摩根大通 (JPM) 2025 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to JPMorgan Chase's second-quarter 2025 earnings call.

女士們、先生們，早安。歡迎參加摩根大通 2025 年第二季財報電話會議。

This call is being recorded. (Operator Instructions)

此通話正在錄音。（操作員指示）

We will now go live to the presentation. The presentation is available on JPMorgan Chase's website. Please refer to the disclaimer in the back concerning forward-looking statements. Please stand by.

我們現在開始現場演示。此簡報可在摩根大通的網站上查閱。請參閱背面有關前瞻性陳述的免責聲明。請稍候。

At this time, I would like to turn the call over to JPMorgan Chase's Chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon; and Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy Barnum. Mr. Barnum, please go ahead.

現在，我想將電話轉給摩根大通董事長兼執行長傑米戴蒙和財務長傑里米巴納姆。巴納姆先生，請繼續。

Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. This quarter, the firm reported net income of $15 billion, EPS of $5.24 on revenue of $45.7 million, with an ROTCE of 21%. These results included an income tax benefit of $774 million, which we described in more detail in the earnings press release.

非常感謝，大家早安。本季度，該公司公佈淨收入為 150 億美元，每股收益為 5.24 美元，營收為 4,570 萬美元，ROTCE 為 21%。這些結果包括 7.74 億美元的所得稅收益，我們在收益新聞稿中對此進行了更詳細的描述。

On the next page, we have some more detail. The firm reported revenue of $45.7 billion, down $5.3 billion, or 10% year on year. NII ex-markets was down $185 million, or 1%, driven by the impact of lower rates and deposit margin compression, predominantly offset by higher wholesale deposits, higher revolving balances in Card, as well as the impact of securities activity, including from prior quarters.

在下一頁中，我們將提供更多詳細資訊。該公司公佈的營收為 457 億美元，年減 53 億美元，降幅為 10%。受利率下降和存款保證金壓縮的影響，市場外 NII 下降 1.85 億美元，降幅 1%，但批發存款增加、信用卡循環餘額增加以及證券活動（包括前幾季的活動）的影響抵消了這一下降。

NII ex-markets was down $6.3 billion, or 31%, and excluding the net gain related to Visa shares and net investment securities losses in the prior year was up $1 billion, or 8%, driven by higher asset management fees, higher auto lease income, higher investment banking fees, and higher payment fees. And Markets revenue was up $1.1 billion or 15%.

扣除市場因素後，NII 下跌 63 億美元，跌幅為 31%，扣除上年與 Visa 股票相關的淨收益和淨投資證券損失後，NII 上漲 10 億美元，跌幅為 8%，這主要得益於資產管理費、汽車租賃收入、投資銀行費用和支付費用的增加。市場收入成長了 11 億美元，即 15%。

Expenses of $23.8 billion were up $66 million, and excluding last year's Visa stock contribution to the firm's foundation was up $1.1 billion, or 5%, primarily driven by compensation, higher brokerage, and distribution fees as well as higher auto lease depreciation. And credit costs were $2.8 billion with net charge-offs of $2.4 billion, and a net reserve build of $439 million. The build was driven by new lending activity, largely offset by a decrease in the probabilities that we attached to the adverse scenarios and the allowance of estimation.

238 億美元的支出增加了 6,600 萬美元，不包括去年 Visa 股票對公司基礎的貢獻，增加了 11 億美元，即 5%，這主要是由於薪酬、經紀費和分銷費增加以及汽車租賃折舊增加所致。信貸成本為 28 億美元，淨沖銷額為 24 億美元，淨儲備金為 4.39 億美元。這一增長是由新的貸款活動推動的，但很大程度上被我們賦予不利情景和估計餘地的機率的下降所抵消。

On to the balance sheet on page 3. We ended the quarter with a CET1 ratio of 15%, down 40 basis points versus the prior quarter as net income was more than offset by capital distributions and higher RWA. This quarter's higher RWA is primarily driven by an increase in wholesale lending across both CIB markets and banking, an increase in other markets activity as well as an increase in Card loans.

前往第 3 頁的資產負債表。本季末，我們的 CET1 比率為 15%，較上一季下降 40 個基點，因為淨收入被資本分配和更高的 RWA 所抵消。本季 RWA 增加的主要原因是 CIB 市場和銀行批發貸款增加、其他市場活動增加以及信用卡貸款增加。

As you know, we completed CCAR a couple of weeks ago. Under the current rules, our indicative SCB is floored at 2.5% and goes into effect in [4Q25]. Our new SCB also reflects the Board's intention to increase the dividend to $1.50 per share in the third quarter.

如您所知，我們幾週前完成了 CCAR。根據現行規定，我們的指示性 SCB 下限為 2.5%，並於[2025年第四季]。我們的新 SCB 也反映了董事會在第三季將股息提高至每股 1.50 美元的意圖。

Now let's go to our businesses, starting with CCB. CCB reported net income of $5.2 billion on revenue of $18.8 billion, which was up 6% year on year. In Banking & Wealth Management, revenue was up 3%, largely driven by growth in wealth management revenue with deposit NII relatively flat. Average deposits were down 1% year on year and flat sequentially.

現在讓我們來談談我們的業務，首先從建行開始。建行報告稱，該行營收 188 億美元，淨收入 52 億美元，年增 6%。銀行與財富管理業務的收入成長了 3%，這主要得益於財富管理收入的成長，而存款 NII 的收入相對持平。平均存款較去年同期下降 1%，較上季持平。

Client investment assets were up 14% year on year, driven by market performance and continued healthy flows into managed products. In Home Lending. revenue was down 5% year on year, predominantly driven by lower NII.

受市場表現和管理產品持續健康流入的推動，客戶投資資產年增 14%。在房屋貸款方面，收入年減 5%，主要原因是 NII 下降。

Turning to Card Services & Auto, revenue was up 15% year on year, predominantly driven by Card NII on higher revolving balances, as well as higher operating lease income in Auto. Card outstandings were up 9% due to strong account acquisition. In Auto, originations were up 5%, driven by higher lease volumes.

談到信用卡服務和汽車業務，營收年增 15％，主要得益於信用卡 NII 的循環餘額增加以及汽車業務的經營租賃收入增加。由於帳戶成長強勁，信用卡未償還餘額上漲了 9%。在汽車領域，受租賃量增加的推動，發起量增加了 5%。

Expenses of $9.9 billion were up 5% year on year largely driven by growth in technology and auto lease depreciation. Credit costs were $2.1 billion, reflecting net charge-offs of $2.1 billion, relatively flat year on year, in line with expectations.

支出為 99 億美元，年增 5%，主要受技術成長和汽車租賃折舊的影響。信貸成本為 21 億美元，反映淨沖銷額為 21 億美元，比去年同期基本持平，符合預期。

Back to Commercial & Investment Bank. CIB reported net income of $6.7 billion, on revenue of $19.5 billion, which was up 9% year on year. IB fees were up 7% year on year. We continue to rank number one with wallet share of 8.9%. In Advisory, fees were up 8%, benefiting from increased sponsor activity. Debt underwriting fees were up 12%, primarily driven by a few large deals. And equity underwriting fees were down 6% year on year. Our pipeline remains robust and the outlook, along with the market tone and sentiment, is notably more upbeat.

回到商業和投資銀行。CIB 報告稱，其淨收入為 67 億美元，營收為 195 億美元，年增 9%。IB費用較去年同期上漲7%。我們繼續以 8.9% 的錢包份額排名第一。在諮詢業務方面，受益於贊助商活動的增加，費用上漲了 8%。債務承銷費上漲了 12%，主要受幾筆大型交易的推動。股票承銷費較去年同期下降6%。我們的通路依然強勁，前景以及市場基調和情緒都明顯更加樂觀。

Payments revenue was up 3% year on year, excluding equity investments driven by higher deposit balances and fee growth, predominantly offset by deposit margin compression. Lending revenue was down 6% year on year, reflecting higher losses on hedges.

支付收入年增 3%，不包括股權投資，這主要得益於存款餘額增加和費用增長，但被存款保證金壓縮所抵消。貸款收入較去年同期下降 6%，反映出對沖損失增加。

Moving to Markets. Total revenue was up 15% year on year. Fixed income was up 14% with improved performance in currencies and emerging markets, rates, and commodities. This was partially offset by fewer opportunities in securitized products and fixed income financing.

轉向市場。總營收年增15%。固定收益上漲 14%，貨幣和新興市場、利率和大宗商品的表現有所改善。證券化產品和固定收益融資機會的減少部分抵銷了這一影響。

Equities was up 15%. We continue to see strong performance across products, most notably in derivatives. Security Services revenue was up 12% year on year, driven by higher deposit balances and fee growth. Expenses of $9.6 billion were up 5% year on year, driven by higher compensation, brokers and technology expense, partially offset by lower legal expense. Average banking and payments loans were down 2% year on year and up 2% quarter on quarter with sequential growth, primarily driven by new loans with larger corporates.

股票上漲了15%。我們持續看到各種產品表現強勁，尤其是衍生性商品。由於存款餘額增加和費用增長，安全服務收入年增 12%。96 億美元的支出年增 5%，主要是由於薪酬、經紀人和技術支出增加，但法律支出減少部分抵消了這一增長。平均銀行和支付貸款年減 2%，較上季成長 2%，較上季成長，主要受大型企業新貸款推動。

Average client deposits were up 16% year on year and up 5% sequentially, reflecting increased activity across payments and security services. Finally, Credit costs were $696 million, driven by builds in our C&I portfolio, including new lending activity and downgrades to a handful of names, partially offset by the scenario probability adjustment I mentioned upfront.

平均客戶存款年增 16%，季增 5%，反映出支付和安全服務領域的活動增加。最後，信貸成本為 6.96 億美元，這得益於我們 C&I 投資組合的增加，包括新的貸款活動和對少數公司的評級下調，但部分被我前面提到的情景機率調整所抵消。

Turning to Asset & Wealth Management to complete our lines of business. AWM reported net income of $1.5 billion with a pretax margin of 34%. Revenue of $5.8 billion was up 10% year on year, driven by growth in management fees on strong net inflows and higher average market levels, as well as higher brokerage activity and higher deposit balances.

轉向資產和財富管理來完善我們的業務線。AWM 報告淨收入為 15 億美元，稅前利潤率為 34%。收入 58 億美元，年增 10%，這得益於強勁的淨流入和更高的平均市場水平導致的管理費增長，以及經紀活動增加和存款餘額增加。

Expenses of $3.7 billion were up 5% year on year driven by higher compensation, including revenue-related compensation and continued growth in our private banking advisory teams as well as higher distribution fees.

支出為 37 億美元，年增 5%，主要由於薪酬增加（包括與收入相關的薪酬）、私人銀行顧問團隊的持續增長以及分銷費用增加。

Long-term net inflows were $31 billion for the quarter led by fixed income and equities. In liquidity, we saw net inflows of $5 billion. AUM of $4.3 trillion was up 18% year on year, and client assets of $6.4 trillion were up 19% year on year, driven by continued net inflows and higher market levels. And finally, loans were up 7% year on year and 3% quarter on quarter, and deposits were up 9% year on year and 2% sequentially.

本季長期淨流入為 310 億美元，主要由固定收益和股票組成。在流動性方面，我們看到淨流入50億美元。資產管理規模受持續淨流入和市場水準走高推動，中國銀行間債券市場規模達 4.3 兆美元，年增 18%，客戶資產達 6.4 兆美元，年增 19%。最後，貸款年增 7%，季增 3%，存款年增 9%，季增 2%。

Turning to Corporate. Corporate reported net income of $1.7 billion and includes the tax item I mentioned upfront. Revenue was $1.5 billion for the quarter. NII was $1.5 billion, down $875 million year on year. NIR was a net gain of $49 million, up $148 million year on year, excluding the prior year's Visa-related gain. Expenses of $547 million were down $32 million year on year, excluding the foundation contribution in the prior year that I mentioned earlier.

