat currency movement through the system. Back to our payments engine, this notion of fiat currency into stablecoin, into Bitcoin, back to stablecoin, burn the stablecoin. Now I have cash again. That's where our opportunity lies and you would expect to see us play. We'll service our customers.
You should assume that the industry is not just PNC, but the industry is very forward-thinking on this in the sense that, you know, we can create, if there is a need, a consumer coin that is ubiquitous and used across all the common rails that we use as an industry, whether clearing house or EWS. We have the ability to do that fast. I think there's an opportunity for some of the large broker-dealer prime brokers in particular to use stablecoin as part of their prime brokerage operation just to allow, afford leveraged institutional investors who are in coin, you know, interspersed with what they're doing on treasuries and other things. That is not our game.
Okay. Just looking at other major drivers within fees, we talked about treasury management. Harris Williams, biggest driver of capital markets business. Can you talk to what you're seeing there right now?
Harris Williams is, I mean, it's perhaps the most visible. To be clear, inside of what we have in our capital markets line, there are probably equal buckets to think about between bond and loan syndication, derivatives and FX, and maybe Harris Williams, Solberry, you know, now Aqua. Those sorts of things. Activity has been pretty strong. It hasn't been blockbuster. We still have this like massive backlog inside of Harris Williams. They'll end up hitting.
Yeah, kind of our expectation.
That's right. It hasn't, it isn't, they're not going to hit it because somehow the log jam broke. You still have deals held. You still have this whole delay in private equity cash realization that continues to build as there's demand for funds. At some point it will and our backlog's great. In the meantime, it's fine.
One of those sub-buckets being loan syndications, financings, corporate financings, which have been intermittent. That is, you know, obviously happening for all the reasons around tariffs, but it is happening.
Okay. As we think about strong capital base, right? CET1 10.6, well above your minimum of 7. And we've got the regulators now looking at a holistic review of capital and liquidity rules. How are you thinking about, I mean, utilizing that excess capital?
Rob doesn't like my answer to this, so you go ahead, Rob.
Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that. Hey, we're in good shape from a capital perspective. Our CET1, as you mentioned, is 10.6. AOCI adjusted is 9.4, you know, well above our stress minimums. You know, the way that we look at it is we have built some capital. We clearly have capital flexibility. One of the things that we're doing is we have upped our share repurchases continuously. We said on the first quarter earnings call that we would increase our share repurchases in the second quarter, but not up to the point where we weren't growing CET1. The easy math for all of you is we'll do somewhere between $300 million-$400 million of share repurchases in the second quarter. That's a good thing.
As Bill always says, and I actually like his answer when he says is that that's the answer you're thinking about. If, you know, if we got some additional capital for potential loan growth down the road, that would be the highest and best use. But having some excess capital around as long as we don't do anything stupid with it is good.
Okay. One of the other questions I just wanted to get your thoughts on is scale. You have been very vocal about the need for the banking industry to operate at scale. How do you assess the scale with which PNC is positioned today?
Why, you know, why do I say why does scale matter? Scale matters because there is, you know, scale inside of your marketing spend, inside of your tech budget, inside of just physical presence and the ability to have high retention rates of clients as geographies change for those clients. We've seen two big players who have an ability from sheer size and investment to gather share at a pace that I don't know that we've ever seen as an industry before. My expectation is that over time, and this is a long period of time, that you're going to see consolidation of retail share, which ultimately drives the profitability of commercial banking in the United States.
We happen to sit in a place where, given our new markets and our investments into new branches and our execution in retail that is very, is really improved, we're actually growing at an organic pace that for our size is faster than the other guys. We just can never catch up with them because they're so much bigger at the start. We have this massive growth engine that's going in a world where we're pulling share from all sorts of other banks, competing against people who are growing, you know, maybe as fast, but off of a bigger base. What happens over time? Over time, there's 5,000 other deposit institutions that we're all pulling share from. My best guess is that over time, people have to make a choice.
I think it's literally impossible to sit and defend a regional territory against this onslaught of banks trying to be across country. I just do not think you can do it. You're going to have franchises that atrophy because JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America and PNC are going to show up in your backyard and have branches and will pull share. The same way, by the way, they come to Pittsburgh and pull share from us. You know, there's some percentage of people in Pittsburgh who just don't like PNC. And people pull share from us.
You're not imagining.
We're doing it in all those other.
Yeah.
My point on this, like the outcome, it's not tomorrow. I don't know what the, like you can just visibly see what's happening. We're winning. Others are losing. They're regionally focused. They're getting blocked out. This plays through time. Our ability to accelerate what we're doing, which is working today, comes with scale. Bigger marketing budget, more tech deployed faster. You know, AI, which maybe we'll talk about, all of these things. That's why I talk about scale. We don't have to do anything. We're winning right where we are right now. The outcome of all this, if you play it way forward, and those of you who've known me for a bunch of years, I don't think about next quarter or next year or even two years after that, right? I think about what's going to happen in the future of finance.
There's going to be a handful of winners in this country and a lot of losers. We're going to be one of those winners. That's what scale means.
You're going to be one of those.
Winners.
Okay. I just wanted to make sure you stated that.
Yeah.
Okay. Unfortunately, we are out of time, but if you have a 30-second soundbite on AI, we'd be thrilled to take it.
I'd rather, so let me just spend a second, if I could, just on who PNC is and where we sit. Because I sometimes get confused by the perception of the market. We are sitting in a place right now where our organic growth, new clients, not just in CNI, which has historically been very strong and matched with fees, not just loans. Our new client growth across retail is at a record pace. Our assets under management growth, new flows into wealth has turned positive based on the new markets. Our technology agenda has always been sort of a leading agenda. We don't defer investments. We're deploying new technology for always-on resilient synchronous East and West Coast data centers. We're deploying new online banking, new mobile banking, new service capacity for all our agents, whether in a branch or on mobile.
On AI, we've created, we're not in the process of, we have created a data lake, 350,000 data items with burst-through capacity to both Azure and AWS, which allows us to basically move data and model. We're using large language models inside the house today for TM advice, using all our documentation on TM, basically turning them to open language, not paying for it, but create our own model against open source language to help our TM client service, people service clients. We're using AI today, agentic AI to help write the over-the-glass top of mobile banking. What does that mean? I'm basically using AI to write my code to create my mobile banking. We're a bank that is winning in this environment.
We're doing so with this backdrop of a normalizing of interest rates, right, that has basically occurred, but pulsed through through the maturity of fixed rate assets. A massive revenue tailwind against a big organic growth opportunity. Yet we have the whole industry trading at the same multiple when 4,990 of those people are shrinking.
Okay. We'll look into that.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Bill and Rob, for joining us today.