DBS Group Holdings Ltd (DBSDY) Q3 2025 Earnings Call November 5, 2025 10:45 PM EST
Company Participants
Fiona Lay Mui Lee
Tan Shan - Group CEO & Executive Director
Kwee Juan Han - Group Head of Institutional Banking
Philip Fernandez - Group Corporate Treasurer
Shee Tse Koon
Soh Kian Tiong
Sok Hui Chng - Chief Financial Officer
Conference Call Participants
Jayden Vantarakis - Macquarie Research
Yong Hong Tan - Citigroup Inc., Research Division
Harsh Modi - JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Aakash Rawat - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
Melissa Kuang - Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
Wee Kuang Tay - CGS International
Presentation
演示环节
Fiona Lay Mui Lee
Hi, everyone. So welcome to the 3Q results call. You've heard the media, so we'll go straight to Q&A. [Operator Instructions]
大家好。欢迎参加第三季度业绩电话会。媒体部分大家已经听过了，我们直接进入问答环节。[接线员提示]
Question-and-Answer Session
问答环节
Fiona Lay Mui Lee
[Operator Instructions] So first question from Jayden from Macquarie.
[接线员提示] 那么第一个问题来自 Macquarie 的 Jayden。
Jayden Vantarakis
Macquarie Research
Can you hear me okay?
你们能听到我说话吗？
Fiona Lay Mui Lee
Yes.
可以。
Jayden Vantarakis
Macquarie Research
Great. I appreciate it. A couple of questions. Media call, you were fairly upbeat, Su Shan, I think on the outlook for demand for loans. Just any thoughts on sort of what's changed versus prior quarters? Any commentary you can give us in terms of industry or geography.
很好，谢谢。我有两个问题。Su Shan，在媒体电话会上你对贷款需求的前景显得相当乐观。能否谈谈相较于前几个季度，发生了哪些变化？从行业或地域维度，你能给我们一些评论吗？
My second question is on the NIM and the sensitivity. Can you provide us with any sort of updates as last quarter, you gave us very helpful sensitivity on how the NIM would perform with respect to various base rates. Those are the 2 questions I wanted to ask.
第二个问题关于 NIM（净息差）及其敏感性。上个季度你们提供了非常有帮助的敏感性分析，说明在不同基准利率水平下 NIM 的表现。请问这方面有没有最新更新？以上就是我想问的两个问题。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Okay. So let me walk you through the non-trade loan growth expectations. Like this year, we're looking at nontrade loans to grow in the mid-single digits next year. And structural growth, you see it in tech data centers, et cetera. So TMT will remain strong. Real estate, there's quite a lot of government-led sales still in Singapore. There's quite a lot of big government projects as well here. And so the public sector and I guess, real estate in selected cities, Singapore, possibly Australia, London, we will see some good momentum. And alongside -- I talked about TMT, alongside the whole GenAI adoption as well, we're seeing some structural growth there.
好的。我来带大家过一遍对“非贸易贷款”增长的预期。今年我们预计明年非贸易贷款将实现“中单位数”增长。结构性增长方面，你在科技数据中心等领域能看到，所以 TMT（科技、媒体与电信）仍会保持强劲。房地产方面，新加坡仍有相当多由政府主导的销售项目，这里也有不少大型政府项目。因此，公共部门以及我认为在一些重点城市的房地产——新加坡、可能还有澳大利亚、伦敦——我们会看到不错的动能。另外，刚才我提到 TMT，同时随着整个 GenAI（生成式 AI）采用推进，我们也看到一些结构性增长。
In energy, although there seemed to be, at least from the headlines a rollback in renewables, actually, we are seeing in Asia still a lot of deal flow, M&A buyouts and transactions in the renewable space. And as rates come down, I think the LBO market will come back, and that should also see some growth there.
在能源领域，虽然从新闻标题看似乎可再生能源在“回撤/退潮”，但实际上，我们在亚洲仍然看到大量的交易流，包括可再生能源领域的并购、收购（buyouts）和各类交易。随着利率下行，我认为 LBO（杠杆收购）市场会回来，这也会带动相关增长。
In food and agri as well, you're looking at sort of inventory financing for some of the big guys as well. Housing loans, mortgages, we also had -- we had a good Q3 this quarter on new launches. So that should filter in next year. And also, I think for wealth, as rates come down, there should also be some of these wealth loan growth as well. Do you want to add anything, Kwee Juan? Kwee Juan is our Head of Corporate and Institutional Banking.
在食品与农业领域，也会看到一些大型客户的存货融资需求。住房贷款、按揭方面，我们这一季度（Q3）在新盘（new launches）上表现不错，这会在明年逐步反映出来。另外，我也认为财富业务方面，随着利率下降，也会带来一些财富贷款（wealth loans）的增长。Kwee Juan，你要补充点什么吗？Kwee Juan 是我们的公司与机构银行业务负责人。
Kwee Juan Han
Group Head of Institutional Banking
No, I think it's largely in that area. The TMT ERI areas for us next year looking at pipeline.
没有，我觉得主要就是这些方向。我们明年在 TMT、ERI 这些领域的项目管道（pipeline）也在看。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Okay. Then you want to talk about the NIM sensitivity, right? So we have net floating assets of about 11 -- sorry, $110 billion. So if rates come down by every 1 basis point, we will lose $11 billion there. And then we have $160 billion of net floating assets -- sorry, the other way around. We have $110 billion of net -- oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. We have $160 billion of net floating assets.
好的。然后你想问的是 NIM（净息差）的敏感性，对吧？我们有大约 11——抱歉，是 1,100 亿美元的净浮动资产（net floating assets）。所以如果利率每下降 1 个基点，我们在这里会损失 110 亿美元。然后我们有 1,600 亿美元的净浮动资产——抱歉，反过来了。我们有 1,100 亿美元的净——哦，抱歉抱歉抱歉。我们是 1,600 亿美元的净浮动资产。
So for every 1 basis point drop, we will lose $16 million, this is for next year. And we have $50 billion net floating liabilities. So for every 1 basis point, we will lose $5 million. So plus -- so 16 -- so it's minus $16 million plus $5 million. Sorry, for this year -- I didn't tell you for this year, right? So for this year, it's $120 billion net floating assets and $50 billion net floating liabilities. So it's plus [ $12 million ], minus [ $5 million ]. So [ $12 million ], yes.
因此，对明年来说，利率每下降 1 个基点，我们会损失 1,600 万美元。另外我们有 500 亿美元的净浮动负债（net floating liabilities）。所以每下降 1 个基点，我们会损失 500 万美元。所以合起来——也就是 16——即：减少 1,600 万美元，再加上 500 万美元（抵消一部分）。抱歉，这是明年的。至于今年——我刚才没说今年，对吧？今年是 1,200 亿美元的净浮动资产和 500 亿美元的净浮动负债。所以是增加 [1,200 万美元]，减少 [500 万美元]。所以是 [1,200 万美元]，对。
Operator
Next question is from Yong Hong from Citi.
下一个问题来自 Citi 的 Yong Hong。
Yong Hong Tan
Citigroup Inc., Research Division
I have 3 questions. The first question is on deposits, a strong growth quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year. Just wondering where the source of money is coming from? And if they are corporate or are they consumer monies or these are -- both of these are also driver?
我有三个问题。第一个关于存款：无论环比还是同比，增长都很强。想请问新增资金主要来自哪里？这些资金是来自企业端，还是来自零售/个人端？还是两者都是主要驱动？
And a follow-up to that is, given that we are in a position of excess liquidity, what are your thoughts of managing down cost of funding more aggressively, maybe even lower than the 1% Sing dollar FD rates that we are seeing. I have 2 more questions after this.
紧接着一个追问：考虑到你们目前处于流动性过剩的状态，你们是否考虑更积极地把资金成本压下来？比如把新币定存（FD）利率降到目前我们看到的 1% 之下？后面我还有两个问题。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Okay. So the deposit growth was actually quite wide. We had from the retail side, quite a lot also because the treasury bills matured and they came back. We had SME deposit loan growth. We had wealth loan growth. We had corporates as well with a fair amount of -- so it was quite widely spread and across Sing and foreign currencies.
