Investment Rating - Industry Rating: Outperform the Market (maintained rating) [8] Core Insights - The resumption of government bond trading will primarily lead to asset replacement rather than extending the duration of liabilities for commercial banks. The operations will adjust the asset structure without expanding the balance sheet [2][3][19]. - The impact on the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) from government bond trading is minimal due to the low net buying scale and the 5% coefficient for government bonds in the NSFR calculation [4][5][26]. - Government bond trading can help alleviate pressure on banks' interest rate risk indicators, providing a feasible option for managing the increasing supply of government bonds [6][28][29]. - The improvement in banks' funding costs from government bond trading is limited, with a potential cost reduction of approximately 1 basis point if the central bank buys 1 trillion yuan of bonds [7][30][32]. Summary by Sections 1. Impact of Government Bond Trading on Bank Asset and Liability Structure - The essence of government bond trading for commercial banks is asset replacement, with liquidity from bond sales being utilized in various ways, including maintaining excess reserves or replacing other monetary policy tools [2][15][19]. - The operations do not lead to a balance sheet contraction but may tighten overall liquidity due to reduced excess reserves [16][19]. 2. Limited Improvement in NSFR - The resumption of government bond trading may not significantly alleviate the pressure on banks' funding costs, as the current high balances of MDS and MLF remain a concern [4][21][22]. - The potential for NSFR improvement is small, with estimates suggesting a reduction in required stable funding of about 500 billion yuan from a net buying scale of 1 trillion yuan [26][27]. 3. Alleviation of Interest Rate Risk Pressure - The increasing supply of government bonds necessitates strategies to manage interest rate risk, including the use of government bond trading as a tool to absorb some of the supply [6][28][29]. 4. Limited Effect on Funding Cost Improvement - The mechanism for improving funding costs involves replacing MDS and MLF with liquidity from bond sales, with a projected minimal impact on overall funding costs [7][30][31].

Financial Performance - Return on tangible equity (RoTE) was 13.2% in the first half of the year and 12.3% in the quarter, with total income growing 14% year on year to GBP 7.2 billion [2][3] - Costs increased by 5%, leading to a four percentage point improvement in the cost-income ratio to 59% [2] - The group impairment charge for Q2 was $469 million, equating to a loan loss rate of 44 basis points [6] Business Line Performance - All divisions generated a double-digit RoTE in Q2, with the Investment Bank's RoTE improving by 2.6 percentage points year on year to 12.2% and the U.S. Consumer Bank's RoTE improving by one percentage point to 10.2% [2][3] - Stable income streams accounted for 40% of the Investment Bank's income, up from 29% in 2021 [5] Market Performance - The UK credit picture remains benign with low and stable delinquencies in consumer books and wholesale loan loss rates below expectations [6] - The U.S. Consumer Bank charge was GBP 312 million, stable year on year and down 22% versus the last quarter, with payment rates above pre-COVID levels [7] Company Strategy and Industry Competition - The three-year plan aims to deliver higher and more balanced returns, with a focus on operational improvements across divisions [3][4] - The acquisition of Tesco Bank and the deployment of £17 billion of business growth RWAs are part of the strategy to achieve targets by 2026 [4] Management Commentary on Operating Environment and Future Outlook - Management expressed confidence in delivering RoTE guidance and targets by continuing to drive income growth and operating leverage [4] - The company expects a group loan loss rate within the through-the-cycle guidance of 50 to 60 basis points for the full year 2025 [8] Other Important Information - The CET1 ratio was 14%, or 13.7% adjusted for the announced H1 buyback, aligning with the target range of 13% to 14% [9] - Total deposits increased by around £4 billion year to date, with growth in corporate deposits offsetting a slight contraction in consumer deposits [20] Q&A Session Summary Question: How does the U.S. Consumer Bank fit with the rest of Barclays businesses? - Management believes the U.S. Consumer Bank can generate good returns, aiming for RoTE greater than 12% by 2026, with a focus on improving net interest margin and generating dollar deposits [30][31] Question: If capital requirements were to drop, would the target CET1 ratio also drop? - Management indicated that CET1 targets are considered over a long time horizon, and while regulatory changes are monitored, the current target remains at 13% to 14% [37][38] Question: What is the target level for risk transfer trades (SRT)? - Management stated that they consider market capacity when sizing SRT amounts and do not directly reflect it in loan pricing, viewing it as a risk management tool [44][45] Question: What areas of capital requirements should be eased? - Management noted that regulatory expectations will influence target CET1 ratios, and they are engaged in discussions with regulators regarding the overall regulatory framework [47][48] Question: Can you provide an update on NDFI exposure? - Management reported minimal exposure in Barclays Bank Delaware and IHC entities, with about $20 billion exposure in the New York branch to various MBFIs [69][70]