轉向企業。公司報告的淨收入為 17 億美元，其中包括我之前提到的稅項。本季營收為 15 億美元。NII為15億美元，年減8.75億美元。NIR 為淨收益 4,900 萬美元，年增 1.48 億美元，不包括上一年與 Visa 相關的收益。支出為 5.47 億美元，年減 3,200 萬美元，這還不包括我之前提到的前一年基金會的捐款。

To finish up, I'll touch on the outlook. You'll recall that at Investor Day, I made a couple of comments previewing the potential evolution of the outlook. So now let me formalize that and give you updated guidance.

最後，我想談談前景。您可能還記得，在投資者日，我發表了一些評論，預測了前景的潛在演變。現在讓我正式宣布這一點並為您提供最新的指導。

First, we now expect NII ex-markets to be approximately $92 billion, with the increase driven by changes in the forward curve and strong deposit growth in payments, security services as well as balanced growth in Card. Total NII guidance is now about $95.5 billion, implying $3.5 billion of markets NII.

首先，我們目前預計，市場外的國家資訊基礎設施投資（NII）約為 920 億美元，成長主要受遠期曲線變化、支付、安全服務存款強勁成長以及信用卡業務均衡成長的推動。目前，NII 總額的預期約為 955 億美元，這意味著市場外的國家資訊基礎設施投資（NII）為 35 億美元。

Second, on adjusted expense, we now expect it to be about $95.5 billion, primarily driven by the impact of the weaker dollar, which is largely bottom-line neutral. And finally, on credit, we continue to expect the Card net charge-off rate to be approximately 3.6%.

其次，就調整後的支出而言，我們現在預計其約為 955 億美元，這主要受到美元走弱的影響，而美元走弱對公司利潤的影響基本上是中性的。最後，關於信貸，我們繼續預期信用卡淨沖銷率約為 3.6%。

So reflecting on the quarter, while the environment remains extremely dynamic in many ways, navigating uncertainty is the norm for both us and our clients. But we're now happy to take your questions. So let's open the line for Q&A.

因此，回顧本季度，雖然環境在許多方面仍然極具活力，但應對不確定性對我們和我們的客戶來說都是常態。但我們現在很高興回答您的問題。那麼讓我們開始問答環節。

(Operator Instructions) Christopher McGratty, QBW (sic - KBW).

（操作員指示）克里斯托弗·麥格拉蒂，QBW（原文如此 - KBW）。

Jamie, relative to three months ago, there's a lot of optimism -- relative to three months ago, there's a lot of optimism on financial deregulation and really going to break in the bank's favor. I'm interested if you agree, number one, with this optimism and anything specifically you could point to?

傑米，相對於三個月前，人們對金融放鬆管制抱持著很大的樂觀態度，這確實有利於銀行。首先，我很想知道您是否同意這種樂觀態度，您能具體指出什麼嗎？

And secondarily, on capital, I'm interested in what's on or off the table in terms of uses of capital. What do you need to see from the macro regulatory? And how should we be thinking about the timing? Thank you.

其次，關於資本，我感興趣的是資本使用方面可以考慮或不可以考慮的事情。宏觀調控需要看到什麼？我們該如何考慮時機？謝謝。

Let me take the second part of that first. So we have our centered capital hierarchy that we recite a lot, and I want to bore you by reciting it again. But I think it's important because it does serve as a guide in this context, right? So we deploy our capital against organic and inorganic growth, and we ensure a sustainable dividend. And with what's left, we do buybacks.

讓我先談第二部分。因此，我們有我們經常背誦的中心大寫層次結構，我想透過再次背誦它來讓你們感到厭煩。但我認為這很重要，因為它確實可以作為這種背景下的指導，對嗎？因此，我們將資本用於有機和無機成長，並確保可持續的股息。剩下的錢，我們就用來回購。

And so we've talked about how access capital's earnings in store. You saw this quarter that we actually had some financial resource usage that came through and actually meant that despite keeping the buybacks relatively constant and having organic capital generation to be relatively constant, the CET1 ratio dropped a little bit as a function of increased usage organically showing up in RWA expansion. So we're doing what we want to do, but clearly, it is a big amount of access, and that does mean that everything is on the table as it always is, and that includes potentially inorganic things.

我們已經討論瞭如何獲取資本的收益。您在本季度看到，我們實際上已經使用了一些財務資源，這實際上意味著，儘管保持回購相對穩定，並且有機資本生成相對穩定，但由於 RWA 擴張中有機出現的使用量增加，CET1 比率略有下降。所以，我們正在做我們想做的事情，但顯然，這需要大量的訪問權限，而這確實意味著一切都像往常一樣擺在桌面上，其中包括潛在的無機事物。

Now, obviously, that needs to be done carefully. I think acquisitions have a high bar, both financially, strategically and importantly, in some cases, culturally. And we also need to think carefully about things that work outside the regulated parameter might not work inside the regulated parameter as well. We have learned some lessons. We don't want to over learn those lessons. But in the end, sometimes we lean in a little more, sometimes we lean in a little less, but we wouldn't be doing our jobs if we weren't thinking about it. I don't particularly think other than fundamentally whether things are permissible or not, that the regulatory environment right now, particularly shapes our thinking on that front.

現在，顯然，這需要謹慎進行。我認為收購的標準很高，無論是從財務角度還是策略角度，更重要的是，在某些情況下，從文化角度來看。我們還需要仔細考慮，在受控參數之外起作用的事物在受控參數之內可能也不起作用。我們已經吸取了一些教訓。我們不想過度學習這些教訓。但最終，有時我們會傾盡全力，有時我們會盡盡全力，但如果我們不考慮這一點，我們就不會做好我們的工作。除了從根本上判斷事情是否允許之外，我並不特別認為當前的監管環境特別影響了我們在這方面的想法。

Can I just say a broader point about regulations? I think it's very important that the regulators step back and look at the big picture now, not just one picture. So nothing's happened yet. I think they should be looking at all these things. But if you look at SLR, G-SIFI, CCAR, Basel III, FSRT, the overlap, the duplication, I actually believe that you can make the system simpler, cheaper, more effective, more transparent and safer.

我可以更廣泛地談談法規問題嗎？我認為，現在監管者退一步看大局而不是只看一面，這點非常重要。所以還什麼都沒發生。我認為他們應該關注所有這些事情。但如果你看看 SLR、G-SIFI、CCAR、巴塞爾協議 III、FSRT、重疊和重複，我實際上相信你可以讓系統更簡單、更便宜、更有效、更透明和更安全。

And the things like Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic did not need to happen if you just modify some things and you can create more liquidity, more loans, and a safer system. And that's really what they should be looking at, not just SLR. And so I'm hoping that over time, they do that.

如果你只是修改一些東西，你就可以創造更多的流動性、更多的貸款和更安全的系統，那麼矽谷銀行和第一共和銀行之類的事情就沒有必要發生。這才是他們真正該關注的，而不僅僅是 SLR。所以我希望隨著時間的推移，他們能夠做到這一點。

And then the second thing, which I think is even maybe more important, is they should answer their question, what do they actually want in our public markets versus our private markets, et cetera. We've gone from 8,000 public companies, I'm talking about like 25 years ago to 4,000 today. That's happened overseas.

然後第二件事，我認為甚至可能更重要，就是他們應該回答他們的問題，他們實際上想要我們的公開市場和私人市場是什麼，等等。我們從 25 年前的 8,000 家上市公司減少到今天的 4,000 家。海外也發生過這樣的事。

Public markets overseas have gotten smaller and smaller. Obviously, I'm not against private credit. Private credit is growing. And how do you really want to structure this? And why is it happening? Is that a good thing for America?

海外公開市場的規模越來越小。顯然，我並不反對私人信貸。私人信貸正在增長。您真正想如何建造它？為什麼會發生這種情況？這對美國來說是好事嗎？

And so I just -- it is time that they take a step back. There's been -- I hear sometimes from some pundits that there's been relaxing of rules and regulations; absolutely not. There's been nothing but increasing them for the better part of 15 years. They should take a deep breath, step back, and look at the system and answer the question, how can we make it better and stronger for the economy and all involved.

所以我只是——現在是他們退一步的時候了。我有時從一些專家那裡聽說，規章制度已經放鬆了；絕對不是。過去 15 年中，這些數字一直在增加。他們應該深呼吸，退一步，審視這個系統並回答這個問題：我們如何讓它變得更好、更強大，造福經濟和所有相關人員。

Yeah. And maybe gone a bit long here, but just to expand and go into a little bit of detail there. I will note that Vice Chair Bowman gave a speech on her vision having come into the new seat for ongoing work regulation. And I think it's a speech that's pretty comprehensive and lays out some of what Jamie is saying in terms of like the to-do list.

是的。這裡可能說得有點長，但我們只是想擴展一下並講得更詳細一些。我要指出的是，副主席鮑曼發表了演講，闡述了她就任新主席後對持續工作監管的願景。我認為這是一次非常全面的演講，其中列舉了傑米所說的一些待辦事項。

I think at the margin, we do understand the desire to knock some things off the to-do list that have been on it for a long time and clearly needs to be addressed like SLR. But at the same time that that happens, the holistic review done properly across not only capital, but also liquidity, resolution, et cetera, is clearly quite important.

我認為，我們確實理解人們希望從待辦事項清單中剔除一些已經存在很長時間且顯然需要解決的問題，例如 SLR。但同時，不僅要對資本，還要對流動性、處置能力等進行全面審查，這顯然非常重要。

More narrowly, in the near term, I think we continue to feel very strongly that if all the things that are out there, one of the worst is G-SIB, in the sense of both the original gold plating, the deep conceptual flaws in the framework itself, and the failure to recalibrate it for growth since it was put into effect.

更狹義地說，在短期內，我認為我們仍然強烈感覺到，如果所有存在的問題中，最糟糕的一個就是 G-SIB，無論是從最初的鍍金程度，還是從框架本身的深層概念缺陷，還是從實施以來未能重新調整以適應增長的角度來看。

And I think one of the things that's maybe a little bit under discussed there is the extent to which it specifically creates strongest incentives for American banks to be strong and globally competitive. And that is -- seems to be the exact opposite of what we want. So that's really one of the ones that needs to get attacked pretty aggressively, I would say.

我認為，其中一個可能沒有充分討論的問題是，它在多大程度上為美國銀行創造最強大的激勵，使其變得強大並具有全球競爭力。而這似乎與我們想要的完全相反。所以我想說，這確實是需要大力攻擊的問題之一。

I appreciate all the color. If I could ask on a follow-up, the inorganic comments. I'm interested in capital allocation between your businesses, where you think -- if that were to present an opportunity where -- which businesses would most likely be the use of that capital? Thanks.

我欣賞所有的色彩。如果我可以就後續問題詢問無機評論。我對您企業之間的資本配置很感興趣，您認為—如果這能帶來一個機會—哪些企業最有可能使用這些資本？謝謝。

I mean, we've talked about that a little bit over time. Obviously, we're not fundamentally capital constrained right now. So I mean, in addition to the fact that capital isn't the only financial resource that we need to allocate, I would say the larger point is that any good franchise business that it makes sense from a risk perspective and clears the cost of equity is going to get done within reason, subject to obvious caveat. So --

我的意思是，我們已經討論過這個問題一段時間了。顯然，我們現在並沒有受到根本性的資本限制。所以我的意思是，除了資本不是我們需要分配的唯一財務資源之外，我想說的更重要的一點是，任何好的特許經營業務，從風險角度來看都是合理的，並且能夠清除股權成本，都會在合理範圍內完成，但要遵守明顯的警告。所以--

Inorganic, it's a good discipline to always be looking. I would have high expectations that will be how we use a lot of capital. And I think it's a very big plus that we grow organically in every business we're in without having to stretch.