好的。存款增长的来源其实很“分散、覆盖面很广”。零售端有相当一部分是因为国库券（treasury bills）到期后资金回流。中小企业（SME）端也有存款（以及贷款）增长。财富管理端也有（存款/贷款）增长。企业端也有相当规模的新增——所以整体来看，来源非常广泛，而且覆盖新币与外币两类货币。
So also helped, I guess, in Singapore, we have the CDC vouchers, right? So people were spending a little bit less in Singapore. So that also meant some more sing dollar CASA retention as well.
另外我想在新加坡这边，CDC vouchers（社区发展理事会消费券）也有所帮助。大家在新加坡的日常开销可能少了一点，所以也意味着更多新币 CASA（活期/储蓄存款）得以留存。
Yong Hong Tan
Citigroup Inc., Research Division
Yes. And given the position of excess equity, any thoughts of managing down your cost of funding more aggressively, maybe even lower than the 1% Sing dollar FD rates that we are seeing right now.
明白。那在流动性（你刚才说的“过剩”状态）下，你们有没有考虑更积极地下调资金成本，比如把新币定存利率降到目前看到的 1% 之下？
Philip Fernandez
Group Corporate Treasurer
Yes. This is Phil here, Corporate Treasurer. So if you look at our deposit margins, they are basically above 1%. So we don't have any need to cut back on deposits. In fact, this is a very good deployment for us. As all the wealth deposits come in, the GTS deposits come in, we can put it to work, and we can make a very good margin on that.
是的，我是 Phil，集团资金平台主管。你如果看我们的存款利差（deposit margins），基本都在 1% 以上。所以我们并没有“需要”去收缩存款、或者通过降价来压低存款规模。实际上，对我们来说这是一种很好的资金部署方式。随着财富管理存款进来、GTS（Global Transaction Services，全球交易服务）存款进来，我们可以把这些资金投入运用，并且能获得很不错的利润空间（margin）。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Yes. Because what the treasurer -- we are always open for deposits, right? The fact is philosophically, you must always bring in deposits, and we can always reinvest and HQLA is a good high ROE, decent NIM spread.
对。正如资金团队所说——我们对吸收存款始终是开放的。核心在于一个“理念”：你必须持续把存款引入；我们总能把它再投资出去，而且即使放到 HQLA（高质量流动性资产）里，也可以带来不错的 ROE（股本回报率）以及相对可观的 NIM 利差。
Yong Hong Tan
Citigroup Inc., Research Division
Yes. No, maybe the context of my question is given the deposits growth is so strong, I don't think they are coming in for that 1% kind of deposits rate. So based on that your deposits coming in, do you see any room to manage down your cost of funds, especially if you think that the deposits coming in are not going after the rates?
好的。我补充一下我的问题背景：在存款增长这么强的情况下，我不认为这些资金是冲着“1% 这种水平”的存款利率进来的。基于这一点，既然存款在持续流入——尤其如果你们判断这些资金并不是“追逐利率”而来的——你们是否看到进一步下调资金成本（cost of funds）的空间？
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
The rates are very low, right?
利率已经很低了，对吧？
Philip Fernandez
Group Corporate Treasurer
Yes. No, we actually make sure that we always have a positive deployment margin on all our deposits. So if you look at our FD rates versus MAS bills, for example, we would always make a spread on that. Now the NIM might get diluted because the marginal deposits versus the marginal deployment will be less than our current average NIM. So you get a NIM dilution, but it's ROE accretive and it's NI accretive.
是的。我们的做法是：确保所有吸收进来的存款都能对应到“正的资金投放利差”（positive deployment margin）。比如你拿我们的定存（FD）利率去对比 MAS bills（新加坡金管局票据），我们通常都能赚到一个利差。确实，净息差（NIM）可能会被“稀释”，因为新增（边际）存款对应的边际投放收益，会低于我们当前的平均 NIM，因此会出现 NIM 稀释；但从结果上看，它会增厚 ROE（对股本回报是增厚的），也会增厚 NI（净利息收入/净收益也是增厚的）。
Yong Hong Tan
Citigroup Inc., Research Division
Yes. Yes, I understand.
明白，理解。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Deposit cost is already down 20 bps Q-on-Q.
存款成本环比已经下降了 20 个基点。
Yong Hong Tan
Citigroup Inc., Research Division
Okay. Okay. Got it. And maybe just moving on to AUM. Any breakdown on the net new money and the market impact? And any color on where this net new money is coming from, how sustainable that is and whether that is a result of natural flows into Singapore? Or is there something that we have done in recent years that is yielding results?
好的，明白。那我想继续问 AUM（资产管理规模）。净新增资金（net new money）和市场因素（market impact）能否拆分一下？另外能否补充一点：这些净新增资金主要来自哪里、可持续性如何？它更多是因为资金自然流入新加坡（的趋势）吗？还是说你们这几年做的一些事情开始产生了成效？
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Okay. So when we talked about the net new money, that was only at the high end, but we should include -- if you include treasures and above, then the growth was actually stronger. So for the total wealth stack, which is treasures, TPC and PB, AUM grew 7% (sic) [ 6% ] quarter-on-quarter, 18% year-on-year to $474 million. That's really across the board.
好的。我们之前讲“净新增资金”的时候，口径只覆盖了高端客户那一段，但其实应该把 Treasures 及以上也纳入；如果把 Treasures 及以上算进去，增长其实更强。整体财富业务栈（wealth stack）包括 Treasures、TPC 和 PB，AUM 环比增长 7%（原文口误）（应为 6%），同比增长 18%，达到 4.74 亿美元。这种增长基本是全线贡献的。
As we said earlier on, we have wealth centers in pretty much most of our core markets, right? So Singapore, Hong Kong being the 2 big onshore/offshore hub. China, we have a new wealth hub as well. India, where we're also trying to focus now more on wealth. Taiwan, after we bought Citi, it's a strong mature wealth business in Taiwan. And Indonesia, onshore wealth also is growing.
正如我们之前说的，我们在几乎所有核心市场都设有财富中心。新加坡和香港是两个主要的在岸/离岸枢纽。中国我们也新建了一个财富枢纽。印度我们现在也在把更多重心放到财富业务上。台湾方面，我们收购 Citi（相关业务）之后，台湾的财富业务是一个成熟且强劲的板块。印尼的在岸财富业务也在增长。
So it's across the board. But Hong Kong is seeing very good flows from Greater China, Hong Kong area. And China onshore is also seeing very good flows because I think we were not involved in the whole trust debacle in the last few years. So we have a good reputation there. We talked about the need for insurance and life planning by the Chinese -- Mainland Chinese. We talked about Stock Connect. We're able to give them good wealth management products and solutions, SIPs, et cetera. So there's good organic growth there. Su Koon is here, he can weigh in.
所以整体是“全面开花”。但香港这边来自大中华区（尤其是香港区域）的资金流入非常好。中国在岸也有很好的资金流入，我认为一个原因是我们过去几年并没有卷入那场“信托风波/信托违约事件”，因此在当地口碑较好。我们也谈到过中国（大陆）客户对保险与人生规划（life planning）的需求，以及 Stock Connect（互联互通）。我们能够提供不错的财富管理产品和解决方案，比如 SIPs（系统性投资计划）等，因此有很好的有机增长。Su Koon 也在现场，他可以补充一下。
Shee Tse Koon
Yes. I think just in line with what Su Shan has said, generally, the wealth growth has been very robust and very well spread, right? So first thing, we benefited from the fact that -- and we continue to benefit from the fact that we have a full wealth continuum. In other words, we are able to bank customers whether from their first 1,000 to their first 100,000 to their first million, even to those with billions with us.
是的。我想总体上与 Su Shan 刚才说的一致：财富业务的增长非常强劲，而且分布也非常均衡。首先，我们受益于——并且会持续受益于——我们拥有“完整的财富连续谱”（full wealth continuum）。换句话说，我们能够服务客户从第一笔 1,000（资金）到第一笔 100,000，再到第一笔 100 万，甚至到在我们这里管理数十亿资产的客户。
So I think we are one of the few that have the full continuum of wealth from private bank ultra-high net worth to those kind of almost emerging to private bank right into the affluent, even right into the retail wealth. We have also been able to connect internationally very well. So customers who use us to manage their wealth, both onshore and offshore, right? And our wealth management customers come from more than 120 nationalities. So being anchored in Asia with 2 booking centers in Singapore and Hong Kong, that's been very, very strong. Our full suite of products and services, some of which Su Shan has alluded to, is very, very comprehensive. So these have actually been a key contributor to how we have been able to deepen and broaden our wealth franchise.
