Mizuho and Rakuten's advisory venture targets $360 million in assets by 2029
TOKYO, April 22 (Reuters) - The financial advisory joint venture of the securities arms of Mizuho Financial Group (8411.T), opens new tab and Rakuten Group (4755.T), opens new tab is aiming to reach 50 billion yen ($357 million) in customer assets in its first five years of operations, its chief executive said.
The venture is tapping into growing demand for wealth management services in Japan as inflation eats into savings and the government encourages investment of household assets, of which around half lie in cash and deposits.
Recent market volatility has also helped attract customers, Mirai Wealth Partners chief executive Masaki Shindo told Reuters in an interview.
Mirai, which was established a year ago with Mizuho Securities holding a 95% stake and Rakuten Securities the remaining 5%, managed 3.5 billion yen of customer assets as of mid-April.
Volatile moves in Japanese assets following the announcement of tariffs by U.S. President Donald Trump this month and in August last year have brought in many clients who until now invested independently through Rakuten Securities' online accounts, Shindo said.
"We're seeing more and more consultations from customers who had been investing in stocks and index funds and are now wondering whether their investments are safe given current trends," he said.
Online consultations make up 70% of the total, and are popular even among customers aged over 60, Shindo said.
Mirai has five financial advisers, up from three last year, and plans to hire more staff over the next year as the assets it manages grow, Shindo said.
($1 = 139.9800 yen)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
How to game the social housing system
Westminster council has announced that every single social housing tenant in the borough will receive lifetime tenancies. No test of need. No review of income. No incentive to move on. Once you've been awarded a property, you can stay as long as you like. When you die, your adult children may be eligible to inherit the lifetime tenancy too. Social housing tenants in Westminster pay around a fifth of what renters on the open market spend. They also have access to more than one in four properties in the borough, from flats in postwar estates to £1 million terraced houses. The council says it's bringing stability to people's lives but for many young professionals dreaming of their own home, it looks like something else: a bribe. Angela Rayner has secured £39 billion more for social and affordable housing this week. Local councils will use this money not only to build houses, but to buy them from private landlords. It's a form of class warfare which targets the most politically invisible demographic – young, propertyless professionals – whom the state exploits mercilessly. One woman told me that she and her partner rent privately on a joint income of more than £100,000, yet still cannot afford to buy in Westminster. 'We walk past people every day who are being subsidised to live in the middle of London, while we can barely get by,' she said. You may scoff at the plight of high-earning professionals, but do the maths: a couple in London on £100,000 loses around £27,000 to tax, £30,000 on rent and 9 per cent of income over £28,000 to student loans before travel and bills. For many professionals, working hard simply doesn't add up. They are not alone in feeling this way. Another woman I spoke to recently bought a flat in a converted west London maisonette, only to find Japanese knotweed growing into her garden from a neighbouring property. 'If I had normal neighbours, this would have been fixed years ago. But because the flat happens to be owned by a housing association, they're not dealing with it.' She could lose tens of thousands on the value of her home, while her neighbours don't face any consequences. This sense of imbalance is not new, but it's becoming harder to ignore. One woman found herself living above a man who is fresh out of prison. He was placed there by the local authority and uses the property to deal drugs, smoke weed and house his illegal XL bullies. When she complained, he threatened her with his dogs. When she spoke to the council, she was told the placement was intentional, to keep him away from 'negative influences' in a nearby estate. Voters, paying ever more in housing costs, want a system that also rewards those playing by the rules Middle-income earners are paying for a model that rewards dysfunction. In the course of reporting this piece, I spoke to a senior housing officer with more than three decades' experience, a social worker in one of London's most ethnically segregated boroughs and a former official who has witnessed profound changes in social housing. All spoke of claimants who game the system. 'People know what to say,' explained one officer. 'They'll allow mould to grow in their temporary accommodation to get on the council flat track. Or say their partner's become abusive. That gets them priority.' I was told that some families encourage their daughters to declare themselves homeless while pregnant. 'Everyone knows how it works,' one official said. 'You get her on the list and she'll get a flat in a couple of years. They'll take her back in the meantime, then she moves out when a property is offered.' Once housed, few ever leave. 'There's no incentive to move,' said the social worker. 'If you start earning, you don't lose the flat. If you stop, you get help again. People treat it like an inheritance.' In boroughs such as Tower Hamlets, entire communities have been built around this model. 'There's halal butchers, Islamic schools, mosques. The infrastructure is there.' The patterns are impossible to ignore. In Tower Hamlets, 67 per cent of Muslim households are in social housing. The reasons are complex: economic clustering, migration history, support networks, but the result is visible. Often newcomers are helped by others who know how the system works. 'You ask around, someone tells you what to do,' the former officer said. 'It's ingrained.' Fraud happens too, sometimes spectacularly. In Greenwich, Labour councillor Tonia Ashikodi was convicted of applying for council housing while owning multiple properties. In Tower Hamlets, another Labour councillor and solicitor Muhammad Harun pleaded guilty to housing fraud. Staff across multiple boroughs have been caught taking bribes. But most manipulation is quiet, legal and invisible. While middle-income Londoners compete with one another in the housing market, the government buys up more properties, removing them from the private rental pool. Westminster council has just spent another £235 million buying hundreds more properties. Those are now off-limits for those looking to rent or buy, pushing up the price of remaining homes. Here, too, are the hidden costs of the groaning social housing system. 'If you earn £100,000, you lose your child benefit, your tax allowance, your eligibility for support,' one young professional told me. 'But the person in the flat next door could be on full housing benefit and you're paying for them to live there.' For many, that's the injustice. The problem isn't that people are housed, but that they are housed indefinitely, unconditionally and often with more security than those footing the bill. If we're serious about fairness, long-term benefit claimants should be rehoused in cheaper areas. This isn't about punishing those people. In fact, it's the kinder thing to do: it would free up homes for teachers, nurses, civil servants, people who make cities function and who are priced out. A new politics may be emerging from this tension. Not one of ideology but of exasperation. Last month, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick published a video in which he confronted fare-dodgers on the Tube, asking why they felt they could get for free what everyone else had to pay for. It went viral for a reason. Voters, paying ever more in taxes and housing costs, want a system that also rewards people who play by the rules.