無機，這是一門值得不斷觀察的好學科。我對我們如何使用大量資本抱有很高的期望。我認為，我們在從事的每一項業務中都能夠自然發展，無需擴張，這是一個很大的優勢。

Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley.

摩根士丹利的 Betsy Graseck。

So two questions. First, on the RWA utilization via organic as you've described. I wanted to understand in wholesale lending, where you highlighted the CIB was a driver of much of this. Could you speak to the drivers of those drivers? In other words, is it private credit? Is it M&A financing? Is it inventory? What are you seeing in the market here that you're delivering on that's raising that lending profile?

所以有兩個問題。首先，如您所描述的，透過有機方式實現 RWA 利用。我想了解批發貸款的情況，您強調 CIB 是其中很大一部分的推動因素。你能和那些司機談談嗎？換句話說，它是私人信用嗎？是併購融資嗎？是庫存嗎？您在市場上看到了什麼，您正在提供什麼來提高貸款形象？

It's all of the above, Betsy, because we are the Switzerland of financing. We do everything, and we saw a lot of activity come in late in the quarter.

以上皆是，貝琪，因為我們是融資領域的瑞士。我們做了所有事情，我們看到本季末有很多活動。

Okay. Great. All right, thank you. And then Jamie, you've -- there's been a lot of discussion around stable coin, how stable coin is going to be impacting banks. And I believe you have an opinion on this. Would love to hear if you could highlight how JPM is thinking about utilizing, leveraging, competing with stable coin, and how the JPM, the deposit token feeds into all of this as well. Thank you.

好的。偉大的。好的，謝謝。然後傑米，你——關於穩定幣已經有很多討論，穩定幣將如何影響銀行。我相信你對此有自己的看法。我很想聽聽您是否可以強調 JPM 如何考慮利用、槓桿作用和與穩定幣競爭，以及 JPM 存款代幣如何融入所有這些。謝謝。

Yeah. So deposit token is effectively the same thing. You're moving money by token, you could pay interest. It's JPMorgan deposit. And stable coins. We're going to be involved in both JPMorgan deposit coin and stable coins to understand it, to be good at it.

是的。因此，存款代幣實際上是同一件事。你透過代幣轉移資金，你可以支付利息。這是摩根大通的存款。以及穩定的貨幣。我們將參與摩根大通存款幣和穩定幣，以了解它並精通它。

We don't know exactly -- I think they're real, but I don't know why you'd want a stable coin as opposed to just to payment. And -- but I do think you have fintech. These guys are very smart. I'm trying to figure out a way to create bank accounts and get the payment systems and rewards programs, and we have to be cognizant of that.

我們並不確切知道——我認為它們是真實的，但我不知道為什麼你想要一種穩定的貨幣而不是僅僅用於支付。而且——但我確實認為你們擁有金融科技。這些人非常聰明。我正在嘗試找到一種方法來創建銀行帳戶並獲得支付系統和獎勵計劃，我們必須意識到這一點。

The way to be cognizant is to be involved. But we're going to be in it and learning a lot and player.

認識的方式就是參與。但我們會參與其中並學到很多東西。

Okay, super. And then separately on the topic of open banking. I think that's on hold right now with the CFPB, on hold right now. But just wanted to understand, does this hold period gave you an opportunity to change how your pricing for your open banking and fintech relationships here?

好的，太棒了。然後分別討論開放銀行的話題。我認為消費者金融保護局 (CFPB) 目前暫停了這項計劃。但只是想了解一下，這個等待期是否為您提供了改變開放銀行和金融科技關係定價方式的機會？

So this is very important. So if we get pricing for a second, we are in favor of the customer. But we think the customer has the right to -- if they want to share their information. What we asked people to do is what are they -- do they actually know it's being shared, what is actually being shared? It should be everything, it should be what their customer wants.

所以這非常重要。因此，如果我們獲得第二個定價，我們就會有利於客戶。但我們認為，如果客戶願意分享他們的訊息，他們就有權利這樣做。我們要求人們做的是，他們是否真正知道正在分享什麼，真正分享的是什麼？它應該是一切，它應該是他們的客戶想要的。

It should have a time limit because some of these things went on for years. It should not be remarketed or resold to third parties. And so we're kind of in favor of all that done properly. And then the payment, it just costs a lot of money except the APIs and stuff like that to run the system, protection. So we just think it should be done and done right. And that's the main part. It's not like you can't do it.

它應該有一個時間限制，因為其中一些事情持續了數年。它不應被重新行銷或轉售給第三方。因此，我們贊成正確地完成所有工作。然後是付款，除了 API 和運行系統、保護之類的東西之外，還要花很多錢。因此我們認為應該這樣做，並且正確地這樣做。這就是主要部分。這並不是說你做不到。

The last thing is a liability shift. I mean, I don't think JPMorgan should be responsible if you've given your bank passcode to third parties who market and do a whole bunch of stuff with it and then you get scammed or fraud through them. They should be responsible. And we want real clarity about that.

最後一件事是責任轉移。我的意思是，如果你將你的銀行密碼提供給第三方，讓他們利用密碼進行行銷和做很多事情，然後你被他們騙了或欺詐了，我認為摩根大通不應該承擔責任。他們應該承擔責任。我們希望對此有真正的澄清。

And if you see today, a lot of these scams and frauds, they run through third-party social media and stuff like that. There should be a little more responsibility in their part. So we can all do a better job for the customer. That's why.

如果你今天看到的話，你會發現很多這類騙局和詐欺都是透過第三方社群媒體等方式進行的。他們應該承擔更多一點的責任。這樣我們就能更好地為客戶服務。這就是原因。

Steven Alexopoulos, TD Cowen.

史蒂文·亞歷克斯普洛斯（Steven Alexopoulos），TD Cowen。

I wanted to start, Jeremy, going back to your comments on inorganic things being on the table in terms of use of excess capital. So when I look at the company, so you're the largest US bank by assets. You're also the largest in terms of the data you see every day. And you may or may not have seen that Apple is looking at possibly there's shatter getting in today.

傑里米，首先我想回顧一下你關於在利用過剩資本方面存在的無機事物的評論。所以當我看這家公司時，發現你們是美國資產規模最大的銀行。從每天看到的數據來看，你也是最大的。您可能已經看到或沒有看到，蘋果正在考慮今天可能出現的情況。

I gave more by looking at a company such as a Perplexity. Just thinking out that here, would it make sense for JPMorgan to consider acquiring an LLM, right? The last two quarters of buybacks are about the last valuation round for Perplexity, right? I'm thinking of you guys, you could become LLM for the financial services industry. What are your thoughts on this?

透過觀察 Perplexity 這樣的公司，我得到了更多。只是想一想，摩根大通考慮獲得法學碩士學位是否有意義？最後兩季的回購是 Perplexity 的最後一輪估值，對嗎？我想到你們，你們可以成為金融服務業的法學碩士。您對此有何看法？

We use LLMs and we're going to be agnostic about that, too. There's no reason for us to own one. At least, we can't feel why that would make sense. Yeah. And I wouldn't -- we really use it and we will obviously be important in using our data to help our customers.

我們使用法學碩士學位 (LLM)，我們對此也持不可知論態度。我們沒有理由擁有它。至少，我們無法理解這其中的道理。是的。我不會——我們確實會使用它，而且我們顯然會利用我們的數據來幫助我們的客戶。

Yeah. And on the question of inorganic deployment, I would sort of lend my comments with Jamie, right? In the end, I'm just asserting that, of course, we need to look at inorganic opportunities. And of course, that's a question that comes up given our current excess capital position. But Jamie said clearly that he doesn't think that's particularly likely, or some of the reasons that you emphasize it's not easy to imagine a deal that would actually make sense.

是的。關於無機部署的問題，我會和 Jamie 達成共識，對嗎？最後，我只是想說，當然，我們需要考慮無機機會。當然，考慮到我們目前的過剩資本狀況，這個問題就出現了。但傑米明確表示，他認為這種情況不太可能發生，或者正如你強調的一些原因，很難想像一項真正有意義的協議。

We do a lot of small ones, by the way, which you've seen.

順便說一下，我們做了很多小事，正如您所看到的。

Yeah, okay. And then going back, Jamie, to your answer to Betsy's question on the tokenized deposit. I get it, how that makes sense in terms of the customers that are inside your walled garden, but it doesn't help them much in terms of dealing with customers outside of your garden. What's holding up you guys and the other banks getting together to issue something joint, similar to what you've done with Zelle and prevent these stable coin companies like Circle coming in offering a more convenient solution to your customers?

嗯，好的。然後回到傑米，你對貝琪關於代幣化存款的問題的回答。我明白，這對你圍牆花園內的客戶來說很有意義，但對於他們與花園外的客戶打交道來說，這並沒有太大幫助。是什麼阻礙了你們和其他銀行聯合發行類似 Zelle 的貨幣，並阻止 Circle 等穩定幣公司為你們的客戶提供更便捷的解決方案？

That's a great question. And we’ll leave it remaining as a question.

這是一個很好的問題。我們將把它留作一個問題。

Without an answer?

沒有答案？

Well, as you can -- you're raising a very important point about interoperability of stable coins and deposits and movement of money, and we're probably trying to solve. But you're raising great points. You can assume we're thinking about all of that.

好吧，正如您所說——您提出了一個非常重要的觀點，關於穩定幣和存款以及資金流動的互通性，我們可能正在努力解決這個問題。但你提出的觀點非常好。你可以假設我們正在考慮所有這些。

Ebrahim Poonawala, Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

易卜拉欣‧普納瓦拉 (Ebrahim Poonawala)，美國銀行美林證券。

This almost sounds like a fintech and AI call. But maybe just switching gears, I think, Jamie, your comments in the press release, give us a sense like when we think about middle market businesses in the US, what's the state of play there when we think about interstates, tariffs, consumer spending slowing? Should we be concerned in terms of credit quality outlook looking out 6, 9, 12 months? Just what's your take based on all the data that you all look at?

這聽起來幾乎像是金融科技和人工智慧的呼喚。但也許只是換個話題，傑米，我認為，你在新聞稿中的評論讓我們感覺到，當我們考慮美國的中型市場企業時，當我們考慮州際、關稅、消費者支出放緩時，那裡的狀況如何？我們是否應該關注未來 6 個月、9 個月、12 個月的信用品質前景？那麼，根據您所看到的所有數據，您的看法是什麼？

You can ask the thing about the data, but very important, we love the middle market business. It drives a lot of business we've built. I think 500 bankers in the Innovation Economy, which is kind of new to us think of what Silicon Valley Bank used to do and things like that. We still have a huge addressable market and middle-market business. We provide not just lending, and that could be leverage lending, direct lending, but payment services, custody services, asset management services, FX services.

您可以詢問有關數據的事情，但非常重要的是，我們熱愛中端市場業務。它推動了我們建立的許多業務。我認為創新經濟中有 500 名銀行家，這對我們來說是一種新事物，想想矽谷銀行過去所做的事情等等。我們仍然擁有龐大的潛在市場和中端市場業務。我們提供的不僅是貸款，包括槓桿貸款、直接貸款，還提供支付服務、託管服務、資產管理服務、外匯服務。

So we're going to grow that business regardless of what we predict the environment is going to be in the next six to nine months.

因此，無論我們預測未來六到九個月的環境如何，我們都將發展業務。

Got it. And I guess just as a follow on -- go ahead, Jeremy, yeah.

知道了。我想作為後續——繼續吧，傑里米，是的。

No, go ahead, ask your follow-up.

