摩根大通 (JPM) 2025 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to JPMorgan Chase's third quarter 2025 earnings call. This call is being recorded.

女士們、先生們，早安。歡迎參加摩根大通 2025 年第三季財報電話會議。此通話正在錄音。

(Operator Instructions) 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.

（操作員指示）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 now like to turn the call over to JPMorgan Chase's Chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon, and Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy Barnum.

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。

Mr. Barnum, please go ahead.

巴納姆先生，請繼續。

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Let me begin by noting that this quarter we are experimenting with shorter prepared remarks. We're streamlining this part of the call to move more quickly to your questions and to minimize the amount of time spent on repeating what you have already seen in the earnings materials.

謝謝大家，早安。首先我要指出的是，本季我們正在嘗試縮短準備好的發言時間。我們正在簡化通話的這一部分，以便更快地回答您的問題，並盡量減少重複您在收益資料中已經看到的內容所花費的時間。

So, with that, turning to this quarter's results, the firm reported net income of $14.4 billion and EPS of $5.07 with an ROTCE of 20%. Revenue of $47.1 billion was up 9% year-on-year, predominantly driven by higher markets revenue, as well as higher fees across asset management, investment banking, and payments. The increase in NII driven by the impact of balance sheet growth and mix was offset by the impact of lower rates.

因此，談到本季的業績，該公司報告的淨收入為 144 億美元，每股收益為 5.07 美元，ROTCE 為 20%。營收 471 億美元，年增 9%，主要得益於市場收入的增加，以及資產管理、投資銀行和支付費用的增加。受資產負債表成長和組合影響而推動的NII成長被較低利率的影響所抵銷。

Expenses of $24.3 billion were up 8% year-on-year, driven by similar themes as in prior quarters, including higher volume and revenue-related expense. The detailed drivers are in the presentation. And credit costs were $3.4 billion with net charge-offs of $2.6 billion and a net reserve bill of $810 million.

支出為 243 億美元，年增 8%，主要受與前幾季類似的因素推動，包括銷售量和收入相關支出增加。詳細的驅動程式在簡報中。信貸成本為 34 億美元，淨沖銷額為 26 億美元，淨準備金帳單為 8.1 億美元。

In wholesale, charge-offs were slightly elevated as a result of a couple of instances of apparent fraud in certain secured lending facilities. Otherwise, in both wholesale and consumer, credit performance remains in line with our expectations.

在批發業務中，由於某些擔保貸款機構中出現了幾起明顯的詐欺行為，沖銷額略有增加。除此之外，無論是批發或消費，信貸表現仍符合我們的預期。

And in terms of the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with a CET1 ratio of 14.8%, down 30 basis points versus the prior quarter. You can see the puts and takes in the presentation. This quarter's higher RWA is primarily driven by increases in wholesale lending across both banking and markets, as well as other markets' activities.

就資產負債表而言，本季末我們的 CET1 比率為 14.8%，較上一季下降 30 個基點。您可以在簡報中看到投入和產出。本季度風險加權資產的增加主要得益於銀行和市場的批發貸款增加以及其他市場的活動。

Moving to our businesses, CCB reported net income of $5 billion. Revenue of $19.5 billion was up 9% year-on-year, predominantly driven by higher NII, largely incurred on higher revolving balances. A few points to highlight. Consumers and small businesses remain resilient based on our data. While we are closely watching the potentially softening labor market, our credit metrics, including early-stage delinquencies, remain stable and slightly better than expected.

談到我們的業務，建行報告淨收入為 50 億美元。營收 195 億美元，年增 9%，主要得益於 NII 的增加，主要源自於循環餘額的增加。需要強調的幾點。根據我們的數據，消費者和小型企業仍然保持韌性。雖然我們密切關注可能疲軟的勞動力市場，但我們的信貸指標（包括早期拖欠率）保持穩定，略好於預期。

We retained our number one position in retail deposit share in a relatively flat deposit market based on FDIC data, marking our fifth consecutive year leading the industry. And in light of the attention our Sapphire refresh has received, we want to note that this has already been the best year ever for new account acquisitions for our Sapphire portfolio.

根據 FDIC 數據，在相對平穩的存款市場中，我們繼續保持零售存款份額第一的位置，這標誌著我們連續第五年領先於該行業。鑑於我們的 Sapphire 更新所受到的關注，我們想指出，今年已經是我們 Sapphire 產品組合新帳戶獲取情況最好的一年。

Next, the CIB reported net income of $6.9 billion. Revenue of $19.9 billion was up 17% year-on-year, driven by higher revenues across markets, payments, investment banking, and security services. To give a bit more color, IB fees were up 16% year-on-year, reflecting a pickup in activity across products, with particular strength in equity underwriting as the IPO market was active.

