By publishing its results on the same day as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the divergence in fortunes was hard to miss. Blackstone's economic net income increased by 30 per cent and the amount of cash available to pay out to shareholders surged by 24 per cent. Assets under management also climbed by 25 per cent to $272 billion. While the two big investment banks exceeded the expectations of analysts, neither hit new highs the way Blackstone did.
The constraints on big financial institutions keep taking their toll. Even JPMorgan boss Jamie Dimon, after years of putting up a fight against increased scrutiny, seemed resigned to the stricter new regime in his letter to shareholders this month. Losing a protege and one of his top lieutenants, Mike Cavanagh, to Carlyle Group in March was another indication of how the less regulated world of private equity is stealing a march on its too-big-to-fail counterparts.
The question is whether Blackstone and its peers could fall victim to their own success. They owe some of their growth to expansion in realms previously occupied mainly by banks. Buyout firms have started funds to provide loans to middle market companies, invest heavily in the US housing market and increasingly seek to raise money from retail investors. Such activities, and the profits they generate, might ultimately attract greater regulatory scrutiny.
The globally minded Financial Stability Board, in its shadow banking report last November, flagged how such firms potentially can be a source of a systemic risk when they perform bank-like functions and "when their interconnectedness with the regular banking system is strong." And, though its individual funds are independent of each other and the money in them is typically locked up for a decade, these risks aren't lost on Blackstone either.
Tony James, Schwarzman's right-hand man, quipped on Thursday that legal and compliance are the fastest growing parts of the firm. He also penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed last month that tried to fend off unnecessary oversight simply because of the "negative, vaguely sinister connotation" of the term shadow banking. It's a little reminiscent of Dimon's tone a few years ago. James may find himself in a similarly frustrating fight.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
