管理層發言
Good day, and welcome to the Stifel Financial Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results Conference Call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Joel Jeffrey, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator. I'd like to welcome everyone to Stifel Financial's Second Quarter 2025 Conference Call. I'm joined on the call today by our Chairman and CEO, Ron Kruszewski; our President, Jim Zemlyak; and our CFO, Jim Marischen. Earlier this morning, we issued an earnings release and posted a slide deck and financial supplement to our website, which can be found on the Investor Relations page at www.stifel.com. I would note that some of the numbers that we state throughout our presentation are presented on a non-GAAP basis, and I would refer you to our reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP as disclosed in our press release. I would also remind listeners to refer to our earnings release, financial supplement, and our slide presentation for information on forward-looking statements and non-GAAP measures. This audio cast is copyrighted material of Stifel Financial Corp, and may not be duplicated, reproduced, or rebroadcast without the consent of Stifel Financial. I will now turn the call over to our Chairman and CEO, Ron Kruszewski.
Thanks, Joel. Good morning, and thanks to everyone for taking the time to listen to our second quarter earnings conference call. On our last earnings call back in April, I noted that uncertainty around tariffs and the so-called Big Beautiful Bill have created headwinds for the market. But I said then that if we got clarity on these issues, conditions could improve quickly. And that's exactly what happened. Investor sentiment improved significantly in the last 2 months of the quarter as greater clarity on tariff and tax policy emerged. The S&P 500 rallied by 1,000 points since our last call, fueling record client assets in wealth management and sparking a rebound in M&A and capital markets activity. As a result, we exited the quarter with far more momentum than we started the quarter with. If conditions hold, we're positioned for a strong second half. Our second quarter results included a very challenging April, yet we still delivered over $1.28 billion of net revenue and $1.71 in core EPS, which was the best second quarter in our history and a return on tangible common equity of 22%.
Our balanced model continues to deliver across market cycles. Global Wealth Management posted its strongest second quarter ever with record client asset levels and higher net interest income. Our Institutional business was resilient with a 7% year-over-year revenue increase, record fixed-income revenue, and a late-quarter pickup in investment banking. In Global Wealth, Stifel ranked #1 overall in the J.D. Power Advisor Satisfaction Study for the third straight year and was ranked #1 in 5 of the 6 categories measured: compensation, leadership and culture, operational support, products and marketing, and technology. That recognition reflects our commitment to adviser support. It's not just a cultural point; it's a recruiting advantage. This was our strongest recruiting quarter since Q4 of 2015 with 82 new advisers added, including 36 through B. Riley and 21 experienced advisers representing $51 million in trailing 12-month production.
Strategically, we completed our acquisition of Bryan Garnier, a European boutique investment bank with deep expertise in health care and technology. As Jim will discuss later, this acquisition supports our broader effort to reposition our European operations, deemphasizing sales and trading while expanding our focus on advisory and investment banking. Combined with ongoing efficiency initiatives, this positions Europe to contribute more meaningfully to the firm's long-term profitability. Moving on to the numbers, our record second quarter net revenue grew 6% year-over-year, with gains across the board, except for a modest decline in advisory. Commissions and principal transactions rose 11% with gains in both Global Wealth and Institutional. With respect to investment banking, the quarter started very slowly in April but ended strongly. Asset management revenues rose 6% reflecting both market appreciation and improved organic growth.
Net interest income was up 8% on higher interest-earning assets and lower funding costs. Our compensation ratio was 58%, consistent with the high end of our full-year guidance as we continue to accrue compensation conservatively. Operating pretax margin was 20.3% and operating EPS of $1.71, up 7% from last year. Before I turn the call over to Jim, I'll walk through our two core business segments and why we're optimistic about the rest of 2025 and beyond. In Wealth Management, we continue to gain momentum, ranking #1 overall in J.D. Power isn't just a badge; it's a recognition of our foundation, which drives results. Since 2020, we've added nearly 800 financial advisers with $420 million in trailing 12-month production. Recruiting accelerated in 2025. In the first half alone, we brought in 66 experienced advisers with $63 million in production. That includes a major team from B. Riley and 30 organic recruits with $43 million in production, many in the $1 million-plus category.
