Good morning. On behalf of Morgan Stanley, I will begin the call with the following disclaimer. During today's presentation, we will refer to our earnings release and financial supplements, copies of which are available at morganstanley.com. Today's presentation may include forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially. Please refer to our notices regarding forward-looking statements and non-GAAP measures that appear in the earnings release and strategic update. Within the strategic update, certain reported information has been adjusted as noted. These adjustments were made to provide a transparent and comparative view of our operating performance against our strategic objectives. The reconciliations of these non-GAAP adjusted operating performance metrics are included in the notes to the presentation of the earnings release. Morgan Stanley closed its acquisition of E*TRADE on October 2, 2020, impacting annual comparisons for the Firm and Wealth Management and closed its acquisition of Eaton Vance on March 1, 2021, impacting period-over-period comparisons for the Firm and Investment Management. This presentation may not be duplicated or reproduced without our consent. I will now turn the call over to Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, James Gorman.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Morgan Stanley delivered another record year of profits and results in 2021, generating a full year ROTCE of 20%. Performance was strong in each business. In Institutional Securities, we showed strength and gained share. And in Wealth Management, we added over $430 billion of net new assets, bringing total client assets to nearly $5 trillion. We drove our strategic vision forward Investment Management, successfully closing our acquisition of Eaton Vance in the year and created a premier asset manager, which itself has $1.6 trillion of assets under management. Sharon will discuss the details of the quarter and the full year shortly. But first, as always, I will walk through our annual strategic updates. If you turn to the document and start on Slide 3. At the beginning of last year, we set two-year objectives with the expectation that 2021 would be a transition year as we work through our integrations. Clearly, the Firm's performance exceeded the expectations we had for 2021 heading into that year. With the early successes of the E*TRADE and Eaton Vance acquisitions and the Firm's overall momentum, we entered 2022 ahead of plan. Turning to Slide 4. First, I'll focus on our 12-year transformation and where the Firm is today. History offers perspective on our track record. Next, I'll highlight where we've built unique competitive advantages around each of our businesses and how we expect to grow and maintain our leading positions. Then I will address our continued commitment to return capital to our shareholders. And finally, I'll touch on how, when taken together, this should lead to further multiple expansion. To begin with our longer-term evolution, Slide 5 highlights the transformation of Morgan Stanley into a more balanced, higher returning firm today. Total revenues are more than double the level…

Thank you, and good morning. The Firm produced record revenues of $59.8 billion in 2021 and ended the year on a strong footing with fourth quarter revenues of $14.5 billion. All 3 businesses contributed to the extremely strong full year results, reflecting high levels of client engagement and active market. Excluding integration-related expenses, our ROTCE was 20.2% for the full year and 20.4% for the fourth quarter, and EPS was $8.22 and $2.08, respectively. Even while investing in our business, we continue to demonstrate operating leverage led by Institutional Securities. The full year efficiency ratio was 67.1%. Excluding integration-related expenses, our full year efficiency ratio was 66.3%, down from 68.4% in 2020. Total expenses in the year were [$40.1 billion]. The increase in total expenses versus the prior year reflects the addition of E*TRADE and Eaton Vance and the integration-related costs and higher compensation on higher revenues. Now to the businesses. Institutional Securities delivered excellent full year performance with record revenues of $29.8 billion. In the fourth quarter, revenues were $6.7 billion. Our integrated approach, global footprint and balance across business lines continues to distinguish our model. Underscoring the operating leverage in the business, pretax margin was 39.6% for the full year, increasing from 34.6% in the prior year. Investment Banking revenues were a record $10.3 billion for the full year. While each business delivered record results, Advisory and Equity underwriting led the year-over-year improvement. Corporate clients actively pursued strategic opportunities and sponsor-deployed capital. IPO issuances were exceptionally robust in the year. And from a geographical perspective, results were led by the Americas, along with sustained strength in EMEA. Fourth quarter revenues of $20.4 billion -- excuse me, of from the prior year driven by strength in Advisory. Trends from the third quarter persisted, particularly as results benefited from a…

We are now ready to take questions. [Operator Instructions]. The first question is from Christian Bolu with Autonomous.