不，繼續，詢問你的後續情況。

And I was just wondering in terms of your sense of just the state of play, the health of the balance sheets of these customers. And also, if you can expand that into the consumer, any areas of stress from a credit quality perspective that you're beginning to get more concerned today versus three or six months ago?

我只是想知道您對目前情況的看法，以及這些客戶的資產負債表的健康狀況。此外，如果您可以將其擴展到消費者，那麼從信用品質的角度來看，與三到六個月前相比，您現在開始更加擔心哪些壓力領域？

Yeah, right. Okay, because that's what I was going to try to clarify. I just wasn't sure if you were doing consumer wholesale or both. So let's do consumer quickly. I think -- we talk about this every quarter. It's obviously a very important question. We look at it very closely. It obviously matters a lot for us as a company. But we continue to struggle to see signs of weakness. We just -- the consumer basically seems to be fine.

是的，對。好的，因為這就是我想要澄清的。我只是不確定您是否從事消費者批發業務或兩者兼而有之。因此讓我們快速做消費者。我認為——我們每季都會談論這個問題。這顯然是一個非常重要的問題。我們對此進行了非常仔細的觀察。這對我們公司來說顯然意義重大。但我們仍然難以看到疲軟的跡象。我們只是——消費者基本上看起來還不錯。

Now things are true. Like if you look at indicators of stress, not surprisingly, you see a little bit more stress in the lower income bands and you're seeing the higher income bands. But that's always true. That's pretty much definitionally true and nothing there is outlined with our expectations. Our delinquency rates are also in line with expectations. You saw that we kept our net charge-off guidance unchanged. So all that looks fine.

現在事情已經是事實了。如果你觀察壓力指標，毫不奇怪的是，你會發現低收入階層的壓力更大一些，而高收入階層的壓力則更大一些。但這始終是事實。這在定義上幾乎是正確的，並且沒有任何內容符合我們的期望。我們的拖欠率也符合預期。您會看到我們保持淨沖銷指引不變。一切看起來都很好。

And to be honest, as we've said before, fundamentally, while there are nuances around the edges, consumer credit is primarily about labor markets. And in a world with 4.1% unemployment rate, it's just going to be hard, especially in our portfolio to see a lot of weakness.

老實說，正如我們之前所說，從根本上來說，雖然存在一些細微差別，但消費信貸主要與勞動市場有關。在失業率高達 4.1% 的世界裡，這將是困難的，尤其是在我們的投資組合中，很難看到太多的疲軟。

Now it is true that if you look at -- not our data, but the government's data, I think I was looking at this the other day, like first-half real consumer spending of this year versus second half of last year is down. Now it's still positive, still growing, but it's down. So it's consistent with this soft landing narrative, which is also consistent with the GDP outlook that our economists are publishing.

確實，如果你看一下——不是我們的數據，而是政府的數據，我想我前幾天就看過這個數據，比如今年上半年的實際消費者支出與去年下半年相比有所下降。現在它仍然是正數，仍在增長，但已經下降了。因此，這與軟著陸的說法一致，也與我們的經濟學家發布的 GDP 前景一致。

Our own data looked in nominal terms on a cohort basis, actually shows spending up a little bit over the same period. So it is the same narrative of things being fine with different signals pointing in slightly different directions, but nothing particularly concerning.

我們自己的數據顯示，以群體名義上來看，同一時期的支出實際上有所增加。因此，事情進展順利，只是不同的訊號指向略有不同的方向，但沒有什麼特別令人擔憂的。

That was helpful. And would you say the same about Commercial?

這很有幫助。您對商業也會有同樣的看法嗎？

I mean, basically, yes, you see some idiosyncratic things here and there. And on the point of tariffs, I guess, obviously, you recall the slide that we did at Investor Day, highlighting that different sectors are going to have different experiences as a function of their margins, their sensitivity of the input cost, the amount of pricing power, the amount of leverage and where the rules actually land. But people are obviously getting some time to adjust, and we're watching it very closely. So we'll see.

我的意思是，基本上，是的，你會在這裡和那裡看到一些特殊的東西。關於關稅問題，我想，顯然，您還記得我們在投資者日製作的幻燈片，其中強調了不同行業將因其利潤率、投入成本的敏感度、定價能力、槓桿率以及規則的實際落地而有不同的經歷。但人們顯然需要一些時間來適應，我們正在密切關注。我們拭目以待。

John McDonald, Truist Securities.

約翰·麥克唐納（John McDonald），Truist Securities。

Jeremy, quick follow-up on the consumer credit, broader comments taken there. But in terms of the NPAs, the nonaccruals and consumers seem to have a bit of a jump. Is there something technical there? Maybe just talk to that.

傑里米，快速跟進消費者信貸問題，並在那裡發表了更廣泛的評論。但就不良資產而言，不提款項和消費者似乎有點跳遠。那裡有什麼技術嗎？也許只是談論這個。

Yeah. Thanks for that, John. I'm glad to get a chance to clarify this. There is something technical, which has to do with customers in the -- home lending customers in the LA area, using our forbearance availability as a result of the wildfires.

是的。謝謝你，約翰。我很高興有機會澄清這一點。有一些技術問題，與洛杉磯地區的房屋貸款客戶有關，由於野火，他們利用了我們的寬容度。

So that is resulting in an uptick in the nonperforming. But when you think about land value, and the insurance there, the actual loss expectation is de minimis, I would say.

因此，這導致不良貸款數量上升。但當你考慮到土地價值和那裡的保險時，我想說，實際損失預期是微不足道的。

So we always do that for customers where they have really difficulty.

因此，當客戶真正遇到困難時，我們總是會這樣做。

Exactly. So that's what's driving that one.

確切地。這就是推動這項進程的因素。

Okay. Great. And wanted to ask for some more color on retail deposits. Maybe in the context of Marianne's presentation from Investor Day, could you remind us of what's giving you incremental confidence and seeing some improvement in deposit margin and kind of producing that mid- to upper single-digit deposit growth that Marianne talked about?

好的。偉大的。並想詢問有關零售存款的更多細節。也許在瑪麗安投資者日演講的背景下，您能否提醒我們，是什麼讓您更有信心，看到存款保證金有所改善，並產生瑪麗安所說的中上個位數的存款增長？

Yeah, sure. So I think what you're referring to is a slide where Marianne talked about kind of the potential for 6% consumer deposit growth next year. And that's a nice number. And as you've written, that would produce some nice revenue consequences all else being equal.

是的，當然。所以我認為你所指的是瑪麗安談到明年消費者存款成長 6% 的潛力的幻燈片。這是一個不錯的數字。正如您所寫的，在其他條件相同的情況下，這將產生一些不錯的收入結果。

The way I think about that number is to build it up step by step. So you start with, in general, the consumer deposit base in the system has grown probably slightly above nominal GDP. I think that's been true for us recently is that as a result of our market position and our pricing choices, we've probably lost a little bit of share during the rate hiking cycle through -- in isolation from yield-seeking flows.

我思考這個數字的方式是逐步建立它。因此，首先，整體而言，系統中的消費者存款基數的成長可能略高於名目 GDP。我認為最近我們面臨的情況是，由於我們的市場地位和定價選擇，在升息週期中，我們可能失去了一些份額——與尋求收益的資金流無關。

But the yield taking flows having abated a little bit, that relative headwind is behind us, or increasingly behind us. And you've got some core growth reasserting itself. You saw us call out the growth in net new accounts and consumer checking this quarter, and that's one of the key drivers.

但殖利率曲線已經減弱，相對的逆風已經過去，或者說逐漸過去。而你已經獲得了一些核心成長的重新確立。您看到我們本季宣布淨新增帳戶和消費者支票的成長，這是關鍵驅動因素之一。

And then as you know well, when you look at the franchise, we kind of have, number one, ongoing expansion. Number two, seasoning of the old expansion. And number three, deepening in the core markets. So when you put all that together and you look at sort of the history of the growth macro environment, et cetera, that's how you get to that type of 6% number. And obviously, things could change quite dramatically to produce a different number, among other things.

然後，正如你所知，當你看特許經營權時，我們首先會持續擴張。第二，對舊擴張進行調味。第三，深化核心市場。因此，當你把所有這些放在一起，並查看成長宏觀環境的歷史等等時，你就會得到 6% 這個數字。顯然，情況可能會發生很大變化，從而產生不同的數字等等。

You'll recall that Marianne's slide also talked about a stress scenario with lower rates, which perhaps somewhat not intuitively would produce actually higher growth as a result of even less yield-seeking flow and a higher consumer savings rate.

您會記得，瑪麗安的幻燈片也談到了利率較低的壓力情景，這也許有點不直觀，但由於尋求收益的資金流更少和消費者儲蓄率更高，實際上會產生更高的增長。

But the flip side of that is also true, which is an unexpectedly high rate environment would probably lead to lower balance growth, all else equal, in consumer. So we'd like to say those are all else being equal type numbers, but all else is never equal.

但另一方面也是如此，即在其他條件相同的情況下，意外的高利率環境可能會導致消費者的餘額成長降低。因此，我們想說這些都是其他條件都相同的類型的數字，但其他條件永遠不會相同。

Mike Mayo, Wells Fargo.

富國銀行的麥克·梅奧。

Jeremy, can you talk about why commercial loan growth was much stronger in the second quarter and any strength by geography? And Jamie, can you address what regulators could do to potentially have banks lend more in the future consistent with what the Treasury Secretary said is his goal? Thanks.

傑里米，您能談談為什麼第二季商業貸款成長更加強勁，以及各地區的優勢嗎？傑米，您能否談談監管機構可以採取哪些措施，以使銀行未來能夠提供更多貸款，從而實現財政部長所說的目標？謝謝。

Yeah. Thanks, Mike. So on loan growth, as you know, it's useful to break this down between what I would think of as like relationship lending that drives the whole franchise. And we sometimes look at maybe as an indicator of the health of the corporate sector in some sense, and people like to look at it as a read across for the smaller banks, et cetera. That part of the franchise remains fine, but muted as customers have access to capital markets and revolver utilization is flattish in general.

是的。謝謝，麥克。因此，關於貸款成長，如您所知，將其分解為我認為推動整個特許經營的關係貸款是有用的。我們有時會將其視為某種意義上企業部門健康狀況的指標，人們喜歡將其視為小型銀行等的參考指標。特許經營的這一部分仍然很好，但由於客戶可以進入資本市場並且循環信貸的使用率總體持平，因此這一部分錶現較差。

But as I noted, I think previously, and as you see coming through the IB fee performance, there was just quite a bit of deal activity in the second half of the quarter, a lot of which is well known and public. And some of that is on our balance sheet, and we're very happy to have it there.

但正如我之前提到的，我認為，正如你從 IB 費用表現中看到的那樣，本季下半段的交易活動相當多，其中許多都是眾所周知的和公開的。其中一部分已經在我們的資產負債表上，我們很高興能將其呈現在那裡。

To answer your other question, Mike. So some of the -- I'm going to give you some things that you can actually do. So I think you should do them and reduce risk in the system. I'm not going to talk about how they increase lending for a second. So G-SIFI inhibits, if you look at it, both a little bit of lending and a little bit of market making. The LCR inhibits both because it's a very rigid way of looking at the bank balance sheet. It doesn't really give you credit for potential access to window and things like that.

回答你的另一個問題，麥克。因此，我將告訴您一些您實際上可以做的事情。所以我認為你應該這樣做並降低系統風險。我不想談論他們如何增加貸款。因此，如果你看一下，你會發現 G-SIFI 既抑制了少量貸款，也抑制了少量做市活動。LCR 抑制了這兩種情況，因為它是一種非常嚴格的銀行資產負債表觀察方式。它實際上並沒有給予您訪問視窗和類似事物的潛在權限。

CCAR in some cases inhibit -- and people -- we talk about CCAR-ness, but there's a lot of CCAR-ness from small business loans and stuff like that, where people hold that back a little bit because it creates too much volatility. And CCAR capital, the FSRT, the fundamental book. And so all the -- when you look at all these things, I think you can create more lending, more liquidity, more flexibility ,and reduce the risk in the system.