所以我认为，我们是少数真正覆盖“全财富谱系”的机构之一：从私人银行的超高净值客户（ultra-high net worth），到接近/过渡进入私人银行的客户，再到富裕客户（affluent），甚至一直覆盖到零售端的理财客户。我们在国际联通方面也做得很好，因此客户既会用我们做在岸（onshore）的财富管理，也会用我们做离岸（offshore）的财富管理。我们的财富管理客户来自 120 多个国籍。我们以亚洲为根基，在新加坡和香港设有两个 booking centers（资产记账/托管中心），这一点非常强。我们的产品与服务体系也非常完整，Su Shan 也提到了其中一些。这些因素共同构成了关键贡献，使我们能够持续“加深与拓宽”我们的财富业务版图（wealth franchise）。
Yong Hong Tan
Citigroup Inc., Research Division
And my final question is on dividends. The $0.15 extra quarterly dividends per year. I think based on the latest guidance, that will expire by year-end. And the guidance is that a similar quantum would be.
我最后一个问题关于分红。每季度额外派发的 $0.15（年度口径来看就是额外的季度分红安排）。我理解根据最新指引，这项安排会在今年年底到期；同时指引似乎是说未来会是一个类似的量级（similar quantum）……
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
No, no, no. Sorry. That's not correct. So who is that?
不不不，抱歉，这个理解不对。你是哪位？
Soh Kian Tiong
Yong Hong, you're referring 15 -- the capital return dividend. So the capital return distribution we talked about lasting for 3 years until the end of 2027. So the $0.15 that amount is per quarter goes on until the end of 2027.
Yong Hong，你说的这个 0.15 指的是“资本回馈分红”（capital return dividend）。我们提到的资本回馈分配（capital return distribution）是持续三年，直到 2027 年底。所以这 $0.15 是按季度派发，会一直持续到 2027 年底。
Yong Hong Tan
Citigroup Inc., Research Division
Okay. Okay. I think previously -- originally it was a similar quantum.
好的，明白。我记得之前——最初的表述是“类似的量级”（similar quantum）。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
We said it was $8 billion, $3 billion for share buyback, $5 billion for 3 years of the $0.15 step-up. So $0.15 times 4 or $0.60, $0.60 times 2.84 is $1.7, right? So $1.7x 3 years is 5.1. So that $5 billion goes is returned over 3 years.
我们说过总额是 80 亿美元：其中 30 亿用于回购（share buyback），50 亿用于把每季度分红上调 $0.15 这件事持续三年。所以 $0.15 乘以 4（个季度）等于 $0.60；$0.60 再乘以 2.84（大约的股份数/股数系数）就是 $1.7（十亿美元），对吧？那么 $1.7 乘以 3 年就是 5.1（十亿美元）。所以这个 50 亿美元就是在三年里返还出去的。
Yong Hong Tan
Citigroup Inc., Research Division
Okay. Good that this is of...
好的。这样就很清楚这项安排是……
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
Ordinary dividend is a different category from capital return dividend. So don't be confused.
普通股息（ordinary dividend）和资本回馈分红（capital return dividend）是两个不同的类别，不要混淆。
Yong Hong Tan
Citigroup Inc., Research Division
Yes, clear on that. Yes. Okay. No, I was just wondering whether this $0.15 could be returned in a different form, but I think that is clear from Su Shan. And on buyback, if the share price continues to be quite strong, can we be flexible to allocate the capital for buyback to do something else? Or that should be reserved for a certain period of market downturn?
是的，这点我明白。好的。我只是想确认：这 $0.15 是否可能用其他形式来返还，不过我想 Su Shan 已经解释清楚了。关于回购，如果股价持续表现很强，我们能否更灵活一些，把原本计划用于回购的资本改用于其他用途？还是说这部分应该保留，等到市场下行、估值更合适的时候再用？
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
I think we always assess the opportunity, and we said we'll do over 2 to 3 years. So if by the end of 3 years, we have not fully bought back the shares, we could always think of other ways to return the capital.
我认为我们会一直评估机会，我们也说过会在 2 到 3 年的时间框架内执行。所以如果到 3 年结束时我们还没有完成全部回购，我们也可以考虑用其他方式把资本返还给股东。
Yong Hong Tan
Citigroup Inc., Research Division
Okay. Got it. And I think -- and the general mechanism is that should not exit the trailing 30-day [indiscernible] or something of the buyback. Is there any general or just not disclosed before? No. We just said we'd be opportunistic.
好的，明白。还有我想——一般的机制是不是类似：回购不会“突破/偏离”过去 30 天的（某种价格/均价）之类的限制？这方面有没有什么通用规则，还是之前没有披露？如果没有的话——那就是你们说的“机会主义地（opportunistic）”去做回购。
Operator
Thanks. Next question from Harsh from JPMorgan.
谢谢。下一个问题来自 JPMorgan 的 Harsh。
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Got few more questions on the payout and buyback. So how do you see the trade-off between a program buyback that every day, irrespective of price at VWAP or something, you do consistent buyback versus trying to be opportunistic. So what has been the discussions? And how do you see -- what I'm trying to get to is, is there a possibility to move to a program buyback? Or do we stay with the current stance?
我还有几个关于派息与回购的问题。你们如何权衡两种回购方式：一种是“程序化回购”（program buyback），即每天不太管价格、按 VWAP（成交量加权平均价）之类的机制持续、稳定地回购；另一种是“机会型回购”（opportunistic），在价格更合适时才回购。你们内部讨论是怎样的？我想问的核心是：未来有没有可能转向程序化回购？还是会维持目前的立场？
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
So we are not in the camp of doing program buyback every day, whatever the price, but we do have an alignment on how we'll go about doing it. We look at standard deviation of the price, and it's a bit higher, more than one standard deviation over a period, then we'll do less. If it's like much lower, we'll do a lot more. So I think we calibrated it that way internally, and that's how we have been running this program.
我们不属于那种“每天不管价格、照买不误”的程序化回购阵营；但我们对执行方式是有一致方法论的。我们会看股价的标准差（standard deviation）。如果在一段时间内价格处在偏高的位置——比如高于一个标准差以上——我们就会回购得少一些；如果价格处在明显偏低的位置，我们就会回购得多一些。我们内部就是按这种方式做了校准（calibrated），目前这项回购计划也是这样在运行。
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Sorry, I got muted. Yes. But then the problem with doing a buyback in an opportunistic basis is the daily trading volumes. During down days, can the buyback amount be half of the daily trading volumes. Otherwise...
抱歉，我刚才被静音了。是的。但机会型回购的一个问题是：会受到每日成交量的限制。在股价下跌的日子里，回购金额能不能做到当日成交量的一半？否则……（就会受限）
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
We also have an internal rule that in general, we will not exceed 10% of the daily turnover on the exchange.
我们内部也有一条规则：一般情况下，回购不超过交易所当日成交额（daily turnover）的 10%。
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Exactly. If that's the case, then if the weakness lasts for, let's say, 3, 4, 5 days, then you can't use up this entire amount if you are just opportunistic.
对，这正是我的意思。如果是这样的话，那么如果弱势持续比如 3、4、5 天，仅靠机会型回购，你们可能就没法在这段时间里把计划额度有效用完。
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
But we have 3 years, right?
但我们有三年的时间窗口，对吧？
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Yes. But it is still -- again, if I look at the YTD performance and if the stock continues to do well, which we all hope it does, then there is this question on can you really use that buyback. So either you have to tweak that rule of 10% that during down days, you can go as high as 30%, 40%, 50% of volumes, if need be, or you need to do program buyback. Otherwise, this buyback amount becomes a bit question mark.