For perspective, in all of 2024, we added 50 experienced advisers with $37 million in production. These highly productive advisers bring more client assets, and those assets are increasingly fee-based, driving more stable recurring revenue from asset management and net interest income. We ended the quarter with record total client and fee-based assets of $517 billion and $206 billion, respectively. The sequential increases were due to stronger equity markets and strong asset inflows, including the advisers from B. Riley. I'd note that our net new assets improved each month during the quarter with annualized June net new assets coming in around 5%. Looking ahead, we're confident in continued growth. While recruiting can vary from quarter to quarter, we expect a strong second half, with new advisers transitioning clients to our platform. Our clients continue to hold over $15 billion in money market funds and $6 billion in short-term treasuries, providing potential liquidity sources for Stifel deposits.
Now let me move to the Institutional Group. Total revenue for the segment was $420 million, which was up 7% from the prior year. Firm-wide investment banking revenues totaled $233 million, driven by year-on-year and sequential increases in capital raising revenue. Fixed income underwriting revenue was $54 million and increased 18% sequentially driven by a solid increase in public finance activity. Stifel continues to rank #1 by the number of negotiated issues led as sole or senior managers. Equity capital raising totaled $46 million in the quarter. The market effectively shut down for 6 weeks following Liberation Day with only a handful of pipes and advisory-linked deals. Activity returned mid-May alongside tariff relief, and we entered the third quarter with meaningfully stronger conditions. While industry-wide ECM fees were in line with the first half of 2024, the mix shifted. Financials and fintech were strong, while health care was down more than 50%.
We're seeing early signs of broader IPO recovery, and follow-on activity remains deposit-driven with private equity continuing to lead issuance. Advisory revenue was $127 million. We continue to get a strong contribution from financials despite the increased volatility early in the quarter. In the second quarter, we also got solid contributions from industrials and industrial services. We are also seeing improvement in health care and technology, and overall, the accelerating activity levels bode well for the second half of the year and into 2026. Now taking a step back and looking back at our acquisition of KBW now more than 10 years ago, we made a deliberate decision then to preserve the KBW brand within Stifel. That integration has been a resounding success, with nearly all of the original KBW investment banking managing directors still with KBW Stifel. The sustained focus and successful integration have helped us build a franchise with deep expertise and long-standing client trust.
That commitment is now paying off. In 2025, we advised on 84% of total disclosed bank and thrift deal value, an extraordinary market share, and a testament to the strength of our platform positions us as the first call in bank M&A. Bank M&A is accelerating, and the strategic needs for larger banks to combine is also increasing. Given the improved market dynamics, we expect the trend to continue, and I'm confident in our ability to participate and lead at every level. As to our trading businesses, equity transactional revenue totaled $61 million, which was up 16% year-on-year, driven by increased market volatility. Fixed income revenue of $129 million was up 21% year-on-year with increased contributions from our rates, aircraft, and municipal businesses during the quarter. Before I turn the call over to Jim, I want to briefly comment on AI, particularly the promise of agent-based models. We view AI not just as a tool for back-office automation, but as a platform to enhance how we serve clients, manage data, and accelerate insights.
We are systematically reviewing workflows across the firm where intelligent agents can amplify our professionals' productivity and decision-making. We've already seen early wins in areas like investment banking analytics and adviser support, examples where the right AI tools can create real leverage. That said, we're clear-eyed about the role of technology in enhancing what our people do. It doesn't replace them. Our business is built on trust, relationships, and judgment. AI will help us work faster and smarter, but should not replace the human side of Stifel. Now let me turn the call over to Jim to walk you through the details of our second quarter results. Jim?
Thanks, Ron, and good morning, everyone. Our operating results exceeded Street expectations, driven by stronger-than-anticipated revenue, while expenses remained roughly in line with consensus. Looking at our quarterly revenue, we beat the estimate by 4% or $50 million on stronger investment banking and transactional revenue, as well as higher net interest income. Investment banking revenue came in at $233 million, which is more than $20 million above the guidance we gave in our June operating metrics, as we had 6 transactions that closed right at the end of the quarter that were not in our second quarter forecast. I'd also highlight that fixed income underwriting beat the Street estimate by more than 18% on strong public finance activity. Transactional revenue was 9% above the Street, primarily because of higher institutional fixed income and equity revenue. I note that our fixed income revenue benefited from a gain in our aircraft leasing business.