Good morning, guys. So James, on the -- organic growth has been remarkably strong and you keep calling for a slowdown on organic growth, but we're not seeing any -- sort of any evidence of slowing anything, you’re accelerating here. I guess a couple of questions on that. Can you give us a bit more flavor around what's driving organic growth? How much of it is retention versus recruiting? On recruiting, who are you gaining share from? And then I would imagine you have quite a bit of visibility into the recruiting pipeline. So any sense of like how long do you think the sort of strength can continue?

Good morning, Christian. I think you're talking about net new money, I assume, right?

Correct. Correct.

Yes. Yes. I mean it's not a simple answer because in the old days, it was simple. It was a function of money that you lost by financial advisors leaving and money you gain by recruiting financial advisors. And obviously, that's a sort of sorry way to run a business. It basically settles your P&L for the next nine years to buy a little bit of joy in the near-term. Fortunately, we've outgrown that. The source of net new money comes from several places. Number one, as you heard the retention in the workplace space is much better than what we did pre E*TRADE. I mean, we -- I think it went from 21% to 24% last year, but pre-E*TRADE, it was much, much lower and pre-Solium. Number two, the reality is wealthy people get wealthier quicker than people who are less wealthy get wealthy. And we've got a lot of them. We -- now with our -- the sophistication of our network, the linkages we have to invest in banking across our top financial advisors, the family office structure the team has put in place are all drivers of growth that we didn't have before. I mean just the new assets that are brought in from our Investment Banking relationships sort of across the house, whereas in the past, we never really introduced across the house. It's truly running like one Firm. Thirdly, we're just not losing many people. I mean that's the reality relative to previous years, where being significant net gainers. And that's not because we're doing stupid recruiting deals. That's because we're not losing a lot of people. Now we are doing recruiting deals. There are talented people in the market. They're not coming from one1 particular Firm or another. We don't focus on firms, we…

If I can also add to it, Christian, I would just say if you actually look at the data, is relatively, as James said, balanced across many of these different sectors. But as you think of just the advisor channel, you're seeing not only -- we've, I think, spent a lot of time speaking to the community around assets held away. We are seeing existing clients bringing assets as well as new clients bringing assets to the advisor-led channel. So you are seeing a balance of both.

Okay. Thank you. For my second question, on expenses, really nice control in the quarter, but all your peers are speaking about elevated expense growth going forward to retain talent and just to invest for growth. Can you talk about just longer-term, how you're thinking about balancing sort of that good expense control that we like while continuing to invest for the long-term?

Yes. I think we have managed expenses well. I think that we always are cognizant of the pressures around expenses, both on the wage side and on the non-comp side. If you think about the comp side, I think we constantly feel that we've paid for performance, and that's sort of been the model that we have. But as you also think about the non-comps, we're investing in our integration. We're investing in technology, resiliency, cyber. And I think we're also putting in place different types of investments as you think about positioning Morgan Stanley up for growth and making sure that we have the right people and the processes in place to do that. But there is also inherent operating margin in -- or excuse me, operating leverage in the model, and that's been something that we've been able to demonstrate, I think, this quarter as well as over the course of the year.

Yes. I'd say, Christian, obviously, this is going to be a hot topic because it's all anybody wants to talk about all of a sudden is expense management for 2022. I'm not going to talk about competitors, but you've got to look at business models. I mean, we're a different business model. Just take our Wealth Management business, which is $24-plus billion in revenue. Those advisors are paid on a grid. There is no inflation on it. It's based upon what they produce. Most of our investment bank is similarly paid based on bonus and that's based on what they produce, what our performance is. If that goes up, they go up, which they did this year and we were thrilled to do that. So we've invested a lot in technology, but we've also bought companies. As I said before, we didn't just buy E*TRADE and Solium and Eaton Vance, we bought technology businesses within them, which we would have been developing ourselves, the online banking business within E*TRADE, the Solium workplace platform, which is basically -- it's basically software programming business, the Parametric platform with Eaton Vance, all of these are things which if we built would have been very expensive. So buy versus build, we made that trade-off. So it's a combination of all of those. We're very comfortable with our expense situation right now. And I don't know, we're just -- I guess, it's a different business model.

Okay. Thank you.

The next question is from Brennan Hawken with UBS.

Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Sharon, I just wanted to ask a question on the slide that you've got in the deck on the realization of forward curve as well as the liquidity revenue and whatnot. So I'm guessing that the $200 million in liquidity revenue is waivers and the recovery of waivers. But that number seems a little low. Wasn't the waiver in the third quarter, $169 million? At least that's what was in the Q. And so can you maybe help reconcile where you're currently running on waivers versus that $200 million?

Absolutely. So this $200 million, what we're reflecting here, Brennan, it's a good question, is the forward curve. And so the forward curve has the first rate hike in effect that we looked at from December 31. So that's in the second quarter. So therefore, it's the amount that you would expect to realize this year, should that forward curve play out. That's the way this slide was illustrated. And just to drive the distinction, though, between what you see in the Q, the Q has all different types of waivers. It's not just money market waivers. But you're right to say that this number on a relative basis would be considered low if you're thinking about a full year context.

Got it. Okay. So we could calibrate both the NII number and the liquidity for it. Okay. Excellent. And then when we think about -- you made a comment, I think, Sharon, when you were talking about the impact in the fourth quarter of Wealth Management margins, clearly low, right, full year impact of that benefit. But it sounded like what you said was, when we were thinking about entering 2022 that the full year is the way to think about it. But that's just like -- I just want to sort of clarify and understand. Did you mean that, that was the jumping off point? Or that that's the right way to think about 2022 in total? Because I'd assume with a lot of the rate benefit coming, continued operating leverage and whatnot, you'd be talking more about it jumping off point than thinking about the full year. But am I reading too much into that?

No, you're not. Thank you for clarifying that. That's 100% accurate. What we were referring to is the first quarter of 2022 and using this full year number as a good launching off point is sort of setting you up. That's obviously ex-integration for the first quarter. So yes, as the rate rises, that should increase the margin as it goes forward throughout the course of the year.

Okay. Okay. Hopefully, I can sneak one in because it was a clarification question.

Sure. Don't worry, Brennan.

The Investment Management fee rate was like really pleasantly surprisingly improved despite the fact that we're still waiving fees like we just talked about. Could you talk a little about -- I know Eaton Vance is early and there's still -- that is still progressing and whatnot. But I kind of thought that the third quarter fee rate would have settled fully but there was an improvement. Can you talk about what drove that improvement? Is that sustainable? Or was there some one-time lumpiness in there?

It's the fourth quarter. Those -- you see some of the rates moving up in the fourth quarter, Brennan. But overall, I think as you look forward and you think about fees more broadly, we obviously have a larger asset base. I think it all ends back to this idea of growth. And that's -- I think, really ties to James' slide as well, which really thinks about what are we trying to build, leaning into growth and really thinking about creating durable fee revenue streams over time.

So when you say the fourth quarter, I mean, I was excluding the performance fee because you guys break that out. Are there performance fees that are also embedded in the asset management line, too, that have the seasonality?

No.

No. Okay. So the core fee rate is a good fee rate to think about going forward?

Yes. And we also disclosed them in the Q and in the K.

The next question is from Glenn Schorr with Evercore ISI Group.

James, a little, tiny qualifier, if I could. Last quarter, I think you made the comment of, well, organic growth shouldn't be likely below 5%. Today, you said more like it won't be like the old days. Is it still like the old days, meaning that when you're in that 4% range pre all the additions and the opportunities you have in hand? Are we still looking at like should be 5 and above? I don't need to pin you down. I would just want to make sure I'm getting the right context.

Yes. I don't know what -- I'm not sure I heard you correctly about what you said about what I said last quarter. But let me say what I'm going to say this quarter. Listen, we -- historically, back in the bad days, we actually had negative growth, right? We lost more money than we brought in. Then for a bunch of years through the early sort of '12 through '15, we were probably running at 1%, 2%. The couple of years before the E*TRADE acquisition and before, frankly, the business really hit its stride, we were sort of running around 3%, 4%, 5%, and we kind of guided 4% to 6% was reasonable for long-term predictions. This past year, I think we grew at 11%, which is -- I mean, it's freakish, right, Glenn? This is -- you're talking about over $400 billion of new money. There are a lot of asset management companies that aren't $400 billion in size. I don't think that's sustainable. I mean, God I'd love it, but I don't think it's sustainable, but we're not going back to 3%, 4%. I don't know if it's 5, 6, 7, somewhere in that zone. But it's going to be a very healthy growth rate. And you compound that out over what is now $4.9 trillion, you get to really big numbers, which is why, combined with wealth and asset management, we put them together and currently, they're about $6.5 trillion. We can see a path to $10 trillion here, and we want to call that because we believe that's going to happen. So that's -- we're in that sort of, I don't know, 4, 5, 6, 7. It's -- and that's why I deliberately said in the script that it was too early to put a net new money target out there. We needed to see where this really settled.