在某些情況下，CCAR 會抑制——人們——我們談論 CCAR 性，但小型企業貸款和類似的東西中有很多 CCAR 性，人們會稍微抑制它，因為它會造成太大的波動。以及 CCAR 資本、FSRT、基本帳簿。所以，當你考慮所有這些事情時，我認為你可以創造更多的貸款、更多的流動性、更多的靈活性，並降低系統中的風險。

And also just CET, just capital usage, et cetera. So -- and they're reducing the risk in the system. I think you're also make it friendlier for community banks, which we do want to do. And so if you look at like total loan to deposits, they used to be 100%, but now 70%, okay? And that's a huge difference that took place over 10 or 15 years.

還有 CET、資本運用等等。所以——他們正在降低系統中的風險。我認為你們也讓社區銀行變得更加友好，這也是我們想要做的。因此，如果您看一下貸款與存款總額，以前是 100%，但現在是 70%，好嗎？這是 10 至 15 年間發生的巨大變化。

And can you get that back to 85% and have the banking system be just safe and sound, absolutely.

你能否將其恢復到 85% 並確保銀行系統安全穩健？絕對可以。

You didn't mention the cost to make a loan. Is there a potential for streamlining there?

您沒有提到貸款成本。那裡有精簡的潛力嗎？

Yeah, and I'd put securitization to that category. We need a more active securitization market and all these things can reduce the actual cost of making loan. I pointed out in the past that mortgages probably cost 30 or 40 or 50 basis points more because of excessive securitization, origination and service requirements. Those could be changed and would dramatically help mortgages, particularly for low-income individuals. And we've just have failed to do it for 10 years, and it wouldn't create any additional risk. And we could show you data that shows that.

是的，我會把證券化歸入這一類。我們需要一個更活躍的證券化市場，所有這些都可以降低貸款的實際成本。我過去曾指出，由於過度的證券化、發起和服務要求，抵押貸款成本可能高出 30、40 或 50 個基點。這些政策可能會發生改變，並將極大地幫助抵押貸款，特別是對低收入者。而我們十年來一直未能做到這一點，而且它不會帶來任何額外的風險。我們可以向您展示可以證明這一點的數據。

And last one, when you say inorganic growth, would you buy a private credit firm? Is that something you can at least consider?

最後，當您說到無機成長時，您會購買一家私人信貸公司嗎？您至少可以考慮一下嗎？

I would say it's not high in my list because we can do it ourselves and they're buying people and comp plans. And I also think you may have seen peak private credit a little bit. I don't know that. But we already do it. So -- if it was the right people at the right price, the right so we should look at it.

我想說這在我的清單中並不靠前，因為我們可以自己做，而且他們正在購買人員和補償計劃。我還認為您可能已經看到了私人信貸的峰值。我不知道。但我們已經這樣做了。所以——如果以合適的價格找到合適的人才，那就合適了，所以我們應該考慮。

I think, Mike, you should always be open-minded when people come to you with something you hadn't thought about before. And you just get smarter by looking at these things.

我認為，麥克，當人們向你提出一些你以前從未想過的事情時，你應該始終保持開放的心態。透過觀察這些事情，你會變得更聰明。

Peak private credit, I can't leave on those three words. What do you mean by peak private credit?

民間信用巔峰，這三個字我不能留下來。私人信貸峰值是什麼意思？

Well, I've mentioned that credit spreads are very low. It's grown dramatically over time, and you have to pay up a lot for it. And I'm not saying it's not going to grow some more, but I just -- I would have a slight reluctance depending on what it was.

嗯，我已經提到信用利差非常低。隨著時間的推移，它急劇增長，你必須為此付出很多代價。我並不是說它不會再成長，但我只是——根據它的情況，我會有點不情願。

But you might -- your bankers who might come to us with something tomorrow that we just hadn't thought about it as a complete natural fit for us, natural fit being product and people and culture.

但是，你的銀行家明天可能會向我們提出一些我們以前沒有想到的適合我們的東西，而這些適合的東西就是產品、人員和文化。

Sorry, Jeremy?

對不起，傑瑞米？

No, I was literally going to say what Jamie just said, so we're good.

不，我實際上正要重複傑米剛才說的話，所以我們很好。

Erika Najarian, UBS.

瑞銀的 Erika Najarian。

Jamie and Jeremy, you've talked about simplifying the regulatory construct. And it seems like based on the progress so far, will mostly get there, particularly with Basel III Endgame and G-SIB, which impacts you so much.

傑米和傑瑞米，你們談到了簡化監管結構。從目前的進展來看，似乎大部分都會實現，特別是巴塞爾協議 III 的最後階段和 G-SIB，這對你影響很大。

And to that end, if we do get a more simplified regulatory construct that addresses both the capital and liquidity constraints, does that move up JPMorgan's natural ROTCE? You talked about 17% through the cycle a lot. Obviously, perhaps we would optimize the denominator. Why wouldn't that be additive to your natural ROTCE? Or does this get passed back on to your clients in terms of pricing?

為此，如果我們確實獲得了一個更簡化的監管結構，能夠同時解決資本和流動性限制，這是否會提高摩根大通的自然 ROTCE？您多次談論了整個週期的 17%。顯然，也許我們會優化分母。為什麼這不會對你的自然 ROTCE 產生附加作用？或者這會以定價的方式轉嫁給您的客戶嗎？

In a competitive world, it is a rational thing that -- and when it applies to all the competitors, everybody is going to make a lot more money, you keep it as opposed to compete in the marketplace. I hope people to have a good competitive position relative to everybody else. But no, I don't think you should automatically say it's going to increase your returns. Remember, Jeff Bezos says, your margin is my opportunity. That would be a huge opportunity for fintech, fiber credit, alternative players, et cetera.

在競爭激烈的世界裡，這是一件理性的事情——當它適用於所有競爭對手時，每個人都會賺更多的錢，你會保留它而不是在市場上競爭。我希望人們相對於其他人而言擁有良好的競爭地位。但不，我認為你不應該自動說它會增加你的回報。記住，傑夫貝佐斯說過，你的利潤就是我的機會。這對於金融科技、光纖信貸、另類參與者等來說將是一個巨大的機會。

So you got to be a little careful of the thing that would happen. I think it's a good thing for the system though.

所以你必須對即將發生的事情保持謹慎。但我認為這對系統來說是件好事。

Yeah, exactly. And as we always said, Erika, right, like the market is very competitive, and the returns are high. And you know this, but I would just refer you to the slide that I delivered at Investor Day about how in some cases, it makes all else equal compared to buying back shares at these prices, doing healthy, well underwritten, compelling franchise business with a 14% return, we're definitely supposed to do that actually. And if we do a lot of that, it will dilute down the weighted average ROTCE of the company in ways that are nonetheless clearly accretive to shareholders.

是的，確實如此。正如我們一直在說的，艾莉卡，對的，市場競爭非常激烈，回報率很高。你知道這一點，但我只是想讓你參考我在投資者日上提供的幻燈片，關於在某些情況下，與以這些價格回購股票相比，它使所有其他條件都相同，經營健康、承保良好、引人注目的特許經營業務並獲得 14% 的回報率，我們實際上肯定應該這樣做。如果我們大量這樣做，它將會稀釋公司的加權平均ROTCE，但顯然這仍能為股東帶來增值。

So Jeremy showed you a little thing about business units that earn high returns to lower returns. I think you should do a lower return once because they fit hand in glove with other stuff, if you didn't do, you might lose the other. But there are some businesses out there with very high returns. That we just -- we deploy capital by adding bankers or branches or products, not directly by deploying capital. So just think of branches. That does, or a private bank or things like that.

因此，傑里米向你們展示了一些有關高回報業務部門和低迴報業務部門的情況。我認為你應該做一次較低的回報，因為它們與其他東西密切相關，如果你不這樣做，你可能會失去其他的。但也有一些企業的報酬率非常高。我們只是透過增加銀行家、分行或產品來部署資本，而不是直接部署資本。所以只需考慮分支。確實如此，或私人銀行或類似的東西。

Yeah, for sure. And I think that's a big discussion point with investors in terms of talking about actually the EPS gains rather than just ROTCE improvement.

是的，當然。我認為，在與投資者討論每股盈餘（EPS）成長而非僅 ROTCE 改善時，這是一個重要的討論點。

And the second question I had is you mentioned, and clearly, we saw it in the numbers, a late in the quarter, pickup in activity levels. And I'm wondering as we think about sentiment and what this means for the second half, is it -- does activity levels pick up because it felt like we were taking extreme outcomes from tariff policy off the table? Is it the tax bill certainty?

我的第二個問題是您提到的，而且很明顯，我們從數據中看到了這一點，即本季末活動水平有所回升。我想知道，當我們思考情緒以及這對下半年意味著什麼時，活動水平是否會上升，因為感覺我們正在消除關稅政策帶來的極端結果？稅單確定嗎？

I guess I'm just wondering, has some of the issues that prevented activity levels, or really stunned it in April and early May, have those fully been taken out of your clients thinking as we think about the second half of the year and activity levels continuing from here?

我想我只是想知道，當我們考慮下半年以及從現在開始的活動水平時，一些阻礙活動水平或真正震驚 4 月和 5 月初的活動水平的問題是否已經完全從您的客戶考慮中消除？

Jeremy, you might want to -- I'll just answer your question by saying, honestly, we don't know. And you've seen how rapidly pipelines can grow and shrink. And so you -- that lesson we've learned over and over, it may stay wide open for 1.5 years. Something may happen geopolitically, that all of sudden that pipeline slows a little bit.

傑里米，你可能想——我只想回答你的問題，老實說，我們不知道。你已經看到管道增長和收縮的速度有多快。所以你 — — 我們已經一次又一次地吸取了這個教訓，它可能會在 1.5 年內保持開放狀態。地緣政治方面可能會發生一些事情，導致管道運輸速度突然減緩。

And so I'm always a little cautious to guess what that's going to be. But if we continue this way, yes, you're going to have very active markets.

因此我總是小心翼翼地猜測那會是什麼。但如果我們繼續這樣下去，是的，你將會擁有非常活躍的市場。

Yeah. And my version of that, Erika, I would be to say that you talked about certain the tail risk getting taken completely off the table, and that's clearly not true, right? All the tail risks are all still there quite prominently and in many cases, in the daily news flow. Maybe at the margin, the tails are a little bit less fat right now. I think it's also true that in terms of our -- what the things that we've said about our investment banking pipeline have been consistently quite cautious.

是的。而我的觀點是，艾莉卡，你說的某些尾部風險已經完全被排除在外，但這顯然不是事實，對吧？所有尾部風險仍然相當明顯地存在，並且在許多情況下，都出現在每日新聞流中。也許從邊緣來看，尾巴現在沒那麼肥了。我認為就我們的投資銀行業務而言，我們一直都相當謹慎。

And a certain point, when you have the type of performance that you have this quarter, starts to make your cautiousness seem less credible. So we wanted to take a hard look at ourselves and say, what do we really think. And it's like, yeah, the sentiment is better -- but as Jamie says, like that can change overnight, and there are a lot of risks.