Net interest income was 2% above the Street and at the high end of our guidance. We benefited from approximately $4 million of fee income, mainly tied to success fees within our Venture Banking Group. Asset Management revenue was 1% below consensus, primarily due to lower third-party sweep fees. On the expense side, our compensation ratio was 58%, which was slightly above the Street and in line with the high end of our initial annual guidance. Non-compensation expenses were roughly in line with the consensus and we're at the midpoint of our adjusted non-comp operating expense guidance range and roughly 20% of revenues. Provision for income taxes came in above the consensus number but was within our expected level of 25% to 26% due to nondeductible foreign losses. Global Wealth Management revenue of $846 million was a second quarter record as each line item improved from the same period a year ago.
Pretax margins were 36%, which was in line with our performance over the past year. During the quarter, we added a total of 82 advisers to our platform. This included 57 experienced advisers with trailing 12-month production of $51 million. The 36 FAs acquired from B. Riley were included in the experienced higher total. On Slide 8, I'll discuss our bank results. Net interest income of $270 million came in at the high end of our guidance. Firm-wide net interest margin increased on higher asset yields and lower deposit costs, which more than offset a modest decline in average interest-earning assets. The 12 basis point increase in bank NIM was a function of lower cash balances, higher yields on our loan book, and lower deposit costs. As I mentioned earlier, we generated $4 million of fee income. Excluding these fees, we still would have been at the higher end of our guidance. For the third quarter, we estimate net interest income will be $265 million to $275 million.
Our bank balance sheet remains relatively rate neutral, though we experienced some modest benefit from lower funding costs as we had a slight mix shift in our deposits towards lower-cost funding. I'd also note that we anticipate an incremental $1 billion of loan growth in the second half of 2025. Client cash levels decreased during the quarter due to a $1.4 billion decline in smart rate balances and the nearly $460 million decrease in sweep balances. In terms of the decline of smart rate balances, roughly 2/3 of the decline occurred in April. And I note that sweep balances improved late in the quarter as June sweep balances increased by $300 million. Since quarter-end, we've seen client cash balances essentially flat. As you can see in the chart, we have also included non-wealth deposits, which primarily include our venture and fund channels. While these are commercial deposits that provide us with an important funding source and reduce the potential impact of the fluctuations within wealth management cash.
In the second quarter, these deposits increased by $1.1 billion and have increased more than $2.2 billion year-to-date as these growth initiatives continue to accelerate. Our credit metrics and reserve profile remained strong. The nonperforming asset ratio stands at 51 basis points. Our credit loss provision totaled $8 million for the quarter, and our consolidated allowance to total loan ratio was 83 basis points. Moving on to our expenses. As we noted earlier, our comp-to-revenue ratio in the second quarter was 58%, and based on our current forecast, we anticipate our third quarter comp ratio to come in at 58%. Our non-comp expenses totaled $278 million, a 7% increase from the same period last year, and our non-comp operating ratio was 20.3%. We would expect a similar non-comp ratio for the third quarter. I'd also note that we incurred $28 million in severance and other restructuring charges during 2Q in our European operations.
As Ron mentioned earlier, this is part of the plan to shift our European focus more towards investment banking. These costs represented the majority of the non-GAAP expenses incurred during the quarter. Our tax rate for the quarter was 25.4%. I would note that we expect to see a similar effective tax rate for the third quarter, but then see a decline in this rate during 4Q. If the stock price holds at current levels, we'd expect the full-year effective tax rate to be between 20% and 22% for 2025. On Slide 10, I'll review our capital position. Our balance sheet continues to be well capitalized. Tier 1 leverage capital was in line with first-quarter levels at 10.8%. Our Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio declined by 10 basis points to 17.5%. Based on a 10% Tier 1 leverage ratio target, we have approximately $315 million of excess capital. In terms of capital deployment during the quarter, we completed the acquisitions of B. Riley and Bryan Garnier.
This added approximately $90 million to goodwill and intangible assets, and we repurchased roughly 970,000 shares with 8.2 million shares remaining on our current authorization. Absent any assumption of additional share repurchases and assuming a stable stock price, we'd expect the third quarter fully diluted share count to be 110.2 million shares. And with that, let me turn the call back over to Ron.
Thanks, Jim. Let me turn to our full year guidance. Despite market volatility in March and April, our annualized net revenue is on track for another record year. We are seeing momentum build across our businesses, which we believe will translate into a strong second half, and we remain confident that our full year 2025 results will come in within our guidance range. In addition, while our tax rate expectations aren't shown on the slide, as Jim said, we continue to anticipate a full year effective tax rate in the 20% to 22% range. From a capital allocation standpoint, we remain focused on generating strong risk-adjusted returns and reinvesting in our business. We anticipate additional bank growth in the second half, and have more than 8.2 million shares remaining under our repurchase authorization, and we'll continue to pursue both organic and inorganic growth opportunities in Global Wealth Management and the Institutional Group.
