Aegon Asset Management US Announces New Head of Distribution

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Aegon Asset Management US nombra a Martin Coughlan director de distribución
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Anuma Bhattarai . Aegon Asset Management US Announces New Head of Distribution

Aegon Asset Management has announced that Martin Coughlan has been appointed as Head of Distribution for Aegon Asset Management US. Coughlan is a 20-year veteran with US and non-US institutional sales, product, marketing, and client service experience. Coughlan was most recently Global Head of Institutional Sales and Client Service at Westwood Management, where he led the firm’s successful product and sales expansion globally.

Previously, Coughlan was Head of Global Institutional Services at Calamos Advisors LLC, where he spent more than seven years building the firm’s global institutional client base and a global business model for direct plan sponsor sales, consultant relations, and client service. Coughlan also served as a senior portfolio specialist while at Calamos, focusing on global and emerging markets strategies.

“I’ve seen Martin’s strong leadership skills first-hand,” says Gary Black, newly appointed CEO of Aegon Asset Management US. “His expertise in building high-performing teams across sales, client service, and product areas will add tremendous value to our goals of maintaining strong investment performance, growing our third-party asset base, and increasing profitability. We welcome his leadership to the team.”

Prior to Calamos, Coughlan, who graduated with honors from the University College Dublin with a Bachelor of commerce (banking and finance), spent nine years with Bank of Ireland Asset Management, where he served as Client Relationship Manager, working in Ireland, Japan, and the United States.

Coughlan will be located in the Chicago office of Aegon Asset Management US.

 

More Opportunities in China Beckon Foreign Managers

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

China lost some of its glow for investors since the collapse of A-shares in June last year, which precipitated volatility in global markets as well as in the RMB. However, in 2016, the booming asset management industry, with continued growth in every sector, cannot simply be ignored.

These are some of the key findings of Cerulli Associates‘ newly-released report, Asset Management in China 2016. Private funds is one area showing stunning growth, having expanded rapidly since the filing system with Asset Management Association of China (AMAC) was approved in 2014. Total AUM continued to rise, over 30% from end-2015, to reach RMB5.6 trillion (US$842.8 billion) at the end of second quarter 2016.

At the same time, the sector shows varying quality. To clean up shell companies and unqualified managers, AMAC deregistered nearly 10,000 private fund managers in the middle of this year. Nevertheless, more than 16,000 local private fund companies are still operating.

The long-awaited liberalization of the private funds industry finally received the go-ahead from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) at the end of June this year. The Chinese authorities moved to broaden the business scope of WFOEs and joint ventures (JVs) by allowing them to establish onshore private securities funds under their own brands and directly invest into the Chinese market, including the secondary market.

“We should note that, despite the WFOE breakthrough, foreign exchange control measures remain in place, and so a WFOE’s fundraising activities and investment activities have to remain within China,” says Thusitha De Silva, director with Cerulli.

“For foreign asset managers that want to tap into the competitive local private fund industry, full-scale localization is necessary,” says Miao Hui, senior analyst with Cerulli who leads the China research initiative. “This should include distribution and investment networks, the capacity to handle legal issues, and local talent,” she adds.

Unlike many local managers, foreign asset managers typically have long-term time horizons. Pension funds and mutual funds, rather than private funds, could be their ultimate target product spaces to penetrate in China. However, to win domestic mandates, a domestic investment track record is necessary. Along with the deregulation of market entry, foreign asset managers could build up local teams, create brand awareness, and prepare for possible mandates.

 

Marcelo Coscarelli Leaves Citi for EFG International

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

EFG International nombra director para Américas a un ex directivo de Citi LatAm
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Google Earth. Marcelo Coscarelli Leaves Citi for EFG International

Marcelo Coscarelli has been appointed Head of Americas Region and a member of the Executive Committee at EFG International.  The appointment will be effective January 1st 2017.

Previously, Marcelo Coscarelli was at Citibank Latin America, serving as Managing Director for high-net-worth and affluent clients since 2012. From 2008 to 2012, he was Chief Operating Officer of Itaú Private Bank International in Miami.