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
What's up with the wacky CBOT corn spreads? -Braun
NAPERVILLE, Illinois, June 11 (Reuters) - U.S. corn supply estimates for the waning 2024-25 marketing year have been dwindling in recent months, though a notable rebound is expected for 2025-26. But the futures market might not be reflecting these trends, leading many to wonder if old-crop stockpiles are actually larger than the government has predicted. Normally, that supply trajectory might put Chicago futures in an inverse, where old-crop corn is pricier than new-crop. But so far this month, CBOT July corn has traded at an average of around 3 cents per bushel cheaper than December corn , reflecting a small carry in the market. Analysts think the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Thursday will trim its forecast for 2024-25 U.S. corn ending stocks to 1.392 billion bushels, rendering stocks down 21% on the year. In past Junes, such a decline in corn stocks has been associated with July-December inverses exceeding 50 cents. The closest comparison in terms of stock declines would be 2018, when July-December corn traded at a 21-cent carry during the first two weeks of June. At that time, U.S. 2017-18 ending stocks were pegged to ease 8% on the year, but the actual estimate was more than ample at 2.1 billion bushels. This demonstrates that contracting year-on-year supplies can be associated with market carry in June. Additionally, there are examples (2008, 2018) where this carry existed despite a reduction in stock estimates over the previous several months. Still, the current setup may suggest that either July futures are too cheap versus December, old-crop stocks are being understated, or some combination of both. Given the present market structure, what might this mean for old-crop corn stocks – and trade expectations – moving forward? If old-crop stocks are too low, it may not come to light on Thursday. There is no relationship between the old-new crop futures spread and the trend in USDA's old-crop ending stock estimates from May to June. Fast-forward to June 30, when USDA publishes its June 1 stock survey, and the chance for a bearish bomb increases. Since 2008, whenever July-December corn traded near flat or in a carry during early June, analysts underestimated June 1 corn stocks about 73% of the time. On the flip side, analysts underestimated June 1 corn stocks in just one out of six years when old-new crop corn featured a strong inverse relationship. Since 2008, there is also a 73% hit rate for final corn ending stocks to be the same or higher than was estimated in June whenever July-December corn traded near flat or in a carry during early June. This same early June spread, however, does not suggest that final ending stocks will be bearish as the trade has gone on to both underestimate and overestimate September 1 corn stocks. The outcome is still wide open for the end of September, when USDA will publish final 2024-25 corn ending stocks. But right now, CBOT corn for expiration in mid-September is the cheapest of the bunch. July-September corn is trading at an inverse averaging 12 cents per bushel so far this month, which is unusual given the slight carry in July-December. The historical relationship between these spreads suggests that one or both are a bit out of sync. With multiple anomalies in the futures market setup having been identified, this might simply mean that 2025 is an outlier year. And if that's the case, historical odds may be increasingly less reliable from here. Karen Braun is a market analyst for Reuters. Views expressed above are her own. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
TRADING DAY Good vibrations turn sour
ORLANDO, Florida, June 11 (Reuters) - TRADING DAY Making sense of the forces driving global markets By Jamie McGeever, Markets Columnist I'm excited to announce that I'm now part of Reuters Open Interest (ROI), an essential new source for data-driven, expert commentary on market and economic trends. You can find ROI on the Reuters website, and you can follow us on LinkedIn and X. The US and China have reached a trade deal, or at least agreed on the framework of a deal, which together with surprisingly soft U.S. inflation data, gave markets a lift on Wednesday. But Wall Street's gains were mild, and they were later wiped out by rising tensions in the Middle East. In my column today I look at the 'equity risk premium' and other metrics that suggest relative U.S. equity and bond valuations are getting very stretched. More on that below, but first, a roundup of the main market moves. If you have more time to read, here are a few articles I recommend to help you make sense of what happened in markets today. Today's Key Market Moves Good vibrations turn sour It's a "done" deal, according to U.S. President Donald Trump, although the he and Chinese leader Xi Jinping still have to finalize the wording of the trade agreement between the two superpowers and sign off on it. The main points of the deal appear to be: China will remove export restrictions on rare earth minerals and other key industrial components; U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods will total 55%; Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods will total 10%. Trump could not have been more enthusiastic in his praise for the agreement on Wednesday, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said 'deal after deal' with other countries will follow in the weeks ahead. Yet, judging by the relatively muted market reaction, investors are