Perfect. Exactly what I needed. Thanks. The other one, James, is the long-term goals, if you look at the last slide, I think those are great long-term goals. And if you could do that sustainably, I think you would get your multiple expansion, people would love it.

Would be $200 stock, my friend.

The high-class problem that you have is you kind of did some of them this year or last year, so maybe if -- again, if I could just have you part some more, then just go through, how to think about sustainability and what you're building towards what long-term means just so we don't do the up and down game every quarter. So like, "Oh, wait, you didn't hit your ROTC target this quarter…?

Yes. Listen, this is the problem with putting goals out there. You hear them and everybody says, "Great, what's the new one?" Our goals last year, our 2-year goals was 14 to -- take ROTCE of 14% to 16%. We happen to hit 20% this year. It was an unbelievably good year. And if we were really operating with a permanent 20-plus percent ROTCE, the stock would be much higher than it is now. In fact, I think it should be higher than it is now, but that's a different issue. So we put out 20%-plus. I don't think you're going to find another bank in the world that's putting out a 20%-plus ROTCE goal. And over the long term, we're not saying forever, that's why we separated client assets at 10 trillion as longer term not to be too cute about it, but we think that, obviously, just mathematically, if you do 5% net new money growth, you have 5% to 6% market appreciation, you're talking about a sort of just mathematically, full year to 5-year time zone to get to 10 trillion. By the way, in 2006, our total assets as a company were $1 trillion. We're now at 6.5. So it's not like an impossible lift. On efficiency ratio, when I started in this job, I think our efficiency ratio was in the low 80s. We have grounded down every single year. And our range over the last -- including this year, 2021, '22 was 69 to 72. We obviously beat that. We had -- as I said, we had a blowout year. But we're consistently of the view that, notwithstanding all the talk about expense pressure, our efficiency ratio will stay under 70%. That for long-term management and managing growth and investing in the business, you got to balance growth versus expense, I think that's a phenomenal outcome. And Wealth Management, our long-term goals there was 69 to 72 -- I'm sorry, 26 to 30, we've now said 30% plus. When we get the kick up from the forward curve, we get some of the rate increase in the next couple of years. We finished the integration expenses. You're going to see that number go up. No question about that. So that's the context. And frankly, I just like the round 20, 70, 30, 10, felt like a nice clean sheet. Everybody can follow it. And that's what we're planning on.

The next question is from Steven Chubak with Wolfe Research.

So I was hoping to unpack some of the assumptions underpinning the 30% margin target for the Wealth segment. Looking at the adjusted Wealth Management margin this past year of 27% and the 30% target is certainly a significant improvement from where you've been run rating over like the past decade-plus. In this new world order following the E*TRADE acquisition, it does feel a bit conservative when layering in the synergies as well as simply the realization of the forward curve. And I wanted to see if we should expect the NII windfall to largely fall to the bottom line? And can you speak to what you believe is an achievable margin goal when contemplating a lot of the tailwinds or benefits you cited from higher run rate organic growth, the upside from higher rates and just the full realization of trade synergies?

Steve, I have to say I love you. You're the first person in history to call a 30%-plus pretax margin Wealth Management as conservative. I mean we started we're like 3%. So listen, there's nobody in history, I think, has ever generated 30-plus percent number. I think it was back -- if you go back, it was Shearson in the fourth quarter of 1999, I believe, generated a 29% margin. And that was because they were doing, let's just say, a lot of Internet-based buy and selling, the clients back then. So that was like an artificial period. Listen, there is the reason we put the plus on it. We don't think 30% is the ceiling. But let's run before we sprint here. We've gone from 5 to 10 to 15 to 20 to 25. 27%, 28% margins with growth, that's a phenomenal story. If we can do 30%, which we will do because of the way rates are going, it gets even better. So 30%-plus, there's no great magic to it. It's just the math of how we think the business plays out the next couple of years. I don't know what the plus is going to be. It might be 0.1 or it might be 5.