EFG International also announced that it has completed the acquisition of BSI for a preliminary purchase price of CHF 1,060 million. According to a press release, this transaction represents a milestone for EFG International’s positioning and growth. Joachim H. Straehle, CEO of EFG International said “the closing of the acquisition marks a historic milestone for both EFG International and BSI. Together we are forming a leading pure play private bank with strong Swiss roots, a broad international presence and an entrepreneurial spirit. Over the coming months, we will jointly drive forward the integration to realise the full benefits of the business combination for our clients, employees and shareholders. The combined group will have a solid capital and liquidity position, which will support the further development of the business.”

With the completion of the transaction, Steve Jacobs, Vice-Chairman of BSI from September 2015 until closing, and Roberto Isolani, CEO of BSI from May 2016 until closing, have become members of EFG International’s Board of Directors as representatives of BTG Pactual.

BSI will operate as a separate subsidiary within EFG International’s holding structure for a limited time, until its full legal integration, expected in the second quarter 2017.
 

 

PIABA: After Report Detailing BrokerCheck System’s Flaws, No Action Has Been Taken

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

It´s been two and half years since the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA) reported the “serious deficiencies in the background information provided about financial professionals to investors through FINRA’s BrokerCheck website”.

Now PIABA says that “FINRA did not fix BrokerCheck. Instead, the industry self-regulatory organization made things worse by spending millions in advertising to get unwary investors to rely on the flawed BrokerCheck system”. The press release of the Association says “examples of information routinely not included in BrokerCheck reports, but available from many state securities agencies, include the circumstances of a broker’s termination of employment (especially when the broker quits during the course of his firm’s investigation of his conduct), bankruptcy filings, tax liens, and test scores”.

As the PIABA report notes: “… FINRA’s conduct in promoting the BrokerCheck system as the only way to check those backgrounds and qualifications has imposed a disservice upon those investors using the system. The reality is that investors who may have once researched their brokers by contacting their state securities regulators have been led to believe they can simply rely on an online BrokerCheck report, which they can access themselves on the internet or through brokerage firm website links. Unless an investor is employed in, or otherwise familiar with the securities industry, the chances are negligible that they know that the BrokerCheck report may well be hiding relevant information.”

Report co-author and PIABA President Hugh D. Berkson said: “Before FINRA spent millions of dollars advertising BrokerCheck, it should have fixed its broken disclosure system. The current incomplete BrokerCheck reports are of limited value. As things stand now, FINRA claims to offer information ‘You might want to know about,’ but fails to offer information you definitely want to know about. Investors should not be subject to the vagaries of their local public records laws to ensure that they gain the information necessary to fully and fairly assess their potential financial advisor. The answer to the problem is so simple, and the result so meaningful, FINRA cannot be allowed to continue to hype a broken system it knows is of limited utility.”

PIABA Executive Vice President and President-Elect Marnie C. Lambert, who co-authored the report, said: “This is a major problem when it comes to what investors are relying on for information about their financial advisors. FINRA incorrectly advertises the BrokerCheck reports as being ‘complete’ and helpful to investors but, in reality, BrokerCheck reports often omit information about brokers that is highly relevant and necessary for investors to make informed decisions about who they may want to hire.”

In calling for action, the PIABA report states: “[I]f FINRA is serious about protecting investors and truly believes, as it has professed, that researching a broker is a meaningful part of an investor’s broker selection process, PIABA calls upon FINRA to:

  1. Ensure that all complaints, arbitration awards, and settlements are promptly and accurately recorded in a broker’s and/or firm’s CRD record(s);
  2. Ensure that the data disclosed via BrokerCheck is, at a minimum, congruous with the most liberal state sunshine law;
  3. Include in BrokerCheck reports data concerning whether arbitration awards or settlements were actually paid;
  4. Add statistical information on the BrokerCheck home page to allow an investor to put an individual BrokerCheck report into context (e.g., include statistics showing the total number of registered brokers in the industry and the total number in the industry with one, two, three, four, or more investor complaints on their record);
  5. Open the entire BrokerCheck database to the public (e.g., academics and other third parties) to allow deep data analysis and development of quantitative and qualitative reports concerning brokers and brokers’ co-workers.

If FINRA fails to act, Congress should step to require more complete and transparent disclosure through BrokerCheck, according to PIABA.