less enthused. And given the chaotic and unpredictable nature of the Trump administration's tariff announcements thus far, the irony of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent calling on China to be a "reliable partner" in trade negotiations will not be lost on some observers. Especially, one suspects, in Beijing. Based on these proposed China levies, and with the US expected to conclude more trade deals in the coming weeks, the overall U.S. effective tariff rate will be lower than feared a couple of months ago. That's a relief. But the effective tariff rate of around 15% that many economists expect will still be significantly higher than the 2.5% rate at the end of last year, and would be the highest since the 1930s. Also, as the May inflation figures showed, tariffs have yet to be felt on prices. Investors - and Fed policymakers, who meet next week - are in a state of limbo. How will corporate profits and consumer spending be affected? What proportion of the tariffs will companies "swallow", and how much will they pass on to their customers? Zooming out, inflation appears to be cooling around the world, although this trend is expected to reverse once tariffs start to fuel higher goods price inflation. Figures on Wednesday showed that U.S. consumer inflation and Japanese wholesale inflation were lower than expected in May. These reports follow similar numbers from Europe recently, and China remains stuck in its battle against deflation. Next up is India, which releases consumer inflation figures on Thursday, which are expected to show annual inflation slowed to 3.0% in May, the lowest in more than six years. Another focus for investors on Thursday will be the auction of 30-year U.S. Treasury bonds. US stocks-bonds warnings flash amber again Calm has descended on U.S. markets following the 'Liberation Day' tariff turmoil of early April. But Wall Street's rally has revived questions about U.S. equity valuations, as stocks once again look super pricey compared to bonds. Since the chaotic days of early April, U.S. equities have rebounded fiercely, with the S&P 500 up 25%, putting the Shiller cyclically adjusted price-earnings (CAPE) ratio for the index in the 94th percentile going back to the 1950s, according to bond giant PIMCO. Stocks are looking expensive in absolute terms, and in relation to bonds. The equity risk premium (ERP), the difference between equity yields and bond yields, is near historically low levels. According to analysts at PIMCO, the ERP is now zero. The previous two times it fell to zero or below were in 1987 and 1996–2001. In both instances, the ultra-low ERP precipitated a steep equity drawdown and sharp fall in long-dated bond yields. "The U.S. equity risk premium ... is exceptionally low by historical standards," they wrote in their five-year outlook on Tuesday. "A mean reversion to a higher equity risk premium typically involves a bond rally, an equity sell-off, or both." But reversion to the mean doesn't just happen by magic. A catalyst is needed. Equities have recovered largely because they were oversold in April, trade tensions have been dialed down, and investors remain confident that Big Tech will drive solid AI-led earnings growth. So even though huge economic, trade, and policy risks continue to hang over markets, there is no sign of an imminent catalyst that would cause an equity market selloff. The flip side of equities looking expensive is that bonds look like a bargain. Indeed, the relative divergence between stocks and bonds is such that, by one measure, U.S. fixed income assets are the cheapest relative to equities in over half a century. Using national flow of funds data from the Federal Reserve, retired strategist Jim Paulsen calculates that the total market value of U.S. bonds as a percentage share of the total market value of U.S. equities is the lowest since the early 1970s. "Since the aggregate U.S. portfolio is currently aggressively positioned, investors may have far more capacity and desire to boost bond holdings in the coming years than most appreciate," Paulsen wrote last week. But bonds are 'cheap' for a reason. Washington's profligacy – the reason ratings agency Moody's recently stripped the U.S. of its triple-A credit rating – and inflation worries have kept yields stubbornly high. The term premium - the risk premium investors demand for holding long-term debt rather than rolling over short-dated loans - is the highest in over a decade, reflecting concerns about Uncle Sam's long-term fiscal health. And the diagnosis here shows no signs of improving. Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' is expected to add $2.4 trillion to the U.S. debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, likely putting more upward pressure on yields. Of course, equity investors do seem to be pricing in a very rosy scenario, and the past few months have shown how quickly the market landscape can change. The U.S. economy could weaken more than expected, the trade war could escalate, or there could be a geopolitical surprise that causes bond yields and equity prices to fall. Investors should therefore be mindful of the warnings being sent by ERPs and other absolute and relative valuation metrics. However, they should also remember that stretched valuations can get even more stretched. As the famous saying goes, markets can stay irrational longer than investors can remain solvent. What could move markets tomorrow? Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, opens new tab, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.