Fair enough, James. Although last year, I think you had a similar response, and I pressed you on the ROTCE target and it was raised. So hopefully, we'll see a similar outcome this time around.

Maybe you're clairvoyant, I don't know.

Well, just for my follow-up, I wanted to ask about the upcoming changes to the capital regime. There's certainly some significant changes coming down the pike as part of Basel IV. I know we might be jumping the gun. We don't have a proposal yet from the Fed. But I was hoping you could just share some preliminary thoughts on how you see this potentially impacting minimum capital requirements at the Firm. And any learnings just from the SA-CCR experience in terms of your ability to mitigate some of those RWA inflationary pressures?

Sure. Why don't I take the last one first, which I think the overarching theme is really around adaptation? As it specifically relates to SA-CCR, I think there was data mitigation that we were able to achieve. And I think we're proud of being able to focus and move forward. As it relates to Basel, no surprise that you asked the question, Steve. So it's nice to hear from you on that one. But obviously, there is no final rule yet. I think there's -- the difficulty in saying something is that there's often and can be offset between these rules. And so that's something that I would bear in mind as you think through it and as we all think through it. But what I think is really the point is that we have adopted really well. And we also have 280 basis points, I think, as James showed, of excess capital on the CET1 metric. And so I think we're really comfortable with our position, and we're comfortable to better understand the capital rules as they come our way.

The next question is from Mike Mayo with Wells Fargo.

Since, James, you're looking for the 20% ROTCE permanently, how much longer do you plan to stay as CEO? And by setting such a high target, are you encouraging some extra risk-taking?

I'll take the second question -- second part of the question first. No. We, in fact, did a 20% ROTCE this year without taking extra risk taking with the movement in rates, the scaling the business, the completed integration to come of Eaton Vance and E*TRADE and the removal of those costs. The moats around the business and the embedded growth we have in net new assets, I don't think these are -- involve risk-taking at all. This is not about growing the balance sheet and growing risk-weighted assets. This is about growing durable fee sources, durable revenues and managing our expenses. I don't know if we're going to achieve it every single year, but we certainly -- it's certainly a goal, and it's a go for reason. So no, I don't think it involves taking extra risk. I mean, fundamentally, our business model is different, Mike, as you know, we generate $30 billion and it's going up from wealth and asset management that don't involve taking a lot of risk. Our investment bank -- traditional Investment Banking doesn't involve taking a lot of risk. Some of the underwriting, obviously, does. Some of the trading does. But a lot of the -- look at equities, a lot of the equities business is buying and selling on behalf of clients. So no, that's not -- the plan is not after all these years to dial up the risk. And I'm not going to repeat what I've said many times, I'm not leaving now, and I'm not going to be here in 5 years, and it's up to the Board. We're developing successors. I'll be here a few years. And I want to see these integrations done. I want to see us firmly on this path. And I want to hand it over to somebody else who can take us to the next decade.

Great. And then one follow-up. As far as the ins and outs, that's helpful to give the market share. And the numbers speak for themselves, 15% Investment Banking market share, 23% Equity share. But on the one hand, I think you're one of the biggest providers to the tech industry. And with tech having some pain recently, I wonder what percent of your Investment Banking business is to the tech sector. And then offsetting that, perhaps there are some other industries that are coming back online after the pandemic.

Sure. I would actually point to the fact that what I said, I think, in the last 2 quarters, is that we're seeing a broadening out of the advisor activity. It's not specific to any one sector. And I think that's been what's really contributed to the healthy pipelines in that business. across all the Investment Banking. And then as you look in sales and trading, it's a highly diversified model and has not really pinned down to any one specific sector.

The next question is from Matt O'Connor with Deutsche Bank.