September was Positive for the Investment Funds Market

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

According to Otto Christian Kober, Global Head of Methodology at Thomson Reuters Lipper, assets under management in the global collective investment funds market grew US$167.6 billion (+0.5%) for September and stood at US$37.40 trillion at the end of the month. Estimated net outflows accounted for US$7.3 billion, while US$174.9 billion was added because of the positively performing markets. On a year-to-date basis assets increased US$2.43 trillion (+6.9%). Included in the overall year-to-date asset change figure were US$306.9 billion of estimated net inflows. Compared to a year ago, assets increased a considerable US$3.44 trillion (+10.1%). Included in the overall one-year asset change figure were US$664.8 billion of estimated net inflows. The average overall return in U.S.-dollar terms was a positive 0.7% at the end of the reporting month, outperforming the 36-month moving average return by 0.6 percentage point.

Most of the net new money for September was attracted by bond funds, accounting for US$37.9 billion, followed by mixed-asset funds and real estate funds, at US$6.8 billion and US$0.8 billion of net inflows, respectively. Money market funds, at negative US$46.7 billion, were at the bottom of the table for September, bettered by alternatives funds and equity funds, at US$2.9 billion and US$2.6 billion of net outflows, respectively. All asset types posted positive returns for the month, with commodity funds at 2.4%, followed by “other” funds and real estate funds, with 1.8% and 0.9% returns on average. The best performing funds for the month were commodity funds at 2.4%, followed by “other” funds and real estate funds, with 1.8% and 0.9% returns on average. Money market funds, at positive 0.3%, bottom-performed, bettered by mixed-asset funds and alternatives funds, with positive 0.5% and positive 0.6%, respectively.

Most of the net new money for the year to date was attracted by bond funds, accounting for US$409.9 billion, followed by commodity funds and “other” funds, with US$26.9 billion and US$5.5 billion of net inflows, respectively. Equity funds, at negative US$92.5 billion, were at the bottom of the table for the year to date, bettered by alternatives funds and money market funds, with US$23.6 billion of net outflows and US$20.5 billion of net outflows, respectively. All asset types posted positive returns for the month, with commodity funds at 11.9%, followed by “other” funds and bond funds, with 7.9% and 7.8% returns on average. Money market funds, at positive 2.0%, bottom-performed, bettered by alternatives funds and real estate funds, at positive 2.0% and positive 6.3%, respectively.

Most of the net new money for the one-year period was attracted by bond funds, accounting for US$420.4 billion, followed by money market funds and commodity funds, with US$219.9 billion and US$24.9 billion of net inflows, respectively. Alternatives funds, at negative US$34.8 billion, were at the bottom of the table for the one-year period, bettered by “other” funds and real estate funds, with US$0.6 billion and US$5.3 billion of net inflows, respectively. All asset types posted positive returns for the one-year period, with equity funds at 10.8%, followed by “other” funds and mixed-asset funds, with 10.5% and 8.5% returns on average. The best performing funds for the one-year period were equity funds at 10.8%, followed by “other” funds and mixed-asset funds, with 10.5% and 8.5% returns on average. Money market funds, at positive 1%, bottom-performed, bettered by alternatives funds and commodity funds, at positive 1.3% and positive 2.6%, respectively.

Looking at Lipper’s fund classifications for September, most of the net new money flows went into Bond USD Medium Term (+US$7.8 billion), followed by Equity Japan and Equity Emerging Mkts Global (+US$6.5 billion and +US$5.8 billion). The largest net outflows took place for Money Market USD, at negative US$32.9 billion, bettered by Money Market KRW and Equity US, at negative US$10.7 billion and negative US$8.7 billion, respectively.

Looking at Lipper’s fund classifications for the year to date, most of the net new money flows went into Bond USD Medium Term (+US$98.4 billion), followed by Bond USD Municipal and Money Market GBP (+US$46.4 billion and +US$43 billion). The largest net outflows took place for Equity US, at negative US$64.2 billion, bettered by Equity Europe and Mixed Asset CNY Flexible, at negative US$48 billion and negative US$47.7 billion, respectively.

Looking at Lipper’s fund classifications for the one-year period, most of the net new money flows went into Bond USD Medium Term (+US$112.8 billion), followed by Money Market USD and Money Market CNY (+US$78.5 billion and +US$68.2 billion). The largest net outflows took place for Equity US, at negative US$55.2 billion, bettered by Mixed Asset CNY Flexible and Equity Europe, at negative US$33.4 billion and negative US$33.0 billion, respectively.