當你擁有本季這樣的業績表現時，某種程度上，你的謹慎就顯得不那麼可信了。因此，我們想認真審視自己，問問自己，我們到底在想什麼。是的，情緒確實好多了——但正如傑米所說，這種情況可能在一夜之間發生改變，而且存在很多風險。

I do think that extending the tax bill, or business to know what their taxes are going to be is a positive going forward. And that does reduce the risk that the bill didn't get done. I also think when it comes to tariffs, I think the initial liberation date is now there's more talk as more things getting done, a couple of -- now, a couple have been delayed. That reduces that risk a little bit.

我確實認為延長稅收法案或讓企業了解他們的稅收將會是多少是一個積極的進展。這確實降低了法案無法通過的風險。我還認為，談到關稅，我認為最初的解放日期現在是隨著越來越多的事情要做而有更多的討論，有幾個 - 現在，有幾個已經被推遲了。這稍微降低了風險。

And hopefully, they'll get done. So there's still risk out there, but I am hopeful that some of these frameworks are completed soon, at least before August 1.

希望他們能夠完成。因此風險仍然存在，但我希望其中一些框架能夠盡快完成，至少在 8 月 1 日之前。

Jim Mitchell, Seaport Global Securities.

吉姆·米切爾，Seaport Global Securities。

Maybe just on -- Jeremy, if I look at your 10-Q and 10-K rate sensitivity disclosures, it looks like you guys have done a lot to reduce your asset sensitivity to the short end of the curve. So can you talk about what you've been doing to change the positioning of the balance sheet, whether extending duration or hedges? And is there more you can do to desensitize the balance sheet before rate cuts begin to kick in as I guess the markets expect later this year? Thanks.

也許只是——傑里米，如果我看一下你的 10-Q 和 10-K 利率敏感度披露，看起來你們已經做了很多工作來降低資產對曲線短端的敏感度。那麼，您能談談您為改變資產負債表的定位所採取的措施嗎，無論是延長期限還是對沖？我猜市場預計今年稍後會出現降息，在降息開始生效之前，您還能採取更多措施來降低資產負債表的敏感度嗎？謝謝。

Before he goes on, what the market expects is almost what never happens.

在他繼續說下去之前，市場所期望的事情幾乎永遠不會發生。

Fair enough.

很公平。

All right. So it's a good question, Jim. But yeah, as Jamie points out, just remember that the extent of the market is efficient, which maybe it's not, but you can't really hedge ahead of cuts that are already priced in, right? So that's what I'm saying out loud. But I mean, you can decrease volatility, but it's just a question of now or later.

好的。所以這是個好問題，吉姆。但是，正如傑米指出的那樣，只要記住市場的範圍是有效的，也許事實並非如此，但你無法在已經計入價格的降價之前進行對沖，對嗎？這就是我要大聲說出來的話。但我的意思是，你可以降低波動性，但這只是現在或未來的問題。

But having said that, on the question of decreasing volatility, we did, in fact, add some duration this quarter with the usual mix of instruments and strategies, but primarily in the front end of the yield curve, which was designed to essentially balance out the tails a little bit so that we were a little bit less exposed to a classic recessionary-type scenario with much lower rates in exchange for accepting a little bit less good outcomes and like higher rate scenarios, at least narrowly through the lens of NII.

但話雖如此，在降低波動性的問題上，我們確實在本季度通過通常的工具和策略組合增加了一些期限，但主要是在收益率曲線的前端，其目的是從本質上平衡尾部，以便我們不太容易受到典型的衰退型情景的影響，即利率低得多，以換取接受不太好的結果，例如更高的利率情景，至少從國家信息基礎設施的角度來看是這樣。

As we've talked about a little bit over time, though, I like the way you framed it in terms of like having the capacity. And I think the way to think about it there is that in general, it's almost impossible to get your assets -- for a bank like us, it's always impossible to get your asset sensitivity, your actual asset sensitivity down to zero, because you wind up constraint by other things. So we're in the corridor, and we're okay with where we are right now.

不過，正如我們一段時間以來所談論的那樣，我喜歡你從能力的角度來闡述它的方式。我認為，從總體上看，對於像我們這樣的銀行來說，幾乎不可能將資產敏感度、實際資產敏感度降至零，因為最終會受到其他因素的限制。所以我們在走廊裡，我們對現在的位置感到滿意。

Okay, thanks. And maybe just one more on the regulatory front. I think regulators look at reducing the SLR as a way to encourage banks, or open up an avenue to expand your balance sheet into lower-risk assets. Do you see that -- is it really just a supply issue? Or how do you think about the demand supply dynamic?

好的，謝謝。也許在監管方面還有更多。我認為監管機構將降低 SLR 視為鼓勵銀行的一種方式，或開闢一條將資產負債表擴展到低風險資產的途徑。您是否看到了這一點——這真的只是一個供應問題嗎？或您如何看待供需動態？

And is there really opportunities for you to grow? I would imagine, I guess, with an SLR not being constrained, maybe it's better return in lower-margin areas? Just your thoughts.

您真的有成長的機會嗎？我想，如果 SLR 不受限制，那麼在利潤率較低的地區，回報可能會更好？只是你的想法。

Yeah. It's a good question. You may recall I actually got a version of this question at Investor Day, so I'll more or less repeat my answer here, which is that as we know, fixing SLR has been on the list for a long time. It behaved very much not the way it was designed in the moment of big QE when it became binding and it had bad impacts on the system.

是的。這是個好問題。您可能還記得，我在投資者日實際上收到過這個問題的一個版本，所以我或多或少會在這裡重複我的答案，那就是，正如我們所知，修復 SLR 已經在清單上很長時間了。在實施大規模量化寬鬆政策時，它的表現與設計時大相徑庭，變得具有約束力，並對系統產生了不良影響。

It’s the opposite of what we want for these backstop measures. And so we don't want regulators to need to make unusual corrections to mid crisis. It's just not the right way to run the railroad.

這與我們期望的保障措施恰恰相反。因此，我們不希望監管機構在危機中期做出不尋常的修正。這不是營運鐵路的正確方式。

I think everyone has agreed on that for a long time. And in that context, it's been really disappointing that something as obvious as this has taken as long as this to get fixed. But it's a good sign that it's now out there, and we certainly support the proposal. There are some nuances that comment have been requested, but at a high level, it's a good proposal. It's the right thing to do.

我想大家早就同意這一點了。在這種情況下，如此明顯的問題卻花了這麼長時間才解決，真是令人失望。但現在這個提議已經提出，這是一個好兆頭，我們當然支持這個提議。雖然有些細微之處需要評論，但從高層次來看，這是一個很好的提議。這是正確的做法。

And it's the right thing to do from the perspective of the resilience of the system for the next time that we've got that type of expansion in the size of the system that could make it binding in the wrong way for the wrong reasons.

從系統彈性的角度來看，這是正確的做法，因為下一次我們再進行這種系統規模的擴張時，可能會因為錯誤的原因而以錯誤的方式產生約束力。

But yeah, as you know and as we've said, we're not really bound by it. I think other actors in the market may be a little bit more bound by it. There are also some nuances about impact on portfolio activity, which I would expect to be very small, versus impact on low risk intermediation in the market-making businesses, which is maybe where you would hope to see the effect.

但是，是的，正如你所知，正如我們所說的，我們實際上並不受其約束。我認為市場中的其他參與者可能會受到更多約束。對投資組合活動的影響也存在一些細微差別，我預計這種影響會非常小，而對做市業務中低風險中介的影響則可能是您希望看到的效果。

So it's a good thing. Hopefully, it will help. Obviously, it's pretty fully priced in at this point. So I don't think you're going to see a big pop one way or the other as a function of it's eventually being finalized. Just I think everyone's assuming it will go in roughly its current form.

所以這是一件好事。希望這會有所幫助。顯然，目前價格已經完全反映在價格上。因此，我認為你不會看到它以任何方式大幅上漲，因為它最終還是會完成。我只是認為每個人都認為它會大致按照目前的形式發展。

And unlike a broken record. It's not SLR, it's LCR, it's G-SIFI, CCAR, it's Basel IV, the gold plating. You really got to step back and look at all of them and how you use the discount window, et cetera. And even how you measure liquidity, which is different in one measure than it is in resolution recovery, they should look at all of that if they really want to fix the system.

並且與破損的唱片不同。這不是 SLR，而是 LCR、G-SIFI、CCAR、巴塞爾協議 IV，鍍金版。你真的必須退一步看看所有這些以及如何使用折扣窗口等等。甚至如何衡量流動性，這與衡量決議恢復的指標有所不同，如果他們真的想修復這個系統，就應該考慮所有這些。

Ken Usdin, Autonomous.

肯‧烏斯丁，自治。

First question is I just wanted to ask you about the recent Sapphire price changes and just what you're seeing in terms of initial response, and just how that fits in strategically with the competitive landscape on Card and your growth opportunity?

第一個問題是，我只想問您有關最近的 Sapphire 價格變化以及您所看到的初步反應，以及這與信用卡的競爭格局和您的成長機會在策略上如何契合？

Yeah, sure. So let me dispense with the question of how it's going for.

是的，當然。因此，讓我先不討論事情進展如何。

So far.

迄今為止。

Going fine. We're happy. In terms of strategic aspects of this and the competitive landscape, I think the way we think about this is as a normal course refresh of one of our important products and the way that all of our products get refreshed periodically. Obviously, this is a relatively high-profile product. Many of us have the Card. We see the odds everywhere. So it sort of punches above its weight in that respect in terms of visibility.

一切順利。我們很高興。就這一策略層面和競爭格局而言，我認為我們對此的看法是，將其作為我們重要產品之一的正常更新，以及我們所有產品定期更新的方式。顯然，這是一款比較受關注的產品。我們很多人都有這張卡。我們隨處可見賠率。因此，從可見性方面來看，它的表現超出了它的預期。

In terms of the competitive landscape, I think the thing that we feel really great about is the dramatic increase in the customer value proposition associated with the Card. And in particular, one of the things that we look at is the ratio of the customer value to the annual fee, which is clearly market leading at this point.

就競爭格局而言，我認為我們真正感到高興的是與信用卡相關的客戶價值主張的大幅提升。我們特別關注的一點是客戶價值與年費的比率，目前該比率顯然處於市場領先地位。

So I've got a lot of comments that people -- from friends and my kids and stuff like that, that man, you've got to raise the card, but you have to keep it for the LaGuardia lounge. That's a value added.

所以我收到了很多來自人們的評論——來自我的朋友和孩子等等，那個人，你必須舉起這張卡，但你必須把它留給拉瓜迪亞機場休息室。這就是附加價值。

And then some.

還有一些。

There's a lot of stuff. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So yeah, and obviously, I mean, we're not going to talk too much about competitors. But as you know, the card space is very competitive and very dynamic. So this is -- we exist in a competitive landscape, and this is our best foot forward on this product at this moment in time.

有很多東西。是的，確實如此。是的。是的，顯然，我的意思是，我們不會談論太多競爭對手。但如你所知，卡片空間競爭非常激烈，而且非常活躍。所以這是——我們存在於競爭環境中，這是我們目前在該產品上最好的一步。

Got it. It is a quite nice lounge. On the trading side, just wondering how much the strong results this quarter, the quarter changed a lot from April to June. And I'm just wondering how much do you think that was environmental? Has it calmed down at all?

知道了。這是一個相當不錯的休息室。在交易方面，我只是想知道本季的業績有多強勁，從 4 月到 6 月，本季發生了很大變化。我只是想知道您認為這在多大程度上與環境有關？一切都平靜下來了嗎？

And also how much is just your ability to kind of use the balance sheet to boost results also, could that make it more sustainable regardless of what the environment is doing? Thanks a lot.

而且，您在多大程度上能夠利用資產負債表來提高業績，無論環境如何，這是否能使其更具可持續性？多謝。

Good question. Honestly, I think it's all of the above, basically. No question that the tone shifted. Obviously, a shift in investment banking. I think I personally was a little bit surprised by the resilience of the markets revenues in the second half of the quarter because I was sort of expecting a little bit of an offset between the two.