Can you just talk a bit big picture on the industry wallet for both banking and trading as rates rise and as the Fed unwinds the balance sheet? Obviously, there's been some benefits the last couple of years, and we're all trying to figure out do we anchor to the more recent last couple of years, go back to pre-COVID, if you think about the wallet. And my follow-up will be on your positioning specifically.

Sure. I think the -- if you think about the industry wallet, -- There have been a couple of things that I would mention. One is, obviously, as I said, if you look specifically at Investment Banking, you've seen different types of activity. You see different types of corporates and sponsors, which has been one of the contributors of a greater wallet. But then if you also think about the Sales & Trading franchise and the movement there, the activity has changed. I think that you were looking back -- if you think back to pre-2018, '17, '19, there was obviously less activity with central banks all having a very similar approach and one rate. Obviously, as you inject rates rising, you do -- you would expect or one should expect different types of volatility and different diversification amongst products, which could contribute to a bigger or a different type of wallet that you saw in the early 2020 to period. That being said, I mean, obviously, none of us have a crystal ball. I think right now, what we do know is that activity is high. I think there's a lot of client differentiation and a robustness really in that type of wallet more broadly. But we'll have to see how it goes. And I think the point I was trying to make in my conclusion is we don't know how any of it will impact sentiment. And I think that's the big piece that is out there is a factor that we have to watch.

Fair enough. And then in terms of your positioning, obviously, Slide 6 of your deck shows very strong market share gains in the last few years. As you think about the market kind of ebbing and flowing, is the goal to hold the share, and this kind of ties back into some of the expense pressures in the industry where some of your peers are either invested quite a bit this last year or plan to in the future years? How do we think about the segments and you already have such strong share in equities, for example, but fixed income is an area where you've talked about being somewhere in between on the? So how do you think about those businesses from a competitive point of view going forward?

So I think that when you -- what we would point to is I think this is a really -- it's a scale-driven model. We've put a lot of moats in place. I think having a global reach across different pieces contributes to the ability to actually hold or gain share across the Investment Banking division and -- or excuse me, the Institutional Securities franchise more broadly. If you think about the equities, we have a very strong very strong franchise there. Investment banking, as I've said before, we continue to invest in that business. And then if you look at fixed income, I think we continue to feel good about that business, our client positioning, and we've gained share over the last couple of years, and we feel good about being rightsized and there for our clients as it relates to those needs.

The next question is from Ebrahim Poonawala with Bank of America.

I guess, Sharon, I was wondering if, one, you could just get a mark-to-market in terms of an update on all the integration, where we are and when do we expect to fully get that behind us. And just tied to that, I think, James, you've in the past talked about looking at E*TRADE scaling that up globally. Just give us a sense of is there something that can happen in the near term. And what's the optionality there on E*TRADE and taking it global?

So why don't I start on the integration. I think where we -- what we had said was we looked for approximately a 3-year integration period. We have seen some -- and this is specific to E*TRADE, we have seen obviously a portion of the integration-related spend over the course of the last 2 years. We would expect the vast majority of the integration-related expenses to be pulled forward into 2022 with a slight residual in 2023 but most of that happening in 2022. And I think that what you'll see later in the 2023 space will be more on the back end and not really a client -- not really client-facing. As it relates to the actual cost synergies that we've seen, we're in a very good place. I think that it's exceeded our expectations in terms of the guidance that we gave in terms of a time line and seeing those come through. But on a holistic basis, we stick to the cost synergy guidance that we gave when we first announced the transaction.

On the international, I mean, E*TRADE already manages some plans internationally. We don't have immediate plans to take the platform outside the U.S., but it's certainly part of the long-term strategy. So I'd say right now, let's get the integration done. Let's prove out the case here, get the cost synergies we talked about sort of close the books on that, and then we're looking for further expansion.

Got it. And just a separate question around -- there's some concern that the Fed is behind the curve in terms of monetary policy, how concerned are you in terms of the risk of an accident happening with one of your clients within the capital markets business if the Fed has to hike faster or get to QT sooner than expected? Any thoughts around that?