Scarier than Halloween, at Least for the Markets…

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

According to Anthony Doyle, Investment Director at M&G Retail Fixed Interest team, the financial world is a scary place. Debt, disinflation and deteriorating growth have plagued investors over the past year, plunging bond yields into negative territory in a number of countries. Perhaps most frighteningly, it is now eight years since the financial crisis and central banks in the developed world continue to employ an ultra-easy monetary policy stance. With government bond markets currently resembling a freak show at an extended point in the economic cycle, one may think that the next global recession could be around the corner. There is no need to watch scary movies this Halloween, as the following makes for some frightening reading.

Owning government bonds is a scary thing to do.

Enlarge

Developed market government bonds have been one of the best performing asset classes in 2016, confounding many predictions at the start of the year. In general, the right trade has been to own long duration assets, indeed the longer the better. Year after year investors predict that bond yields will rise and year after year bond yields make new lows. Of course, there are some very good reasons to expect this trend continue.

However, bond markets now expect that monetary policy normalisation won’t occur until some point in the distant future. Low inflation means that central banks continue to support their heavily indebted and ailing economies, resulting in almost $10 trillion worth of developed market government bonds trading with a negative yield. As a result, many companies – including banks – are struggling in this low (and negative) interest rate world. These companies are finding their existing business models challenged in an environment of low growth and tighter regulation. Pressures in the financial system are building, and it is unclear how these issues will be resolved.

Central banks are fearless. They own a lot of the bond market.

 

Enlarge

 

Central banks sizable purchases in government bond markets through quantitative easing means that term premiums (the extra amount that investors demand for lending at longer maturities) have been pushed further into negative territory. It was once inconceivable that investors would pay for the privilege of lending to a government. Now this phenomenon is commonplace not only in government bond markets but also for some recent corporate bond issuance.

It isn’t only central banks that are at the bond buying party. Demand continues to increase for long duration assets, from other large institutions like pension funds and insurance companies. The combination of central banks, pension funds and insurance companies has limited any sell-off in bond markets, reducing yields across the bond curve. Aging demographics means that safe haven assets may continue to remain in demand, forcing investors into riskier assets if they want to generate a positive real return.

If inflation rises, or interest rates go up, look out below.

Enlarge

 

 

Despite the negative yield environment we now find ourselves in, how central banks react to the next inflationary shock will have huge ramifications for bond inventors. With global bond portfolio duration close to 7 years, investors could face large capital losses if rates were to increase in a meaningful way. This raises a number of important questions. Will central banks hike rates in an environment of stagflation? How will politicians react when the paper losses on QE bought portfolios held at central banks are reported in the media? Could central bank independence come under threat? As many banks and insurance companies own long dated assets, will financial instability increase when long-dated bonds experience large capital losses?

Currently, the market is more focused on secular stagnation than inflationary concerns, but with oil up almost 100% from the February lows and trade protectionism starting to begin to carry favour in government buildings around the world, a global inflation shock might be closer than many currently expect.

Political risks in emerging markets could lead to forced selling.

 

Enlarge

 

Several emerging market sovereigns have been downgraded over the course of the past year, with ratings agencies highlighting political uncertainty as a major factor in the decision. The impact of the downgrade has been felt immediately, with heightened volatility in bond markets the result.

Large inflows into emerging market bond markets has left some countries vulnerable to increased political risks from abroad. Mexico is a good example given the current uncertainty surrounding the U.S. presidential election. Many emerging markets are also vulnerable should the US dollar strengthen, a possibility given the U.S. FOMC is by far and away the closest of any of the major central banks to hiking interest rates. An additional risk is the possibility of a large emerging market nation being downgraded from investment grade status, causing forced selling of hard currency debt by foreign investors.

China faces a huge debt overhang. Be afraid.

 

Enlarge

 

The most dangerous four words in finance are “this time is different”. And when it comes to credit booms, they don’t tend to end well.

One measure economists look at determine excess credit growth is a country’s credit overhang. This measures the difference between the credit-to-GDP ratio and its long-term trend. It has proven to be a reliable indicator, with the Bank of International Settlements stating that “in the past, two-thirds of all readings above this threshold (of 10) were followed by serious banking strains in the subsequent three years”. China’s credit-to-gross domestic product “gap” now stands at 30.1 percent, the highest for the nation in data stretching back to 1995, suggesting the banking system could already be coming under severe pressure.