是的。但问题还是在——如果我看今年以来（YTD）的表现，而且如果股价继续走强（我们都希望如此），那就会出现一个疑问：这笔回购额度你们真的能用得出去吗？所以要么你们得调整“10%”这条规则——比如在下跌的日子里，必要时把回购占当日成交量的比例提高到 30%、40%、50%；要么就需要做程序化回购（program buyback）。否则，这个回购额度最终能否落地就会变成一个问号。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
We'll take that back. I think we have been discussing this at the Board level. And this whole VWAP program buying, every investment bank wants to do that because our stock is liquid, right? God knows what they do with it behind the scene, right? So I think it's just a bit more prudent that we have -- we keep the option to exercise more discretion on coming in on bad days because the market will be volatile next year, right? And we want to be able to have that flexibility.
我们会把你的建议带回去（内部再讨论）。我想我们在董事会层面也一直在讨论这个问题。至于这种按 VWAP（成交量加权平均价）的程序化买入，每家投行都想做，因为我们的股票流动性很好，对吧？至于他们在幕后到底怎么操作，谁知道呢，对吧？所以我认为更稳妥的做法是：我们保留更强的自主裁量权——在“坏日子”（股价下跌、市场情绪差）的时候更有选择地进场，因为明年的市场会很波动，对吧？我们希望保有这种灵活性。
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
And I understand that, Su Shan.
我理解的，Su Shan。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
We hear you on the 10% and we'll take it away.
关于“10%”这点我们听到了，我们会带回去再研究。
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
The risk if things become -- remain too good. And second question on NIM. Thanks for a very detailed guidance on your assumptions on rate cuts, fee rate cuts, flat SORA sing dollar appreciation makes sense. But let's say, if out of blue, if we end up getting, let's say, USD rally in that case, some of these assumptions on the SORA pass-through and sing dollar appreciation may not materialize. So how are you looking at adjusting your hedging strategy in that scenario? And what are the various pros and cons if that ends up happening?
（我提到的）风险在于：如果情况变得——或者持续——“过于顺风顺水”。然后是第二个问题，关于 NIM（净息差）。谢谢你们给出了非常详细的指引，说明你们对降息、费用率下调、SORA 维持平稳以及新币升值等假设——这些听起来都合理。但假设出现一个意外：比如美元突然走强（USD rally），那在这种情况下，你们关于 SORA 传导（pass-through）以及新币升值的部分假设可能就不会实现。那么在这种情景下，你们会如何调整对冲（hedging）策略？如果真的发生这种情况，可能的利弊分别是什么？
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
So your question is, just so I get it right, the Sing does not appreciate, it depreciates instead of appreciates, right?
我确认一下你的问题：也就是说新币不升值，反而贬值——不是升值，对吧？
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Yes. And that may be just because dollar goes up, right? Because this year dollar was down massively. Yes.
对。可能只是因为美元走强，对吧？因为今年美元大幅下跌。对。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Okay. Okay. And U.S. rates.
明白。那美国利率呢？
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Still same, let's say, rate cuts because the dollar depreciation this year was largely due to risk premium increase, right? And for whatever reason, the risk premium dollar decreases despite the rate cut, we end up getting dollar value, which we are starting to get now. Dollar is up 3%, 4% from the lows. So that's the question that in case of an outcome, which is different from your base case assumption, how do we think about impact on NIM? And how is the bank preparing for that eventuality?
还是一样——比如仍然降息。因为今年美元贬值很大程度上是由于风险溢价上升（risk premium increase），对吧？但如果出于某种原因，即使在降息的情况下美元的风险溢价下降了，美元就会走强——我们现在其实已经开始看到这种情况，美元从低点反弹了 3%~4%。所以我的问题是：如果最终结果偏离你们的基准情景假设（base case），我们该如何理解对 NIM（净息差）的影响？银行又是如何为这种可能性做准备的？
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
A weak Sing is always good for us when we report because we have a fair amount of U.S. dollar income and Hong Kong dollar income and non-Sing income. So honestly, a weaker Sing is not a bad thing for us at all, in fact we like it. And so you're thinking -- in the past, when you have a weak Sing, you actually have higher Sing rates because of the forwards, right? That seems to have broken down now, Harsh. So we've taken to checking the MAS bills as a guidance on Sing rates because SORA overnight SORA is also too volatile, very hard to predict, right, up and down 40%, sometimes overnight. So it's very hard to use that as a gauge of the real cost of money in Singapore. So we use the MAS bills instead. And so if you think the Sing dollar depreciates, I don't think Sing rates can collapse, right? So it should, if anything, go up from here. So then if you have higher Sing dollar rates and lowering Sing that's both a double tailwind for us.
新币走弱对我们报表端通常是利好，因为我们有相当一部分收入来自美元、港币以及其他非新币收入。所以坦率说，新币更弱对我们一点都不是坏事，事实上我们反而喜欢这种情况。你可能在想——过去当新币走弱时，因为远期（forwards）的关系，新币利率往往会更高，对吧？但这套关系现在看起来似乎“失效/不那么稳定”了，Harsh。因此我们改用 MAS bills（新加坡金管局票据）作为新币利率的参考指引，因为隔夜 SORA（overnight SORA）波动太大、很难预测——有时候一夜之间上下波动 40%（幅度），所以很难用它来衡量新加坡真实的资金成本（real cost of money）。因此我们用 MAS bills 来替代。
所以如果你认为新币贬值，我不认为新币利率会“崩塌式下行”，对吧？相反，如果有变化，可能反而会从当前水平往上走。这样一来，如果同时出现“新币利率更高”且“新币更弱”，对我们就是双重顺风（double tailwind）。
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Right. So net-net.
明白。总体（net-net）就是偏利好。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
I hope, that comes true. I think we are forecasting the reverse.
我希望你说的能成真，不过我们目前的预测是相反的走势。
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
No, that 100% agree. So that's on your commercial book, you'll make more money maker than SORA kind of stays steady and Sing dollar depreciates, so translation gains get. And -- but then is there any risk on the hedging book that we should worry about? Or it is basically wash either direction?
对，这点我 100% 同意。也就是说在你们的商业账簿（commercial book）上，如果 SORA 大致维持平稳、同时新币贬值，你们会更赚钱，而且还会有汇兑折算收益（translation gains）。但是——对冲账簿（hedging book）这边有没有什么风险需要担心？还是说无论汇率怎么走，基本都是“相互抵消/差不多打平”（wash either direction）？
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
There shouldn't be any risk on our hedging book because we put -- it's a dynamic book, right? We put it on every year, things roll off, things get put on. We haven't really been able to put on quite a lot yet because the yield curve is not in our favor. So it's a dynamic hedge. So we'll see next year, if what you say comes true, we might hedge more, right?
我们的对冲账簿不太应该有风险，因为——这是一套“动态账簿”（dynamic book）。我们每年都会做新的对冲：一些头寸到期滚出（roll off），新的再续上（put on）。由于当前收益率曲线（yield curve）对我们不太有利，我们其实还没能上太多对冲。因此这是动态对冲。明年如果你说的情景真的出现，我们可能会加大对冲，对吧？
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
And I think we have shifted a lot of the hedging more to U.S. dollars because Sing dollars are not attractive to hedge at these levels. So as they roll off, our hedges have been more in the U.S. dollar category.
另外我想补充一点：我们已经把相当一部分对冲转向以美元为主，因为在当前这些水平下，新币的对冲“性价比”不高、不够吸引。因此随着原有对冲到期滚动，我们新增/续作的对冲更多是在美元类别里。
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Right. And sorry, the last question on this is the hedges rolling over. So basically, you have a very good track record of being able to replenish those hedges which are rolling over. So we should assume something similar going forward? Is that what's baked in your guidance for NIM and NII next year that the bank will be able to catch these waves quite well over the next 3, 4 quarters? Or the -- or have you lengthened the hedge duration so that you have visibility.
明白。抱歉我就这个再问最后一个：关于对冲到期滚动（hedges rolling over）。你们过去在补齐/续作到期对冲方面的执行记录很好。那么未来我们是否可以作类似的假设？你们对明年 NIM 和 NII（净利息收入）的指引里，是否已经“内嵌”了银行在未来 3-4 个季度能较好地抓住这些利率/对冲窗口（catch these waves）的能力？还是说——你们已经把对冲久期（hedge duration）拉长，从而获得更高的可见性？
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Okay. So Harsh, next year, we have $78 billion of fixed rate asset maturities. The maturing rate was 3.3%. And we are looking to do 2/3 of that to be replaced.