We're also mindful of what's happening at the edges of the market. From a macro perspective, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the overall impact that tariffs will have on the economy. In terms of the market, we've seen a reemergence of mean stock behavior, a sharp rise in margin debt, and pockets of speculation that feel disconnected from fundamentals, certainly in my view. Valuations are now pricing in near-perfect outcomes. While we're not in the business of predicting pullbacks, we do believe in staying disciplined. We've been through enough market cycles to know that strong markets can be fragile, especially when momentum overtakes fundamentals. A brief pullback wouldn't surprise us. In fact, we'd welcome it as a sign of healthy price discovery. But either way, we'll keep doing what we've always done: serving clients, underwriting growth, and allocating capital with a long-term lens.
Taking it all together, we're very optimistic about the second half of the year. Market conditions have clearly improved since April. Deal activity is up, and investor sentiment has turned constructive with key macro risks like tariffs and inflation appearing better contained than many peers just a few months ago. Additionally, our recruiting activity year-to-date has been extremely strong, and we've built the platform to support it, reflected in our third consecutive #1 ranking in J.D. Power Adviser Satisfaction. That recognition isn't just about today, it positions us for continued recruiting success going forward. In Institutional, we're leading in bank M&A and believe that the current environment creates even more opportunity. And in venture lending, we're making meaningful progress, deepening relationships with venture funds, founders, and emerging growth companies across the innovation-driven sector.
These are early wins, but they're strategic and they're building real momentum for the future. So overall, I'm confident in our positioning, and I look forward to a strong second half. Before I close out the call, I want to take a moment to recognize Victor Nesi. As many of you know, Victor recently stepped down from his day-to-day responsibilities as Co-President and Head of our Institutional Group after 16 years of extraordinary leadership. At the same time, I'm pleased to share that Victor has joined the Board of Directors of Stifel Financial Corp. His contributions to our firm, particularly in building one of the industry's leading middle-market investment banks, are hard to overstate and I look forward to his continued insight and guidance as a Stifel Director. So with that, operator, please open the call for questions.
分析師問答
And we will take our first question from Devin Ryan with Citizens.
I want to start with a question just on KBW, and I appreciate financials, investment banking, KBW's already been, I think, pretty strong just from the non-depository subsectors. But with bank M&A seemingly reaccelerating here and probably picking up more into the back half, and then you had a nice deal that KBW was advising on last week. What are you expecting there in terms of activity? And if you can, maybe just frame out a little bit more around the opportunity and order of magnitude of kind of revenue potential or maybe what you've maybe been missing because there's been such a dearth of depository M&A over the past 4 years?
Part of your question answers itself, Devin, as the lack of activity over the past several years has been influenced by various factors, including the economic climate, interest rates, and general uncertainty. The regulatory environment has not been favorable for timely mergers and acquisitions. However, as these factors have improved, so has the landscape for M&A. Additionally, regional banks, particularly mid-sized ones, need to merge to remain competitive in areas like technology, market share, and growth. This scenario supports the case for consolidation. We have been discussing this for years, and the current environment is indeed favorable. Boardrooms recognize the advantages of pursuing strategic mergers and acquisitions. While I won't comment on our specific market share, I believe we have performed well. KBW and Stifel have demonstrated that our approach to deals and our commitment to maintaining culture, brand, research, sales, and trading has yielded positive results. I won't provide any revenue figures, as I'm uncertain, but I expect that we will secure our rightful share.
I'm sorry, KBW is hosting a depository conference in New York right now. So hopefully, they're signing up deals as we speak.
We'll keep an eye out. And then just as a follow-up in the wealth business, nice to see the strong financial adviser recruiting. And Ron, I heard the comment about net new assets kind of increasing through the quarter and ending June around 5%. If you're seeing an acceleration in adviser recruiting, and there's often a bit of a lag of assets relative to when advisers join. Could we expect further acceleration in net new assets from kind of mid-single digits? Or just more broadly, what are some of the puts and takes you're seeing in the formula for net new assets?