We've got a lot of clients. So I'm sure some of them are well positioned for rate hike. Some are -- it's very hard to predict that, that point suggests we're going to get 3 to 4 rate hikes this year and 3 to 4 next year. That feels kind of right. That gets us back to sort of near normal. Normal would be about 10 increases from here, gets us to about 2.5%. If people aren't positioned to manage getting back to normal, then it's kind of -- I mean, it's sort of their problem. It's not -- I'm not particularly worried about it, to be honest. And we don't try and project how people are going to change their positioning with what is a fairly predictable set of outcomes, which is we will have a normalization of interest rates at some point in the next couple of years.

The next question is from Jeremy Sigee with BNP Paribas.

I just wanted to ask a couple of follow-up questions. The 2 related questions really about the wealth management growth because, obviously, that's just such a strong theme in what you're doing. The first one is I think the new metric you're giving us, the retention invested assets. That's an interesting metric and a useful one. Could you talk about how you're driving that in terms of how you're going to get that higher in terms of how you're approaching those clients and what product you're putting in front of them to drive that higher? And the second question, related, are you seeing any cross-sell or revenue synergy between your 3 Wealth Management channels, Advisory, workplace, self-directed? Or is it still too early for that?

Sure. So on the first -- on the new metric, I think that the first driver you're going to see is a lot of the companion accounts, right? So we've talked about the fact that we would expect to give everybody on the U.S., a companion account or at least be at 90% by the end of this year, and that's still on track. And what that will allow for is as those assets from stock plans vest into a companion account, you retain them in a Morgan Stanley self-directed type of way. And then you use -- this will lead to the second question that you asked and sort of tying it together, products like LeadIQ or technology investments like [Project Genome] to better understand our clients and offer us the technology and that agility to give advisors and to provide the right advisors to the right workplace participants. We are already doing that. We already have pilots in place where we are giving different workplace individual advisors. And so I would say that this -- the first step is really getting everybody a companion account and that's part of the integration process. And then the second part is using technology to better match clients such that, while they still get client choice, we're able to offer them the full advice network that Morgan Stanley has to offer.

That's great. Could I just ask an unrelated follow-up? Do you need to get the CET1 ratio down to support your ROTCE target staying above 20%?

Does it -- no, this is a longer-term target. I think you saw it even this year. So I would just retort with look at this particular year and where we were in terms of our CET1 and, obviously, say we were able to do it given the market circumstance. I'd say that over time, however, we continue to look at capital. As we think about how do we best use that capital for investment, returning it to shareholders with dividends, looking at buybacks and then other ways and uses of capital as we have over the course of the last decade.

The next question is from Dan Fannon with Jefferies.

I was hoping you could discuss the profitability of the asset management business now that you've had several quarters of Eaton Vance. And I know that deal wasn't cost driven, but wondering if there's any additional synergies? And as you think about money market fee waivers coming through, as you mentioned earlier, the incremental margin on that in the context of the overall profitability of that business?

Sure. So I think that the fee waiver sort of speak for themselves, and so I think that gives you a direct number. On the E*TRADE and Eaton Vance integration -- or excuse me, the Investment Management and the Eaton Vance integration, I think that the way to think about it is it wasn't ever a cost savings transaction. The idea was always to marry the platforms, and you've already begun to see that. So if you think about the diversification of the product suite itself, you're in a position where if you see flows in one business go down, you've seen flows go up in other businesses. And so that's given you this ballast almost in that business specifically. But in addition to that, and I mentioned this in my prepared remarks, if you look at the second thing that we had highlighted a lot when we purchased Eaton Vance was the different distribution networks. So we have an international -- or Morgan Stanley had an international distribution capability that Eaton Vance didn't have. So a product such as Calvert, where you have a cyclical tailwind in terms of -- and a secular tailwind in terms of people being interested in that sustainability space, that is going to be sold using our international distribution channels beginning in the first half of year. I think that shows the progress and momentum that we have in place as you're marrying those 2 different sort of companies and they're coming together as one.

And one of the other attributes you've highlighted is the Parametric opportunity within Wealth. I guess, is it too early to talk about uptake of that, some of the tax advantage strategies they offer in terms of your Wealth clients?

Well, Parametric was already offered and very well received within the Wealth Management platform. I think we're looking for more ways to sell -- to offer that product, I should say, within different parts of the Wealth Management channel.

There are no questions at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you, everyone, for participating. You may now disconnect.