好問題。老實說，我認為基本上以上都是。毫無疑問，語氣已經轉變。顯然，這是投資銀行業務的轉變。我認為我個人對本季下半段市場收入的彈性感到有點驚訝，因為我有點期待兩者之間會有一點抵銷。

I was not surprised. There you have it.

我並不感到驚訝。就是這樣。

But it's not like I thought it would do badly, but it sort of did quite well in the volatility in the first half of the quarter and then it got quiet. But despite that, we still did nicely. And I think the point actually, sort of to your question is that, yes, we are seeing opportunities to deploy capital and other resources. And yeah, maybe at the margin, that does contribute a little bit to durability.

但這並不意味著它會表現糟糕，而是在本季度前半段的波動中它表現得相當不錯，但隨後就變得平靜了。但儘管如此，我們仍然做得很好。我認為實際上，對於你的問題來說，是的，我們看到了部署資本和其他資源的機會。是的，也許從邊際上來說，這確實對耐用性有一點貢獻。

We've talked over time about the markets revenues and the dramatic increase. I mean, obviously, 2019 is a long time ago at this point, and we expect those revenues to grow with GDP, anyway. But we worried a lot in certain moments about the revenues dropping back to some old run rate. And then we kind of stopped worrying about that. And now they've gone up to new highs, so maybe we should be worried again.

我們一直在談論市場收入及其急劇的成長。我的意思是，顯然，2019 年已經是很久以前的事了，無論如何，我們預計這些收入將隨著 GDP 的成長而成長。但在某些時候，我們非常擔心收入會回落到原來的某個運行率。然後我們就不再擔心這個了。現在它們已經漲到了新高，所以我們也許應該再次感到擔憂。

But the thing I'd like to remind myself, to your point, is that while the revenues have gone up a lot, the resource usage has also gone up a lot. So we are deploying a lot of capital and other resources in this business, and we're earning good returns on it. But the revenue growth is not coming for free. So it's us running the place, basically.

但我想提醒自己，正如您所說，雖然收入增加了很多，但資源使用也增加了很多。因此，我們在這個業務上投入了大量的資本和其他資源，並且獲得了豐厚的回報。但收入成長並不是免費的。所以基本上就是我們來管理這個地方。

Matt O'Connor, Deutsche Bank.

德意志銀行的馬特·奧康納。

From regional banks --

來自區域銀行--

Matt, you've got some major static on the line. I don't know if we're going to be able to hear you. Just give it a shot. Give it a shot.

馬特，你的電話線裡有一些很大的靜電幹擾。我不知道我們是否能聽到你的聲音。嘗試一下吧。嘗試一下。

I just wanted to ask about any pressure from commercial and corporate customers to try to offset the tariff impact from regional banks that have pointed to deposit pricing pressure on the commercial side, and if you're seeing any signs of that or more broadly speaking. Thank you.

我只是想問商業和企業客戶是否面臨壓力，試圖抵消地區銀行的關稅影響，這些銀行指出商業方面的存款定價壓力，以及您是否看到任何此類跡象，或者更廣泛地說。謝謝。

I think if I heard the question correctly, you were asking --

我想如果我沒聽錯的話，你是在問--

The tariff pressure with pressure on loans or debt. The answer is no.

關稅壓力伴隨貸款或債務壓力。答案是否定的。

Okay, thank you.

好的，謝謝。

Yes. I wish we could say more, but we think the answer is no.

是的。我希望我們能說更多，但我們認為答案是否定的。

No, I mean, there's always pressure in some of those.

不，我的意思是，有些事情總是有壓力的。

It's a competitive market, right? There is ongoing -- deposits are very, very competitive and there are always pricing conversations as there should be. Hard to know at any given moment what's driving it, but I haven't heard anything to support that tariff linked narrative.

這是一個競爭激烈的市場，對嗎？正在進行中——存款競爭非常激烈，並且總是存在應有的定價對話。很難知道在任何特定時刻是什麼在推動它，但我沒有聽到任何支持與關稅掛鉤的說法。

Glenn Schorr, Evercore.

格倫·肖爾（Glenn Schorr），Evercore。

Just two quick follow-ups. On the conversation about the noticeably upbeat robust pipelines. I know we've been here before and markets can give us and take it away. But there is a time value in there, meaning corporates, and more importantly sponsors, need to get stuff done. There is a ton of dry powder.

只需快速跟進兩個問題。關於明顯樂觀強勁的管道的討論。我知道我們以前也經歷過這種情況，市場可以給我們一切，也可以奪走一切。但其中有時間價值，這意味著企業，更重要的是贊助商，需要完成任務。有一噸乾粉。

So I'm curious if that -- if there's a higher level of confidence, meaning if the market doesn't take from us, is it really happening this time? We've been kind of waiting for these pipelines to come through in fuller force for a couple of years now. Does it feel more doable as long as the market doesn't take the rug out from under us?

所以我很好奇——如果有更高的信心，也就是說如果市場不從我們這裡拿走，那麼這次真的會發生嗎？幾年來，我們一直在等待這些管道能夠全面通車。只要市場不失控，我們是不是覺得比較可行？

I think the separate sponsor-owned companies from IPOs, they're a company going public. They're in the pipeline. They want to go public, et cetera. Sponsors are still, at least from what I can tell, anecdotally still reluctant to use the public markets. There may obviously be may be more of it, but it hasn't been has been amount of stuff coming out.

我認為，獨立於 IPO 的發起人擁有的公司是一家上市公司。它們正在籌備中。他們想要上市等等。至少從我所知，贊助商仍然不願意利用公開市場。顯然，可能會有更多，但出現的數量還不多。

Yeah. I think that's right in the IPO space, at least for now. But I have heard some things to support some elements of your narrative fund, the effect of that there is pressure to kind of recycle capital and get things done. And yeah, sure, after the initial shock of tariff policy changes, everyone kind of went on hold. But as we've noted in our comments a few times today, at a certain moment, you just have to move on with life, and it does feel like some of that is happening just because you can't delay forever.

是的。我認為至少目前在 IPO 領域這是正確的。但我聽到一些事情支持你的敘事基金的某些要素，其效果是有壓力的，需要回收資本並完成任務。是的，確實，在關稅政策變化的最初衝擊之後，每個人都暫停了行動。但正如我們今天在評論中多次提到的那樣，在某個時刻，你必須繼續生活，而且感覺有些事情的發生只是因為你不能永遠拖延。

I hear you. The follow-up on the capital conversation, obviously, impressive to see big returns on even higher capital basis. But there's more to come. And I think trend is your friend on dereg. So the question is, you keep making a lot of money, capital base keeps rising. You've talked about arresting the growth of CET1 in the past. But I guess my blunt question is, is there any valuation limitation towards that arresting of CET1?

我聽見了。關於資本的後續討論顯然令人印象深刻，在更高的資本基礎上看到巨大的回報。但接下來還會有更多。我認為趨勢是你解除管制的朋友。所以問題是，你不斷賺大錢，資本基礎不斷增加。您過去曾談到抑制 CET1 的成長。但我想我的直截了當的問題是，對於停止 CET1 是否存在任何估值限制？

Okay. I want to say a couple of things, and then I want to clarify an aspect of your question, Glenn. So first, on arresting the growth, what I actually said, not to nitpick on you, but I said arresting the growth of excess capital, which I agree is reasonable to interpret as keeping a roughly constant CET1. As it happens this quarter, you see the CET1 actually dropping about 40 basis points. And that was no small part a function of significant late-quarter growth in RWA usage, which we were frankly like very happy to see, in fact. So that's all to the good, in some sense.

好的。我想說幾件事，然後我想澄清你問題的一個方面，格倫。首先，關於抑製成長，我實際上說的是，不是為了挑剔你，而是抑制過剩資本的成長，我同意將其合理地解釋為保持 CET1 大致不變。如本季所見，CET1 實際上下降了約 40 個基點。這在很大程度上是由於本季末 RWA 使用量的顯著增長，坦白說，事實上，我們很高興看到這一點。從某種意義上來說，這一切都是好的。

Now the other part of your question, can you just repeat it? I want to make sure I understand it.

現在問一下您問題的另一部分，您能重複一遍嗎？我想確保我理解了它。

I'm just curious if there's a valuation limitation the thinking. Meaning as valuation goes up, are you just going to -- do you keep buying back?

我只是好奇這種思維是否有估值限制。意思是，隨著估值上升，你會繼續回購嗎？

When we go back to a moment of reducing buybacks and starting to build again if the stock gets even more expensive? I mean, I think this is a question for the boss, but I don't know, I guess we always are the right to do whatever we want on buybacks basically.

當我們回到減少回購並重新開始建設的時刻時，股價是否會變得更加昂貴？我的意思是，我認為這是老闆要問的問題，但我不知道，我想我們基本上總是有權利在回購方面做任何我們想做的事情。

We reserve the right. We're not going to tell you. But obviously, price -- I mean, I don't like buying back the stock at almost 3 times tangible book, or you know is going to convince me that's a brilliant thing to do, but it is wise to use our balance sheet for customers, which we're doing. And we can maybe possibly do more. And it is probably why to not increase the excess capital anymore since we have plenty, and it's going to be going up.

我們保留權利。我們不會告訴你。但顯然，價格——我的意思是，我不喜歡以幾乎 3 倍有形賬面價值的價格回購股票，或者你知道要說服我那是一件很棒的事情，但為客戶使用我們的資產負債表是明智之舉，我們正在這樣做。我們或許還可以做得更多。這也許就是為什麼我們不再增加過剩資本的原因，因為我們有足夠的資本，而且還會繼續增加。

And -- but look, I'm completely convinced if you take out of your mindset 12 months, we will use the capital wisely for shareholders. The best way is organic growth, which I would rule out that we can find more ways to grow clients, basically.

而且——但你看，我完全相信，如果你花 12 個月的時間，我們就會明智地為股東使用資本。最好的方式是有機成長，基本上，我會排除我們可以找到更多方法來增加客戶。

Gerard Cassidy, RBC Capital Markets.

加拿大皇家銀行資本市場 (RBC Capital Markets) 的 Gerard Cassidy。

I'd like to circle back to the return on tangible common equity topic that you guys have discussed. Obviously, you had a very strong number this quarter, 20% when you adjusted for the onetime effect.

我想回到你們討論過的有形普通股權益回報率話題。顯然，本季的數字非常強勁，調整一次性影響後達到了 20%。

And you go back to your Investor Day and you pointed out 17% is what the targeted level is. And if we turn back the clock and go back to 2020, you had the same 17% goal for the ROTCE, but your CET1 ratio back then was guidance -- guidance was 11.5% to 12%.

回到投資者日，您指出 17% 是目標水準。如果我們把時鐘撥回到 2020 年，你的 ROTCE 目標仍然是 17%，但當時的 CET1 比率是指導值——指導值為 11.5% 至 12%。

So my question is, has the business for you folks change such that now it's just inherently a more profitable business? Or are there some onetime -- not onetime items, but are there some tailwinds that are artificially -- I hate to use that word, but are they inflating the ROTCE which is why you guys are very cautious about lifting that goal from 17%?

所以我的問題是，你們的業務是否已經發生了變化，以至於現在它本質上是一項更有利可圖的業務？或者是否存在一些一次性的——不是一次性項目，而是一些人為的順風——我不想用這個詞，但它們是否會誇大 ROTCE，這就是為什麼你們對將這一目標從 17% 提高非常謹慎？

Jeremy can answer this question, but this will really be an important point. The value to shareholders is that we cannot just earn 70% ROTCE and that we can reinvest money at 70% ROTCE. That's the value. If you're just going to earn 17%, you're a bond. You will trade at 3 times tangible book, but that's it for the rest of your life. And so the goal is to find opportunities to grow and expand your [business], which we are doing.