Well, look, we're in the business of getting net new assets. And that's just what our business is. So it's always somewhat hard to understand what's really going on because we're not a custody firm. And so sometimes net new assets will appear while you're custodying assets. That's relatively lower margin in terms of what happens with net new assets. But I'm very pleased with our recruiting, especially high-end, big teens, and the net new assets bode very well. So stepping back and looking at what we've been doing, looking at our momentum, I've been pleased, Devin. We've been doing this for a long time, and I think we're doing very well on this front.
We'll go next to the line of Steven Chubak with Wolfe Research.
So wanted to start off with a question on the NII outlook. So just looking at Slide 11 in the deck, you noted that you expect to see a meaningful ramp across the majority of fee and revenue category, second half versus first half. It looks like for the full year NII, you expect the second half run rate to roughly approximate the first half. I want to know if that's the right interpretation and whether there is a credible path to at least reaching the low end of the guidance range that you offered up for NII at the start of the year?
I think that's a fair way to think about it. It is the right interpretation. I'd say if you take a step back and think about 2Q, we certainly benefited from some of the fee income we talked about. In terms of NIM, that probably equates to about 4 basis points. And then you think about some of the deposit mix shift, given the fact that typically, the non-wealth deposits, so venture fund banking and commercial are typically a lower-cost funding mechanism than smart rate. That's been about 10 basis points cheaper. There’s not necessarily a rate sheet we can point you to, but that average is probably the best way to think about it. We really benefited from that. Now the fee income is hard to extrapolate going forward, but any potential mix shift is a benefit there. So you think about our guidance for 3Q is $265 million to $275 million. That equates somewhere around a 310 to 320 NIM. That being said, we did sell probably about $500 million of middle market C&I loans, which carried higher yields.
So it's a bit of a headwind going forward. But that will be offset as we continue to grow the balance sheet. $1 billion is the guidance we gave, and that number can move up from here. We could see more additional growth in the back half. And really then it's going to come down to really what happens with the funding mix. So I think you're reading the chart right. We're not ready to change our full-year NII guidance, but there is a path with more loan growth, with more deposit mix shift, and those various components to get to the bottom of that as well.
I'm really pleased with our current position. I focus on future trends in net interest income, rather than solely on long-term health trends. Recently, we've made some shifts in our balance sheet, such as selling parts of our loan portfolio that were high-yielding but not strategically aligned with our other assets. This has had a short-term effect on net interest income. However, I'm encouraged by our growing deposits and liquidity sources for deposits. We're not facing issues generating loans; it's about executing correctly. While you're interpreting the data correctly, I advise against seeing it as a barrier to growth. We're in the process of restructuring, and our aim is to create a high-earning, stable, and risk-adjusted net interest income. We're committed to this path and are performing well.
No, I appreciate all that detail. I just wanted to follow up on Devin's earlier question regarding bank mergers and acquisitions and the structural advantages you mentioned. It seems to be a common agreement, but there is a strong case to suggest that we are on the verge of seeing significant bank consolidation activity. We have definitely noticed an increase in deal activity in recent months. However, one concern that has arisen is the weaker performance of the stock prices for both the acquiring bank and the target. I would like to know if you think this price movement is somewhat unusual or if it could potentially disrupt the recent momentum in bank consolidation activity.
Great question. It's so deal-specific. That's hard to answer generally. When you take potentially two high-performing banks in the middle market whose stock is discounting growth as they gain market share and combine them, you're going to take that growth premium initially out of those stock prices, and that's what we just saw, in my opinion. But what came out of that will be a stronger bank, a stronger competing bank, and a bank that can deliver returns. So I think that the bigger question is putting deals together that are sustainable and that are competitive over the next number of years. Board and management teams are clear-eyed about that as the goal, not necessarily worrying about taking a little growth premium out of stock. Stocks are highly valued here, in my opinion, compared to historical valuations. But I don't think that’s a concern regarding the long-term rationale, therefore, the underpinning of future bank consolidation. That makes sense to you?
That makes perfect sense. I appreciate that.
Overall, these are being done for strategic considerations. You need to grow, and some of these banks need to grow. They need technology, their deposits, all of the things that are driving this strategic underpinning are there. And that's what I think these companies are focusing on, which is the right thing. And so I don't really share that concern.
Great. If I could just squeeze in one more ticky-tack modeling question. I was hoping you could quantify the aircraft leasing gain just so we could gauge what's the right jumping-off point for that core FIG brokerage number?