“Numerous warning signs are flashing amber or red in the Chinese financial system, given that huge swatches of renminbi have gone into financing large-scale real estate projects and new production capacity for industrial sectors of the economy. This toxic combination of high and rising debt in a slowing economy tends to lead to an economic deterioration. As authorities continue to chase economic growth, capital is funnelled into unprofitable projects and overcapacity. Eventually, prices begin to fall and borrowers face large capital losses. Additionally, much of the finance available for investment projects was made available through the shadow banking system, which is more susceptible to a sudden stop in capital flows and a run on deposits.” He concludes.

OppenheimerFunds Launches an International Growth and Income Fund

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

OppenheimerFunds, launched the Oppenheimer International Growth and Income Fund (Ticker: OIMAX). The fund is managed by Robert Dunphy, co-portfolio manager of Oppenheimer International Growth Fund, who joined the firm in 2004.

“We’re delighted to build on the success of our Oppenheimer International Growth Fund which celebrated its 20th anniversary earlier this year,” said Krishna Memani, Chief Investment Officer of OppenheimerFunds. “The fund seeks to expand on the success factors of the Oppenheimer International Growth Fund to investors looking for income in addition to long-term capital appreciation.”

The Oppenheimer International Growth and Income Fund will seek total return by investing in cash generative, dividend paying companies that may benefit from long-term secular growth trends. “Long-term investing must involve a disciplined investment process and the ability to look beyond index compositions or fleeting trends,” said George Evans, CIO, Equities, and Portfolio Manager Oppenheimer International Growth Fund. “Our strategy for this fund aims to do exactly that, to ascertain the true growth potential of companies.”

“Our investors want access to international companies that have structurally sustainable growth advantage, ignoring index biases,” commented Kamal Bhatia, Head of Investment Products and Solutions, OppenheimerFunds. “Designing products that can simultaneously participate in shareholder friendly income satisfies multiple client needs.”

OppenheimerFunds, a leader in global asset management, is dedicated to providing solutions for its partners and end investors. OppenheimerFunds, including its subsidiaries, manages more than $222 billion in assets for over 13 million shareholder accounts, including sub-accounts, as of September 30, 2016.

Managing Political Risk in Investment Portfolios

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

What should investors expect in the forthcoming months in terms of political agenda? Is the European Union in the eye of the storm, with countries such as Italy currently under the scrutiny of markets, or is it the US, where the outcome of the presidential election will decide whether the country will enjoy a fiscal stimulus or not? According to Unigestion, rising income inequality and the drop in GDP per capita in the Western world help explain the behaviour of voters. How should investors hedge their portfolios against this political risk? Most of these factors are potential sources of volatility, but what if a genuinely anti-market leader comes into power in a large Western economy? 

Political risk is everywhere these days: just look at the Brexit headlines, the US election debates and the drama around Brazilian President Rousseff. The resurgence of political risks is probably a result of a turnaround in the perception of what globalisation does to the world. Globalisation has been a rising trend since the end of World War II and it has accelerated since China joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2000. It has been an economic game changer: China experienced double-digit GDP growth at a time when Western economies had entered a period of structurally slower growth. The public is now showing signs of frustration regarding this phenomenon: what seemed a necessary evil, greasing the wheels of the world economy, is now perceived as a “rip-off”, as Donald Trump put it during his first debate with his Democrat opponent, Hillary Clinton. Beyond the theoretical debate around free trade, the perceived loss of economic sovereignty in the developed world is fuelling the rise of anti-establishment parties. The Brexit vote was the first crystallisation of this anti-establishment sentiment, and this anti-establishment theme will play a significant role during the heavily loaded political agenda in the remainder of 2016 and into 2017. We think political risk – the rise of political parties challenging the 20th century’s economic solutions – needs to be cautiously monitored as it is likely to be a factor in the performance of many investments. 

Since many Trump fans are unlikely to openly admit to pollsters that they will vote for him, his real popularity is probably higher than the opinion polls suggest. Political uncertainty is therefore challenging for markets not because it brings about change but because that change is often preceded by a period of uncertainty. When listing potential hedges against political risks, investors typically think of gold, forex, equity volatility, bonds and the US dollar. 