傑里米可以回答這個問題，但這確實是一個重要的觀點。對股東的價值在於，我們不能只賺取 70% 的 ROTCE，而且我們還可以以 70% 的 ROTCE 進行再投資。這就是價值。如果你只想賺 17%，那麼你就是一種債券。您將以 3 倍有形帳面價值進行交易，但您的餘生將僅此而已。因此，我們的目標是尋找機會來發展和擴展您的業務，而這正是我們正在做的。

If you look at it, we are doing that with branches and bankers internationally. And when we look at the mid-cap business we're doing in Europe is it's been great. Innovation Economy has been great. The -- we're gaining shares in a lot of places, Chase Wealth Management and the private bank, the international product, the payment systems we invest in all those things to grow our franchises. And that's the best way to use your capital. And forget the timetable of that. That is the best way to use it.

如果你看一下，你會發現我們正在與國際分行和銀行家合作這項工作。當我們看到我們在歐洲開展的中型股業務時，我們發現它表現得非常出色。創新經濟取得了巨大成就。我們在許多地方的股份都在增加，大通財富管理和私人銀行、國際產品、支付系統，我們都在投資這些東西來擴大我們的特許經營權。這是利用資本的最佳方式。忘記那個時間表吧。這是最好的使用方法。

Yeah. And Gerard, I guess, on your other question, it's an interesting question. I don't think the answer is really knowable. And I feel like it's kind of all of the above. And let me say what I mean.

是的。傑拉德，我想，關於你的另一個問題，這是一個有趣的問題。我認為答案是不可知的。我覺得以上所有情況都是如此。讓我說說我的意思。

Like on the one hand, I think if you look at the current market environment, it's hard to imagine a set of conditions that would be any better for us, right? Rates are at a good level for us. Deal activity is high. Capital markets are very strong. Consumer credit is excellent. Wholesale credit is excellent; wealth management, asset management.

例如一方面，我認為如果你看一下目前的市場環境，很難想像還有什麼條件對我們來說會更好，對嗎？對我們來說，利率處於一個良好的水平。交易活躍度高。資本市場非常強勁。消費者信用非常好。批發信貸非常好；財富管理、資產管理。

I mean, essentially every part of the company is firing. We're essentially firing on all cylinders with some very minor exceptions of certain businesses that are extremely great sensitive like Home Lending, where they're still doing a great job in what is a very tough market.

我的意思是，基本上公司的每個部門都在忙碌。我們基本上開足馬力，只有少數業務例外，例如房屋貸款等某些極其敏感的業務，在非常艱難的市場中仍然做得很好。

So when you see that, you're like, well, that's not normal. Normally, you would have some pockets being a little better, some pockets doing a little worse. And that's part of what makes you think that some aspects of this are maybe not sustainable.

所以當你看到它時，你會覺得，這不正常。通常情況下，有些口袋的狀況會好一些，有些口袋的狀況會差一些。這部分讓你覺得其中某些方面可能是不可持續的。

On the other hand, it's also true that core elements of the strategy are working very well. And we've been investing for a long time very successfully and kind of leaning in even in moments where from the outside, there wasn't that much appetite for us to be investing in all of the things that Jamie is talking about. Some of those investments in various ways are paying off. So --

另一方面，該戰略的核心要素也確實運作良好。我們長期以來一直進行非常成功的投資，甚至在外界看來，我們對投資 Jamie 所談論的所有領域沒有太多興趣的時候，我們仍然積極參與。其中一些投資正在以各種方式獲得回報。所以--

You have all of our major bank competitors are back and rolling expand. And you have the fintech folks. We're quite capable and quite smart, who want to take big chunks of your business. Everything we do is kind of competitive around the world. So the notion that somehow we're not going to do with competitors, which protects JPMorgan Chase, if we don't get complacent.

我們所有的主要銀行競爭對手都回來了，並且不斷擴張。還有金融科技人員。我們非常有能力，也非常聰明，我們想要從您的業務中分得一杯羹。我們所做的一切在世界各地都具有競爭力。因此，如果我們不自滿的話，我們就不會與競爭對手做任何事，從而保護摩根大通。

We don't get complacent. We don't get bureaucratic. And we keep realize you keep on finding that you got to have to fight for it every day. And so we're quite cautious to just declare victory like somehow we're entitled to these returns forever.

我們不會自滿。我們不會搞官僚主義。我們不斷意識到，你必須不斷發現，你必須每天為此奮鬥。因此，我們非常謹慎地宣布勝利，就好像我們有權永遠獲得這些回報一樣。

I also pointed out, if you could compound at 17%, because I had Jeremy do this number one point, you compounded 17% for 20 years, you probably would have a good chunk of the GDP of the United States of America for 40 years, maybe.

我還指出，如果你能以 17% 的複合利率進行投資，因為我讓傑里米做了這一點，你以 17% 的複合利率投資 20 年，那麼你可能會在 40 年內獲得美國 GDP 的很大一部分，也許吧。

Yeah. I always have to go put new batteries in my HP 12C when you ask me that question. All right, yeah.

是的。當你問我這個問題時，我總是必須為我的 HP 12C 裝上新電池。好的，是的。

Jeremy, I'm glad you still use an HP 12C. That's good. Just as a follow-up -- as a quick follow-up on Jeremy, you touched on -- just as a quick follow-up, Jeremy. In the markets comment that you made, you said that there were fewer opportunities in securitized products and fixed income financing. Can you expand upon that or give us any color there? Thank you.

傑里米，我很高興你仍然使用 HP 12C。那挺好的。只是作為後續行動 - 作為對傑里米的快速跟進，你提到了 - 只是作為快速跟進，傑里米。您在市場評論中表示，證券化產品和固定收益融資的機會較少。能詳細說明一下或跟我們講一下嗎？謝謝。

Yeah, sure. I mean, it's just normal diversification inside the markets business. Those businesses are doing great. But like at the margin, in the second half of the quarter, well, stuff was a little quieter relative emerging markets and the macro space, which was a little bit better. Nothing too dramatic.

是的，當然。我的意思是，這只是市場業務內部的正常多樣化。這些企業經營得很好。但就像在本季的下半段，情況相對新興市場和宏觀空間稍微平靜一些，情況也稍微好一些。沒什麼太戲劇性的。

Saul Martinez, HSBC.

匯豐銀行的索爾·馬丁內斯。

Just wondering, I just want to follow up on Ken's question about sales and trading. And I think you kind of addressed this, Jeremy. But I just -- you had another strong quarter there on the back of a pretty exceptional Q1 on the back of really strong 2024.

只是好奇，我只是想跟進肯關於銷售和交易的問題。我認為你已經解決了這個問題，傑里米。但我只是——在 2024 年表現非常強勁的基礎上，在第一季表現相當出色的基礎上，你們又度過了一個強勁的季度。

I mean, how are you thinking about how much of this is the result of an exceptional trading environment versus something that's more durable? And presumably less volatility, good for investment banking, but would you see some normalization in Sales & Trading as a result? Or do you think there's still opportunities to grow certain businesses and take share? Just curious how much -- how you think about what's exceptional versus what's more durable here.

我的意思是，您如何看待這種現像在多大程度上是由特殊的交易環境造成的，還是由更持久的因素造成的？且波動性可能會降低，這對投資銀行業務有利，但您是否會看到銷售和交易因此而趨於正常化？或者您認為某些業務仍有機會發展並佔據市場份額？我只是好奇——您如何看待什麼是特殊的，什麼是更持久的。

Yeah. I mean, one thing I'll say is that there's no like weird exceptional thing happening in this particular quarter that are driving the results. So it's pretty broad-based. And it's not like particularly lumpy.

是的。我的意思是，我想說的是，本季並沒有發生什麼奇怪的異常事件來影響業績。所以它的基礎相當廣泛。而且它並不是特別凹凸不平。

And as I said, I think it is true, and I think we've shared some of this is in different ways, including in my slide at Investor Day, that we are deploying quite a bit of capital and other resources like G-SIB capacity and liquidity in some cases to generate that revenue. And we're happy with the returns. But it's sort of -- it's not just like growing without any inputs essentially.

正如我所說，我認為這是真的，而且我認為我們以不同的方式分享了其中的一些內容，包括我在投資者日的幻燈片中提到的，我們正在部署相當多的資本和其他資源，例如在某些情況下的 G-SIB 容量和流動性來產生這些收入。我們對回報非常滿意。但它有點像——它本質上並不像沒有任何投入就能生長。

So I guess, on the one hand, you might say that that's a bit more durable for that reason. But it is important to realize that it's coming with that use of resources essentially. So I mean, we've gotten over time, a little bit more relaxed about talking about the markets business as something that has relatively uncorrelated and reasonably recurring revenues.

所以我想，一方面，你可能會說，由於這個原因，它會更耐用一些。但重要的是要認識到，它本質上是伴隨著資源的使用而來的。所以我的意思是，隨著時間的推移，我們在談論市場業務時變得更加放鬆，認為它是一種具有相對不相關和合理經常性收入的業務。

It's obviously extremely client-centric. There's a lot of financing of various types that's being supplied. And it seems, if anything, more often than not be countercyclical rather than procyclical, but it's still markets, right? Things can happen. It's volatile, there's risk taking involved. That's part of the point that -- sorry to hedge the answer, but that's kind of how we think about it.

顯然，這是極其以客戶為中心的。目前有大量不同類型的融資正在提供。而且，如果有什麼不同的話，它似乎往往是逆週期的，而不是順週期的，但它仍然是市場，對嗎？事情可能會發生。它很不穩定，需要承擔風險。這就是問題的一部分——抱歉，我無法給出明確的答案，但這就是我們對此的看法。

Chris Kotowski, Oppenheimer.

奧本海默的克里斯·科托斯基。

Kind of an old-school bank analyst question. After a long time of kind of bemoaning slow C&I loan growth, you had this extraordinary growth this quarter, $33 billion on average and more than 6% quarter over quarter. But then when we look at the P&L in the commercial and investment bank, net interest income is down 2% and lending income is down 4%. And I know there's hedges and other complicated things, but it just kind of doesn't compute that you'd have such strong loan growth and not have revenue growth associated with that.

這是一個老派銀行分析師的問題。在長期哀嘆商業和工業貸款成長緩慢之後，本季卻實現了非凡的成長，平均成長 330 億美元，季增超過 6%。但當我們查看商業和投資銀行的損益表時，淨利息收入下降了 2%，貸款收入下降了 4%。我知道這其中有對沖和其他複雜因素，但根本無法想像貸款成長如此強勁，而收入卻沒有成長。

Yeah. I mean, the hedges are definitely part of it. And a lot of the assets came on the balance sheet quite late in the quarter. So I don't know, I might be missing something. And there's probably some market markets -- markets NII piece of it, too.

是的。我的意思是，樹籬肯定是其中的一部分。許多資產在本季結束時才出現在資產負債表上。所以我不知道，我可能遺漏了一些東西。並且可能還有一些市場市場 - NII 市場也在其中。

So I don't know. Mikael can follow up with you, but that I think the loan thing is part of it, Markets NII is part of it, and late quarter -- hedges for sure, yeah.

所以我不知道。米凱爾可以跟進您的情況，但我認為貸款是其中的一部分，市場 NII 是其中的一部分，而季度末 — — 對沖肯定是的，是的。

Thank you. We have no further questions.

謝謝。我們沒有其他問題了。

Thanks very much.

非常感謝。

Thank you.

謝謝。

Thank you all for participating in today's conference. You may disconnect at this time and have a great rest of your day.

感謝大家參加今天的會議。現在您可以斷開連接並享受剩餘的美好時光。