I think that's a good question. So the gain in the quarter was about $28 million. And as we sit here, looking at this going forward, $100 million is a good run rate as we look at probably the fourth quarter. But I would say you have to remember that there is some seasonal slowness that we typically see in the third quarter in terms of fixed income transactional. That's a good way to think about it. But that group is still active. You'll see additional gains in the future, but that's a good way to think about the normalized run rate.
Yes. Jim's been pointing this out as a one-time item for about 5 times now. So I just want to point that out. Anyway, it is a little more lumpy than what's normal, but it's something they take. But that's a fair question.
We go next to Alex Blostein with Goldman Sachs.
I have a 2-part question, but we can lump it into one, and you guys could kind of take it in parts. But it's related to the overall profitability of the franchise. And I guess on the cyclical part, as you think about recovery in investment banking, I think that's pretty well expected by the market at this point. How do you think the incremental margins from higher investment banking revenues will come through the P&L, both in terms of the impact on institutional margins but also firm-wide? And then the second question, and I have to ask the AI since you guys put the slide out there. As you think about what profitability and efficiencies that could create to the organization over time, how that would show up and how we could measure that from the outside looking in would be helpful.
Certainly. I'll address your second question first, as they are somewhat connected. When it comes to AI, we see the potential to utilize AI models in various aspects of our business, especially in administrative functions that involve comparing inputs to established guidelines, such as advertising and supervision. There are numerous workflows where AI can enhance productivity, similar to how personal computers transformed many areas. This increased efficiency allows us to grow without reducing our workforce, as we can reassign employees to different tasks, including onboarding, marketing, compliance, anti-money laundering, investment banking, and analytics. It's crucial to train our staff effectively, as I want AI to act as an enhancer rather than just a tool that enables remote work. I see significant increases in efficiency, not just at Stifel but across the industry, especially concerning productivity.
Regarding your first question, we are currently restructuring in Europe. This quarter, our fixed-income margins were strong, although our equity margins were not as favorable. However, we are confident in improving our equity business through our strategic focus in Europe and the productivity initiatives we have implemented. We expect these changes to lead to notable improvements in our margins in this area, positively impacting our overall margin capability. While I hesitate to mention it since it wasn’t directly asked, there is potential for margin improvement, particularly in our institutional equity business, which could help us bridge the gap toward our goal of $8 per share. So, I remain optimistic about this outlook.
To put some simple math behind that, when you look at the Institutional Group, we were sub 15% pretax margins this quarter. That number really should be north of 20%. And so you can look at a normalized operating environment in terms of revenue and that kind of margin capability. And that's the kind of lift we're talking about here in terms of the operating leverage, particularly within equities.
Yes. This isn't just about observing a number and suggesting it should be greater. We have a clear strategy for achieving that goal. We understand precisely what actions we need to take.
We'll move next to Bill Katz with TD Cowen.
Just circling back to the new assets discussion on the new assets coming in the door. I was wondering if you could click maybe a level deeper. You mentioned that things are going well, which is great to hear and certainly appreciate the accelerating momentum into the second half of the year. Could you unpack a little bit about what is actually going well? Is it just better recruitment? Is it better packages? Is there a pickup of market share just given what's going on with some larger scale transactions out there? I'm just sort of curious if you could just speak to what's driving that good growth.
I believe that our primary focus is acquiring net new assets, which is fundamental to our operations. While growth can vary from quarter to quarter, we have reached a level of scale within our firm that enables us to enhance our culture, systems, and technology, as highlighted by the J.D. Power results. This reinforces our commitment to recruitment, and we're seeing an influx of large, productive teams joining us. Our growth trajectory is strong; in fact, we've experienced growth for 28 consecutive years, and I can't recall a year without a record in wealth management. Our success is attributed to a culture that supports business expansion through net new asset growth. While there can sometimes be fluctuations in the numbers, particularly concerning custody, I want to emphasize that we are satisfied with our growth and it is evident in our recruitment efforts and net new assets acquisition.
Okay. And then just maybe a follow-up on capital allocation, it hasn't come up yet on the call. Just wondering if you could sort of speak to priorities. I appreciate you might grow the bank a little bit net of the loan sales into the third quarter, I presume. How should we be thinking about maybe buyback versus bank growth versus where you are in terms of the pipeline of potential deals?