好的。Harsh，明年我们有 780 亿美元的固定利率资产到期（fixed rate asset maturities）。这些到期资产的到期收益率（maturing rate）是 3.3%。我们计划把其中大约三分之二（2/3）进行再配置/续作替换（be replaced）。
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Got it. Yes, if I may ask just one last question. This is on wealth management. Net new money growth this year, if you could give some granular details on which countries residents, is it more North Asia? Is it more South Asia? Any particular market, that will be very useful.
明白。那我再问最后一个问题，关于财富管理。今年净新增资金（net new money）的增长，如果可以的话，能否更细一点说说主要来自哪些国家/地区的居民？更多来自北亚吗？还是南亚？有没有某个特别突出的市场？这会非常有帮助。
Shee Tse Koon
Thanks for the question. This is Koon here. Our net new money has been very, very strong. I think it has been for the last couple of years. And actually, as we dive deeper in, it's actually very, very broad-based. It's across various markets. So just as an indication, the private banking customer base comes from more than 120 nationalities, right?
谢谢你的问题。我是 Koon。我们的净新增资金表现非常强，我认为过去几年一直如此。事实上，当我们往下拆得更细，会发现来源非常“广谱”，覆盖多个市场。举个例子，我们私人银行客户群来自 120 多个国籍，对吧？
So we have 2 booking centers in Hong Kong and in Singapore, we're agnostic. It depends on where the customers choose to book. Some of them have bookings in both, but they are very, very broad-based, right? We have customers from Southeast Asia, of course, being here in this part of the world. We have customers from Northeast Asia. We have customers from South Asia. We have customers from the Middle East, we have customers from Europe, both Western and Eastern Europe. So very, very broad based.
我们在香港和新加坡有两个 booking centers（资产记账/托管中心），我们在这一点上是“中性的”（agnostic），取决于客户选择在哪个中心记账。有些客户在两个中心都有记账。但总体来源非常广泛：我们当然有来自东南亚的客户（毕竟我们在这个区域），也有来自东北亚的客户、来自南亚的客户；还有来自中东的客户、来自欧洲的客户——包括西欧和东欧。因此整体非常多元、非常分散。
Harsh Modi
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
But this year, has there been any particular market which has seen a faster pickup in net new money growth compared to, let's say, last year?
但就今年而言，相比比如去年，有没有某个市场的净新增资金增长“加速得更明显”？
Shee Tse Koon
No. Not -- I can't single out any market in particular. And at the same time, just also to elaborate a little bit further. Our net new money, the growth has been very, very robust through the entire wealth continuum, that has got both the private banking clients, the high net worth and ultra-high net worth as well as in our segment we call Treasures, which is the affluent customer base. And it's the same trend we've seen. It's very, very broad-based.
没有——我没法特别点名某一个市场。与此同时我再补充一点：我们的净新增资金增长是贯穿整个“财富连续谱”（wealth continuum）的，既包括私人银行客户（高净值与超高净值），也包括我们称为 Treasures 的板块（也就是富裕客群）。我们看到的趋势是一致的：增长非常强劲，而且来源非常广泛、并不集中在单一市场。
Operator
Next question from Aakash from UBS.
下一个问题来自 UBS 的 Aakash。
Aakash Rawat
UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
Can you hear me now?
现在能听到我吗？
Operator
Yes.
可以。
Aakash Rawat
UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
This is Aakash from UBS. The first question is just on the NIM decline this quarter. I wanted to understand a bit better. Because in July, the exit NIM was 1.95% and -- so which was already down 10 basis points from the previous quarter average level, right? And then after July, we had 4% deposit growth, which were parked into HQLA, which are NIM dilutive. And loan growth was much smaller. So a majority of it went into HQLA. And then we also had further SORA declines, SORA overnight rate declines in August and September. How did none of these -- any of these affect the NIM? How did NIM stay at 1.96% for the whole quarter? That's the first question.
我是 UBS 的 Aakash。第一个问题关于本季度 NIM（净息差）的下降，我想更深入理解一下。因为 7 月的退出 NIM（exit NIM）是 1.95%，这已经比上一季度的平均水平低了 10 个基点，对吧？而且 7 月之后，我们的存款增长了 4%，这些资金被放进了 HQLA（高质量流动性资产），这本身是稀释 NIM 的。与此同时贷款增长小得多，所以大部分新增资金都去了 HQLA。然后在 8 月和 9 月，SORA 隔夜利率又进一步下行。那为什么这些因素似乎都没有影响到 NIM？为什么整个季度 NIM 还能维持在 1.96%？这是第一个问题。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Okay. Because -- so you're looking at the quarter, why did it stay so flat when SORA overnight went down so much, right?
明白。也就是说，你是在问：为什么在隔夜 SORA 下跌这么多的情况下，季度 NIM 仍然能保持得这么平？
Aakash Rawat
UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
Yes. And HQLA as well, Su Shan, because HQLA would be NIM dilutive.
对，还有 HQLA 的因素，Su Shan，因为 HQLA 会稀释 NIM。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Okay. So 2 main reasons. The first is the group NIM declined less than the commercial book NIM because the market trading book because of the lower accounting asymmetry, our cost of funds also was lower. There was some cushion back from that. And there was also a rebound in HIBOR as well. So that also helped the overall NIM for Q3. And there was also IRS and fixed rate asset deployment as well, which was about 1/3 of the commercial book assets. Do you want to add anything, Sok Hui?
好的，主要有两个原因。第一，集团层面的 NIM 下滑幅度小于商业账簿（commercial book）的 NIM 下滑幅度，因为市场交易账簿（market trading book）在“会计不对称性更低”（lower accounting asymmetry）的情况下，加上我们的资金成本（cost of funds）也下降了，所以对集团整体 NIM 形成了一些“回垫/缓冲”（cushion back）。另外，HIBOR（港元银行同业拆息）也出现了反弹，这同样对 Q3 的整体 NIM 有帮助。
第二，我们也有 IRS（利率掉期）以及固定利率资产投放（fixed rate asset deployment），这部分大约占商业账簿资产的三分之一。Sok Hui，你要补充吗？
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
I think you're right. Your observation is right. So I think with the commercial book, we gave you guidance last round, right, that in July, it will be about 1.95% and we have been able to hold it. And that's partly reflecting that market trading has also helped to cushion the pressure.
我觉得你说得对，你的观察是正确的。关于商业账簿（commercial book），我们上一次已经给过指引，对吧？说 7 月大概会在 1.95% 左右，而我们确实也把它稳住了。这也部分反映了市场交易（market trading）对冲了部分压力，起到了一定的缓冲作用。
Aakash Rawat
UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
Okay. Okay. Got it. Then the second one is I also wanted to understand the hedges a little bit better because I think your NII guidance for next year, which is slightly down -- if -- I think people expect that if hedges are going to roll off next year, this guidance does look a bit more optimistic. So to have a high level of confidence, I think if you can share more details on the hedging book, the IRS swaps that you have, right? Because we only see annual numbers. So we know it was [indiscernible] (025:42) 59 billion at the end of 2024. What is that number today? And what is the breakup between the different tenures? And how much of it is expiring next year? If you can share that information, I think that will be very helpful.
好的，明白。第二个问题，我也想更深入理解一下对冲（hedges），因为你们对明年的 NII（净利息收入）指引是略有下降——但如果大家预期明年有不少对冲会到期滚动（roll off），那你们这个指引看起来反而更“乐观”一些。为了提高我们对指引的信心，如果你们能分享更多对冲账簿的信息会很有帮助，尤其是你们的 IRS swaps（利率掉期）这部分。因为我们目前只能看到年度数据——我们知道 2024 年底大约是 590 亿（原文有听不清处）。那现在这个数是多少？不同期限（tenures）的结构拆分如何？明年到期的规模是多少？如果能披露这些信息，会非常有帮助。
Philip Fernandez
Group Corporate Treasurer
Okay. Aakash, this is Phil, Corporate Treasurer. So I'll just give you a couple of data points. So we've got about -- we don't look at IRS and bonds separately. When we talk about the hedges, we're talking about both the funded and the unfunded hedges collectively. So when we've given you that $200 billion of assets -- fixed rate assets, that's the totality across bonds IRS, right? So that number is about there still. So of that, about $78 billion rolls off next year. And we actually have assumed and it's consistent with the assumption Su Shan just gave that we're probably going to redeploy that at about 50 basis points lower than the maturing yield that those particular assets have. So it's built into the forecast, and it's all consistent with all the guidance that Su Shan has rearticulated.