On average, implied volatilities display a tent-shaped pattern around US elections, rising in the month preceding elections along with the build-up in expectations and then falling quickly thereafter as the event becomes “priced in” or passes. A long position in volatilities therefore would work as a shock absorber to any risk-oriented portfolio. Safe- haven assets offered little protection on average. In the case of gold, it actually shows a reverse tent shape, posting negative returns ahead of and after elections: volatility seems the best potential hedge for such short-lived episodes.

“Political risk is on the rise, yet markets show little sign of pricing this in. There are fundamentals explaining its rise, and most of them will remain with us for an extended period of time: globalisation, lower standards of living and limited government leeway to change these fundamentals, fuelling popular frustrations. The US elections and later the Italian referendum are the next two events that investors should follow cautiously, especially as next year will feature potential anti-establishment votes. We recommend using forex and equity volatility to hedge this risk as these are the assets that show the strongest connection to such episodes of heightened volatility and the drying up of liquidity. The only caveat is that these approaches ought to work provided the political risk creates only short-term shocks, and not a longer-lasting blow to markets.” They conclude.

S&P Global Names Maria R. Morris to Board of Directors

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

S&P Global announced that its Board of Directors has elected Maria R. Morris to its Board, effective immediately.

Morris is Executive Vice President of MetLife, Inc., responsible for the company’s Global Employee Benefits business, and is interim head of MetLife’s U.S. business. As head of Global Employee Benefits, she is responsible for expanding the business in more than 40 countries through local solutions, partnerships with multinational corporations and distribution relationships with financial institutions.

“Maria has demonstrated exceptional business leadership at MetLife,” said Charles E. “Ed” Haldeman, Jr., Chairman of S&P Global. “Her business and financial acumen and understanding of international markets further strengthen our talented Board of Directors.”

“We are delighted Maria is joining our Board and look forward to benefiting from her deep operational experience managing large, global enterprises,” said Douglas L. Peterson, President and Chief Executive Officer of S&P Global.

Morris joined MetLife in 1984, holding a number of senior leadership roles. She has served as interim Chief Marketing Officer, Head of Global Technology and Operations, Executive Vice President for Employee Benefits Sales; Vice President and head of MetLife’s Group and Individual Disability businesses, and head of the Dental business.

Morris serves on the Boards of Directors of MetLife Property and Casualty Insurance Company, the MetLife Foundation and the American Council of Life Insurers.  She is also a member of the Board of Trustees for the Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New York and is Vice Chair of the All Stars Project, Inc.

The addition of Morris brings the number of S&P Global Directors to 12. Morris’ nomination follows the appointments of Rebecca Jacoby in 2014 and Monique Leroux last month. These women are leaders with critical experience in finance, investing, technology and global business operations.  Their appointments underscore the Company’s commitment to inviting diverse backgrounds, perspectives, skills and experience into the Board room to guide the growth and performance of S&P Global.

Deutsche Bank is Looking to Sell its Banking and Securities Subsidiaries in Mexico to InvestaBank

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Deutsche Bank vende sus filiales mexicanas al banco de crédito InvestaBank
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Tony Webster. Deutsche Bank is Looking to Sell its Banking and Securities Subsidiaries in Mexico to InvestaBank

Deutsche Bank has entered into an agreement to sell its Banking and Securities subsidiaries in Mexico to InvestaBank, Institución de Banca. Deutsche Bank will centralize its Mexican Global Markets and Corporate & Investment Banking coverage function in its global hubs.

“Only two months after announcing the sale of our Argentina subsidiary, we are pleased to mark another major milestone in simplifying our bank by selling our subsidiaries in Mexico as part of Strategy 2020,” said Karl von Rohr, Chief Administrative Officer at Deutsche Bank. “We will work in partnership with our clients, regulators, employees and other stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements.”

The bank is committed to serving its governmental, corporate and institutional clients in Mexico from global hubs and will continue to offer these clients the full range of investment banking products. As of 2015, Deutsche Bank had 131 employees in Mexico.

The transaction, which is part of the bank’s Strategy 2020 plan to rationalize its global footprint, is expected to close in 2017, subject to regulatory approvals and other customary conditions. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.