I believe we've come full circle. At the beginning of the year, we discussed our equity values, including financials, and our commitment to focusing on bank growth due to its favorable risk-adjusted returns and franchise value. It's more about adjusting our approach rather than choosing one over the other. However, following the significant industry correction on Liberation Day, we shifted our focus to stock buybacks instead of bank growth. Now, we're back to our original stance from earlier this year, and we'll be prioritizing bank growth again. Although you might not immediately see the numbers due to changes in our loan mix from restructuring, our focus will be more on bank growth compared to the first quarter. We will continue with stock buybacks, but we anticipate that bank growth will yield more accretive results, influenced by the current equity market valuations.
We'll turn next to Michael Cho with JPMorgan.
I'm going to just go ahead and ask an AI question as well. Ron, you kind of laid out the various areas you're looking to improve. And then you're clear that it's not just a profitability kind of focus. I'm just kind of curious, with the dozens or even hundreds of things that are out there in terms of how AI can improve your own business and your own client experience, how are you prioritizing some of these initiatives? And maybe you can talk through the pace of focus or pace of investment that you're thinking about when it comes to AI? And are you doing this all in-house or are you using vendors? I'm just kind of, again, just curious how about the magnitude and pace as you're thinking through these AI initiatives.
Yes, it's a great question. I mean we're starting, I would say, with basics across the firm. AI, you've got to train people. I keep saying that AI is an amplifier. It makes smarter people smarter. Conversely, if you're not so smart, it makes you look really organized, but not so smart. We’re obviously doing the basics that are in our system, Copilot. All of the things we've rolled out yield very high productivity for people that are using that. We're focusing on training and then scaling that up. We've implemented a number of seats on LLMs that are much more sophisticated. But what I would say is that in our business, the regulatory aspect doesn’t say that AI can sign off on Series 24, certain things that require human elements. We’re being a little careful to ensure that our workflows have human interaction at the end. The point is that there is so much to do on basic, basic things that AI is very good at, such as summarizing, comparing, contrasting, looking at fixed rules, and being able to make people much more productive.
So I personally sat down on our workflows and identified like 70 of them. And I just said there were 70 processes that could benefit from AI. A lot of that is off-the-shelf type stuff. We’re moving quickly enough that I'm concerned that we don't need to be trying to write our own models when it's evolving so fast that we can get so much lift off doing stuff that's pretty much off the shelf and then customizing it a little bit. We don’t need to be developing our own or competing with some of these firms. There is so much we can do on the productivity front. So that's what we're doing. I think the difference is, from my perspective, the biggest impediment to AI is bureaucracy. I mean, bureaucracies have a way of protecting themselves. Here at Stifel, I'm taking the lead on pushing through what I think are relatively simple productivity enhancements utilizing AI.
That's great. I appreciate all that color. Just I want to touch on Europe for my second question. You talked through the business mix shift there a couple of times and certainly in the past as well. I recognize you just closed the deal. But going from here, where do you see the incremental focus in terms of industry perspective or geography focused? I'm curious where you think the next incremental focus is at given where you're currently at?
I wouldn’t refer to it as incremental; rather, it’s a change in emphasis. We discovered that sales trading comes with overhead due to legal compliance and market structure, which includes ensuring settlement and managing risk. This is especially true for business in the U.S. and Europe, where scale is essential. Consequently, we have chosen to reduce our emphasis on that area and concentrate on where we find genuine synergies, specifically in banking. We will maintain sales and trading, as it is necessary for helping companies access U.S. markets or underwriting, but our attention will shift away from everyday trading activities. Instead, we will focus on advisory and banking, which aligns naturally with our operations in the U.S. Any efforts in Europe will connect with our U.S. activities. This new focus will enhance our profitability, as we recognize that our efficiency in Europe has not been what it should be, and we are working on it.
We have no further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the floor back to our speakers for any additional or closing remarks.
Well, I would just say that certainly, as I sit here today, I'm optimistic and feel good about how things are positioning for the second half of the year. It's amazing how things have changed even since the first quarter in terms of perception and a lot of the things that are happening. So we may always talk about 2025 being a transition year, but I think maybe it will be the back half of 2025 transitioning into 2026 because the first half was certainly slower. But I'm excited about that. I appreciate everyone getting on for the call. We look forward to reporting back to you in the third quarter, and thanks for your interest in Stifel and we’ll be in touch. Thank you.
This concludes today's conference. We thank you for your participation. You may disconnect at this time.