好的，Aakash，我是 Phil，集团资金平台主管。我给你几个关键数据点。我们不会把 IRS 和债券（bonds）拆开单独看。我们讲“对冲”时，是把有资金支持的对冲（funded hedges）和无资金对冲（unfunded hedges）合在一起看。所以当我们说有大约 2,000 亿美元的固定利率资产（fixed rate assets）时，这个口径包含了债券和 IRS 等所有相关部分——整体规模目前仍然大致在这个水平。其中大约 780 亿美元会在明年到期滚动（roll off）。我们在预测中也已经假设——并且与 Su Shan 刚才给出的假设一致——这些到期资产再部署（redeploy）时的收益率，会比这些资产当前到期收益率（maturing yield）低大约 50 个基点。所以这已经体现在我们的预测里，并且与 Su Shan 重申的所有指引是完全一致的。
Aakash Rawat
UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
So This $78 billion is primarily the fixed rate mortgage book? Or is it the IRS swap?
那么这 780 亿美元主要是固定利率按揭（fixed rate mortgage）账簿吗？还是主要来自 IRS 掉期？
Philip Fernandez
Group Corporate Treasurer
It's a mixture. It's the IRS. It's got the mortgages because remember, mortgages in Singapore are not long dated, unlike, say, in the U.S., right? In the U.S., you take long-dated mortgages and you sit on it. In Singapore, typically, it's 2 years. So the average weighted life of a mortgage is actually only 1 year, if you think about it, right? So the mortgage book does roll off. The IRSs do roll off. But the numbers I've given you incorporate all those effects roll together.
是混合构成的。既包含 IRS，也包含按揭。因为要记得：新加坡的按揭不像美国那样是长期限的。在美国，你拿到的是长久期按揭，然后可以长期持有；但在新加坡，按揭通常是 2 年期左右。所以如果你从加权平均寿命（average weighted life）的角度去看，按揭的平均存续期其实只有大约 1 年。也就是说，按揭账簿会到期滚动，IRS 也会到期滚动。我刚才给你的数字，就是把这些影响合并在一起后的“整体滚动规模”。
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
So you should think about the NII as having a few components, right? Floating rates will also come off. Fixed rate hedges will also come off, but we will also benefit from the deposit volumes that we have told you about all the deposits that come in, we can deploy at slightly more than 1%, and that's going to cushion the effects of the lower rates.
所以你可以把 NII（净利息收入）理解为由几个组成部分构成，对吧？浮动利率相关的收益也会下来；固定利率对冲（fixed rate hedges）也会到期滚动、带来回落。但与此同时，我们也会受益于我们刚才提到的存款规模——所有流入的存款，我们可以以略高于 1% 的水平去部署（deploy），这会对利率下行带来的影响起到缓冲作用。
And I think if you look at the treasury book, I think the funding cost will go down quite a bit with the rate cuts. So that's another relief from the headwinds in the commercial book. So net-net, as a package when we say slightly down, we're not saying like a little -- I mean it's like point something like [ $0.2 billion ], $0.3 billion, $0.4 billion down, that kind of number.
另外，如果你看资金/司库账簿（treasury book），随着降息，资金成本（funding cost）应该会明显下降。这会成为商业账簿（commercial book）逆风的另一项缓解因素。总体（net-net）来看，当我们说“略有下降”（slightly down）时，并不是说下降得很小——我的意思是，可能是零点几，比如 [2 亿美元]、3 亿美元、4 亿美元的下降，大概是这个量级。
Aakash Rawat
UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
Okay. Understood. The third question is just on broadly liquidity. And Su Shan, I heard your interview with Nicolas on the podcast yesterday, very interesting, very inspiring. I think one of the comments that you made was liquidity in general has helped financial assets everywhere, right? Now some of that liquidity also found its way to Singapore and must have helped with the wealth management net new money that DBS has seen. I just wanted to get your thoughts on how do you think about this inflow? What part of it is cyclical? What part of it is structural? Would you extrapolate this net new money strength into the coming years? Or do you think maybe it can normalize this pace of net new money that you've been seeing?
好的，明白。第三个问题更宏观一些，关于流动性（liquidity）。Su Shan，我昨天听了你和 Nicolas 在播客上的采访，非常有意思，也很有启发。我记得你提到的一点是：总体流动性在各地都推动了金融资产，对吧？现在其中一部分流动性也流入了新加坡，应该也对 DBS 财富管理业务看到的净新增资金（net new money）起到了帮助。我想听听你们怎么看待这股资金流入：其中哪些是周期性的（cyclical）？哪些是结构性的（structural）？你们会把这种净新增资金的强劲态势外推到未来几年吗？还是说你们认为目前看到的净新增资金增速可能会回归常态、增速有所“正常化”？
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Well, I look at M2 and I look at the market cap of different markets, and I try to find where when the money flows might go next. And it's interesting because Hong Kong, China have been very strong performing indices this year, but a lot of the U.S. flows have stayed in the U.S. and the money -- the wealth creation has stayed primarily in the U.S., right? When you think about the U.S., it is now 70% of the world's global capital markets, it's very concentrated. So the wealth creation and the wealth effect in the U.S. is very real. Money supply and the banking deregulation in the U.S. is going to be helpful.
我会看 M2（广义货币供应量），也会看不同市场的市值（market cap），并尝试判断资金流接下来可能流向哪里。有意思的是，今年香港、中国的指数表现很强，但大量来自美国的资金流仍然留在美国，财富创造也主要发生在美国，对吧？你想想美国——它现在大约占全球资本市场的 70%，非常集中。因此美国的财富创造与财富效应是真实且强烈的。美国的货币供给以及银行业放松监管（banking deregulation）也会带来帮助。
And so yes, I see liquidity remaining strong. Do I see it coming to Asia? I see liquidity certainly in China and Hong Kong because China rates are so low. No one's buying real estate. So the money is going to go somewhere. And then that's why you see very strong growth in things like banker, insurance, life policies and as people get more and more sophisticated as well. And people are starting younger, right? You have the Robin Hood phenomenon where younger people in their 20s, early 30s starting to invest as well, which is why we're building this digital wealth for retail as an offshoot of our current more mature wealth business. The team has rolled out digital wealth products online for -- precisely to meet the needs of the young 20-something year-old millennial or Gen Z investor.
所以，是的，我认为流动性会保持强劲。它会不会流向亚洲？我看到中国和香港的流动性肯定很充裕，因为中国利率非常低，而且没人买房地产，所以资金总要去某个地方。这也解释了为什么你会看到像银行理财/券商（banker）、保险、寿险保单（life policies）等领域出现很强的增长——与此同时，投资者也在变得越来越成熟、更专业。并且投资开始得更早，对吧？你看到 “Robin Hood” 现象：20 多岁、30 岁出头的年轻人也开始投资。也正因为如此，我们在现有更成熟的财富业务基础上，延伸打造面向零售客户的数字化财富（digital wealth）。团队已经上线了线上数字化财富产品——目的就是为了精准满足 20 多岁的千禧一代或 Z 世代投资者的需求。
So I see North Asia liquidity remain pretty robust. Singapore depends whether we have more Sing dollar assets to absorb the M2. There's some government land sales. There's some government projects. There's new launches of property. The stock market is getting better. So let's see. I hope the liquidity in Sing dollars gets recycled. I think people are trying to build a private assets ecosystem in Asia as well. There's been private equity deals, certainly in Japan and some nascent venture and all that in China because of the AI and humanoid robots boom that we're seeing.
所以我认为北亚的流动性会保持相当强劲。新加坡则取决于我们是否有更多新币资产来“吸收”M2：有一些政府土地出让，也有一些政府项目，还有新盘推出；股市也在改善。所以我们再观察。我希望新币流动性能被“再循环”（recycled）。我也认为人们正在亚洲构建一个私募资产生态（private assets ecosystem）：日本当然有一些私募股权交易（private equity deals），中国这边也有一些初期的风险投资（nascent venture），这与我们看到的 AI 与人形机器人（humanoid robots）热潮有关。
So we see some interesting flows. There's a bit of the formal flow now back into China because the market has done so well. So I see that happening. But I don't know -- like every other of my peers, I do worry about the high valuations in the U.S. on these AI companies. We're very cognizant of not being caught up -- too caught up in that. But whilst we invest in AI ourselves, we're also cautious about the high valuations that we see.
所以我们看到了一些有意思的资金流：因为市场表现很好，现在有一部分“更正式的资金流”（formal flow）又回到中国。我确实看到这种情况在发生。不过我也不确定——和其他同行一样，我也担心美国那些 AI 公司估值过高。我们非常清醒地意识到不要被卷进去——不要过度卷进去。但同时，我们自己也在投资 AI，只是对目前看到的高估值保持谨慎。
Yes, I think North Asia liquidity remain good. South, Southeast Asia, yes, large corporates are doing okay. The midsized SMEs are doing less okay. And people are saving more and spending less. But if they can recycle those assets, as I said, into the stock markets, into REITs, into more real assets, then hopefully, that sort of domino effect that the velocity of money picks up. The problem is the velocity of money hasn't been very high in Asia, right? That's the problem.
是的，我认为北亚的流动性仍然不错。南亚、东南亚这边，确实，大型企业表现还可以；但中型的中小企业（midsized SMEs）就没那么好。人们也在“更多储蓄、更少消费”。但如果他们能把这些资产如我所说“再循环”到股票市场、REITs（房地产信托）、以及更多实物/真实资产（real assets）里，那么希望能形成那种多米诺效应，推动货币流通速度（velocity of money）上升。问题在于：亚洲的货币流通速度一直不高，对吧？这才是问题所在。
Operator
We'll move on to Melissa from Goldman.
我们继续下一个提问，来自 Goldman 的 Melissa。
Melissa Kuang
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
Just back on this that you're talking about liquidity and North Asia being a better area in terms of the liquidity. Do you think then in terms of DBS, the net new money coming in and also your deposit growth that you have been seeing can still be sustained from this year to the next? Also, you mentioned...
我想回到你刚才谈到的流动性，以及北亚在流动性方面更占优势这一点。那就 DBS 而言，你们今年看到的净新增资金（net new money）流入，以及存款增长，明年还能从今年延续下去、保持可持续吗？另外，你刚才提到……
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Melissa, we're now #4 in Hong Kong, yes. We're the fourth largest bank in Hong Kong. So we've been doing very well in Hong Kong wealth. Our wealth centers in Queens Road Central and all that are doing well, and we are also growing in China onshore wealth as well. So as long as it's any of our 6 core Asian markets, we're happy. We're not Singapore only.
Melissa，我们现在在香港是第 4 名，是的。我们是香港第四大银行。所以我们在香港财富业务做得非常好。我们在 Queens Road Central 等地的财富中心运营也很顺利，同时我们在中国在岸财富业务也在增长。所以只要是在我们 6 个亚洲核心市场中的任何一个，我们都很满意。我们不是只做新加坡。
Melissa Kuang
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
Kay. And then just to clarify, earlier you said in terms of taking in deposits and putting in securities, you get roughly about 1% in terms of NIM or that's at least the base point at which you ideally do this kind of gapping scenario. Would you say the ROEs on this, it's roughly about 20% to 30% in doing this and versus like your book itself is about 17%.
好的。那我再确认一下：你之前说，从吸收存款再配置到证券（securities）这条路径来看，大概能拿到约 1% 的 NIM（净息差），或者说这是你们理想情况下做这种期限错配/缺口管理（gapping scenario）的一个基础点位。那这件事对应的 ROE（股本回报率）大概是多少？是不是大约 20% 到 30%？对比之下，你们整体账簿的 ROE 大约是 17%。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
My treasurer tells me that ROE is 50%.
我的资金主管告诉我，ROE 是 50%。
Melissa Kuang
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
50%.
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Because of high credit.
因为（资产）信用质量很高。
Philip Fernandez
Group Corporate Treasurer
Yes. The risk rates are pretty low.
是的，风险权重（risk rates / 风险权重因子）相当低。
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
For government securities.
（这里的 ROE 50%）是针对政府证券（government securities）。
Philip Fernandez
Group Corporate Treasurer
For government securities. So if you're collecting deposits and deploying it, all you get is small risk charge.
对，是政府证券。因为如果你吸收存款再去部署（deploy）到这类资产上，你承担的风险资本计提（risk charge）很小。
Melissa Kuang
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
Okay, okay. So most of these that you do will mainly be gov securities and then for your other books, then you will kind of have a spread, right? Because if you look at your security book, there is a good spread between govies and corporate bonds as well.
好的，明白。那你们做这类部署主要会放在政府证券上；而在其他账簿上，你们也会去赚取一定的利差，对吧？因为如果看你们的证券投资组合，在政府债（govies）和公司债（corporate bonds）之间也存在不错的利差。
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
Corporate bonds are done by [ GFM ]. The corporate treasury team doesn't take views on corporate bonds. So the corporate bonds are taken in the dealing room. So more nimble,, they can respond.
公司债是由 [GFM]（通常指 Global Financial Markets / 全球金融市场部门）来做的。公司资金团队（corporate treasury team）不会在公司债上做观点/押注（take views）。所以公司债头寸是在交易室（dealing room）里做的，更灵活（more nimble），能更快响应市场变化。
Melissa Kuang
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
Okay. That's good. Then I have another question on tech and data centers exposure that you were saying that you've been growing. If we look at by geography others, it's now quite high, almost 19%, 20% of total loans. And it's been like only 16% in 2022 on the other category.
好的，明白。那我还有一个问题，关于你们提到在增长的科技和数据中心敞口（exposure）。如果按地域拆分来看，“其他地区”（others）现在占比已经相当高，接近总贷款的 19%~20%；而在 2022 年，“其他地区”这一类大约只有 16%。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Data centers is about $8 billion or $8.6 billion.
数据中心相关大约是 80 亿美元，或者 86 亿美元。
Melissa Kuang
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
Okay. No, I was talking about just in geography-wise, the other geography, like we are seeing Hong Kong, Greater China, Southeast Asia and others, and the other category has been growing quite fast, as well.
好的。不是，我指的是按地域维度的“其他地区”这一栏：你们披露里有香港、大中华区、东南亚和其他地区（others），而“其他地区”这一类也增长得很快。
Shee Tse Koon
So I think that -- So as you know, the phenomenon [indiscernible] from the institutional bank analyst. We do see the data center phenomenon being one whereby it is growing in Southeast Asia, as you saw it, just not Singapore. We're seeing some in -- we're doing some in Thailand. We did some in Australia. Also U.S., we are participating in the growth in the U.S. lending out of Singapore. As you know, the U.S. market itself has got quite a big development there. So the others would...
我认为——如你所知，这个现象（中间有一段听不清，可能是在呼应机构银行分析师的某个观点/问题）。我们确实看到数据中心这个趋势在东南亚增长，而且正如你看到的，不仅仅是在新加坡。我们在泰国也有做一些；在澳大利亚也做了一些。另外在美国方面，我们也通过新加坡这边向美国市场提供贷款、参与美国的数据中心增长。你也知道，美国市场本身在这块有很大的开发与发展规模。所以“其他地区”（others）这一栏会……
Melissa Kuang
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
Right. I was just wondering.
明白。我只是想确认一下。
Philip Fernandez
Group Corporate Treasurer
We only do these very structured. These are heavy structured 15 years hyperscalers only.
我们只做非常“结构化”的项目：都是高度结构化的安排，而且只做 15 年期、并且只面向 hyperscalers（超大规模云服务/互联网巨头）这类客户。
Shee Tse Koon
There are triple net type leases. So all variable costs are passed on to that facility.
而且采用类似“三净租约”（triple net type leases）的结构，因此所有可变成本（variable costs）都会转嫁/传导给该设施/项目方承担。
Melissa Kuang
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
Right, right. Okay. I just wanted to get that because in terms of that, you've been growing, right? And in terms of -- it's the biggest hike now, but what if we are down 5 years later in terms of asset quality, are we quite confident that it will be still okay in terms of growing this exposure [indiscernible].
明白，明白。好的。我之所以想确认，是因为你们在这块确实在增长，对吧？而且从（地域“其他地区”占比）来看，这也是目前增长幅度最大的部分。但如果我们把时间拉长到 5 年后，从资产质量（asset quality）的角度看，万一行业景气回落、或者信用表现变差，你们是否有足够信心：继续扩大这类敞口（exposure）仍然是安全可控的？（后半句有一段听不清）
Philip Fernandez
Group Corporate Treasurer
It's really the underlying offtaker that you see, Melissa because we believe that in the AI space itself, your big tech companies are the ones who are investing and are providing services because they have the ecosystem to have their customers take off their AI solutions. And they do need a fair bit of data center, which is why you're seeing so many deals being cut by all the hyperscalers. And these data centers that we are lending to are actually supplying to these hyperscalers where variable costs are passed on to them.
关键在于底层的“承接方/购买方”（underlying offtaker），Melissa。因为我们认为，在 AI 领域真正投入资本、并且提供服务的，是那些大型科技公司：他们拥有完整生态系统，可以让客户实际采用他们的 AI 解决方案（take off their AI solutions）。而他们确实需要大量数据中心容量，所以你才会看到 hyperscalers（超大规模云服务商）签下那么多交易。我们所贷款支持的数据中心，实际上就是在给这些 hyperscalers 供给算力/机房，而且可变成本（variable costs）是可以转嫁给他们的。
So we're quite confident of that particular piece of portfolio. We don't go out to do the others one, let's say, GPU as a service, whereby the customer base could be any corporates out there who are looking for an AI use case. Those are not the ones that we're in. So therefore, from a risk perspective, it's pretty much in line with what most of the TMT analyst says on who could be the AI winners. It's really those who already have the moat today in deploying AI solutions like the likes of Microsoft and what have you.
所以我们对这部分组合（portfolio）是相当有信心的。我们不会去做另外一种类型——比如 “GPU as a service”（GPU 即服务）那种模式，因为那类业务的客户群可能是任何在外部寻找 AI 用例的企业客户；我们不做那类。因而从风险视角看，我们的选择与大多数 TMT 分析师对“谁会成为 AI 赢家”的判断是一致的：真正的赢家往往是那些今天已经有护城河（moat）、能把 AI 解决方案真正落地部署的公司，比如 Microsoft 等等。
Melissa Kuang
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
Okay. Just lastly, I know it's too far away 2027. You've mentioned before that 2026 in terms of dividends step up $0.24, you're comfortable with that for next year. But in terms of 2027, now that we're a bit nearer there, do we have confidence to say that we can do it? Or we still have to wait and see?
好的。最后一个问题：我知道 2027 还比较远。你们之前提过 2026 年分红上调到 $0.24（dividends step up $0.24）这点，你们对明年是有把握、也觉得舒适的。但对于 2027 年，既然现在离得更近了，我们能否有信心说也可以做到？还是仍然需要再观察、走一步看一步？
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
I think you have to wait and see. Give us some time. Macro environment is still quite volatile.
我认为还是需要再观察。给我们一些时间。宏观环境仍然相当波动。
Operator
Last question from Wee Kuang from CGS.
最后一个问题来自 CGS 的 Wee Kuang。
Wee Kuang Tay
CGS International
Yes. Okay. I just wanted to ask, I think moving forward going to 2026 in your guidance outlook, you mentioned that there is a possibility of write-back in GPs. I just wanted to understand what is the guiding principle when you look at writing back GPs. How much are you -- how much do you allow itself to go below in terms of, I guess, management overlay or whatever the guiding principles that you may have?
好的。我想问一下：在你们展望 2026 的指引里，你们提到 GPs（一般准备金/通用拨备，General Provisions）可能会有回拨（write-back）的可能性。我想理解一下：你们决定回拨 GPs 的“指导原则”是什么？比如说，从管理层叠加拨备（management overlay）或者其他框架角度，你们允许它下降到什么程度？有没有一些具体的原则/底线？
Sok Hui Chng
Chief Financial Officer
I think we have to calibrate it based on the external environment at time. Remember, I told you overlays are also based on stress scenarios. We have been very prudent. We built up $1.8 billion during the COVID period, and we have actually not released that. So I think we do assess the external environment, and we'll take a call. Whatever it is, we'll kind of -- we think we have more than adequate buffers for us to be able to release some if the external environment is okay.
我认为我们需要根据当时的外部环境来做校准（calibrate）。记住我之前说过：management overlays 也是基于压力情景（stress scenarios）来设定的。我们一直非常审慎。我们在 COVID 期间累计建立了 18 亿美元的准备金，但我们实际上并没有把这部分释放出来。所以我们会评估外部环境，然后再做决定。无论最终怎么做，我们认为我们的缓冲（buffers）是“超过充足”的——如果外部环境确实稳定/可接受，我们是有能力释放其中一部分的。
Wee Kuang Tay
CGS International
Do you consider the current environment is stable? Because I'm just thinking out loud that I mean it has built up, even though, I guess, if you just look at it retrospectively, things have kind of been relatively stable, yes. So there is kind of enough that you have on your balance sheet to write back some.
你们认为当前环境算稳定吗？我只是把想法说出来：即使你们的拨备已经累计上去了，但如果回头看（retrospectively），情况似乎总体还是比较稳定的。所以从这个角度看，你们资产负债表上似乎已经有足够的“余量”可以回拨一部分。
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Look, it's definitely better than April 2. After Liberation Day, we took -- remember, we took [ 200 ] liberation day the tariffs, and we haven't released the COVID GP buildup yet. It depends. I think lower rates are benign for borrowers and for real estate and for most corporate borrowers and for retail borrowers as well. Where we still see some headwinds are in the consumer unsecured loan side.
你看，现在肯定比 4 月 2 日那会儿好。Liberation Day 之后，我们采取了——你记得的，我们在“Liberation Day（解放日）”的关税（tariffs）事件后做了（一些应对/计提）（这里有一段听不清，原文类似 “we took [200] …”）。而且我们还没有释放 COVID 期间累计的 GP。至于能否回拨，要看情况。我认为利率下行对借款人是偏利好的，对房地产也是利好，对大多数企业借款人和零售借款人也同样如此。我们仍然看到一些逆风的地方，主要是在“消费类无抵押贷款”（consumer unsecured loan）这一块。
We're looking out for things like unemployment rates, et cetera. Also SME, they're not recovering yet. The larger corporates, the financial institutions, the high net worth families are okay, and they're doing very well. So it's a bit of a bifurcated recovery, if you will, right, unfortunately. So we remain quite prudent in our asset book. We tend to be -- we have target markets and we use a lot of data and cash flow analysis to make sure that our clients are okay. And I think we will stick to that discipline.
我们会重点关注失业率（unemployment rates）等指标。另外，中小企业（SME）还没有恢复。大型企业、金融机构、高净值家族总体没问题，而且表现很好。所以如果你愿意这么说的话，这是一个有点“分化式复苏”（bifurcated recovery），不幸的是。我们因此在资产账簿上依然保持相当审慎。我们的做法是：聚焦目标市场，并使用大量数据与现金流分析（cash flow analysis）来确保客户的信用状况没问题。我认为我们会坚持这种纪律。
Operator
Just one follow-up question from Melissa.
Melissa 还有一个追问。
Melissa Kuang
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
Just one follow-up. What is your exit NIM that you had this quarter? And also in terms of the HIBOR, has everything been factored in? And -- or should we see perhaps some minor lift from HIBOR moving up next quarter?
我再追问一个问题：你们本季度的退出 NIM（exit NIM）是多少？另外关于 HIBOR（港元拆息），相关影响是否都已经计入了？还是说如果 HIBOR 在下个季度继续上行，我们可能会看到一点点小幅的提振（minor lift）？
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
The exit NIM in September was 1.95%, Melissa. October was 1.92% because of SORA.
Melissa，9 月的退出 NIM 是 1.95%。10 月是 1.92%，主要因为 SORA（下行/影响）。
Melissa Kuang
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
And next, will we see some benefit from HIBOR next quarter?
那下个季度我们会从 HIBOR 那边看到一些收益/提振吗？
Tan Shan
Group CEO & Executive Director
Unlikely.
可能性不大。
Operator
That's all the questions we have. Thanks, everyone. We'll speak to you next quarter.
以上就是全部提问。谢谢大家。我们下个季度再沟通。