接下來，CIB 報告淨收入為 69 億美元。營收 199 億美元，年增 17%，這得益於市場、支付、投資銀行和安全服務收入的增加。更具體一點來說，IB 費用年增 16%，反映出各類產品活動的回升，尤其由於 IPO 市場活躍，股票承銷業務表現強勁。

Our pipeline remains robust, and the outlook, along with the market backdrop and client sentiment, continues to be upbeat. In markets, fixed income was up 21% year-on-year, with higher revenues in rates and credit, as well as strong performance in securitized products. Equity was up 33%, from robust client activity across the franchise, with notable outperformance in time.

我們的通路依然強勁，前景、市場背景和客戶情緒持續樂觀。在市場方面，固定收益年增 21%，利率和信貸收入增加，證券化產品表現強勁。股權上漲了 33%，得益於整個特許經營權的強勁客戶活動，並且隨著時間的推移表現顯著優異。

Turning to asset and wealth management, AWM reported net income of $1.7 billion, with pre-tax margin of 36%. Record revenue of $6.1 billion was up 12% year-on-year, predominantly driven by growth in management fees to exceed long net inflows and higher average market levels, as well as higher brokerage activity. Long-term net inflows were $72 billion for the quarter, led by fixed income and equities. AWM of $4.6 trillion was up 18% year-on-year, and client assets of $6.8 trillion were up 28% year-on-year, driven by continued net inflows and higher market levels.

在資產和財富管理方面，AWM 報告淨收入為 17 億美元，稅前利潤率為 36%。創紀錄的 61 億美元收入年增 12%，主要原因是管理費成長超過長期淨流入和更高的平均市場水平，以及經紀活動增加。本季長期淨流入為 720 億美元，其中固定收益和股票流入最多。受持續淨流入和市場水準走高推動，4.6 兆美元的 AWM 年增 18%，6.8 兆美元的客戶資產年增 28%。

And before turning to the outlook, corporate reported net income of $825 million and revenue of $1.7 billion. In terms of the outlook, since we've already reported three quarters of results, I'm going to update the full-year guidance in terms of the fourth quarter, and in addition to that, we've done the implied full-year math on the page, so you can easily compare it to previous guidance.

在展望之前，該公司報告淨收入為 8.25 億美元，營收為 17 億美元。就展望而言，由於我們已經報告了三個季度的業績，我將根據第四季度更新全年指引，此外，我們還在頁面上進行了隱含的全年計算，因此您可以輕鬆地將其與先前的指引進行比較。

We expect fourth quarter NIIX markets to be approximately $23.5 billion, and fourth quarter total NII to be about $25 billion. We expect fourth quarter adjusted expense to be approximately $24.5 billion, implying $95.9 billion for the full year, with the increase driven by the stronger revenue environment.

我們預計第四季度 NIIX 市場規模約為 235 億美元，第四季 NII 總額約為 250 億美元。我們預計第四季度調整後的支出約為 245 億美元，全年支出將達到 959 億美元，這一成長是由更強勁的收入環境所推動的。

And on credit, we now expect the 2025 card net charge-off rate to be approximately 3.3% on favorable delinquency trends, driven by the continued resilience of the consumer. In keeping with our focus on the fourth quarter and recognizing that you'll likely annualize the fourth quarter NII and ask us questions about 2026, we're providing the central case for NIIX markets in 2026, which is about $95 billion.

在信貸方面，我們目前預計，在消費者持續恢復的推動下，拖欠趨勢良好，2025 年信用卡淨沖銷率將達到約 3.3%。為了保持我們對第四季度的關注，並認識到您可能會將第四季度的 NII 年度化並向我們詢問有關 2026 年的問題，我們提供了 2026 年 NIIX 市場的核心案例，約為 950 億美元。

Note that this is a preliminary view, subject to the usual caveats, as well as the fact that we have not finished the annual budget cycle yet. And for expenses, completing the budget cycle will be even more important, which is why we are not providing an update today. While you probably haven't spent a lot of time refining your 2026 estimates yet, it is worth saying that when we look at the fourth quarter and adjust for seasonality and expected labor inflation, as well as adding some growth, the consensus of about $100 billion does look a little bit low.

請注意，這只是初步看法，需要遵守常見的警告，而且我們尚未完成年度預算週期。對於支出而言，完成預算週期將變得更加重要，這就是我們今天不提供更新的原因。雖然您可能還沒有花很多時間來完善 2026 年的估計，但值得一提的是，當我們看第四季度並根據季節性和預期勞動力通膨進行調整，以及增加一些增長時，約 1000 億美元的共識確實看起來有點低。

We will formally provide the 2026 outlook for NII expense and card NCO rate at the fourth quarter earnings, and we'll have another opportunity to discuss the outlook at our recently announced company update in February.

我們將在第四季度收益中正式提供 2026 年 NII 費用和卡 NCO 率的展望，並且我們將在 2 月份最近宣布的公司更新中再次有機會討論展望。

I'm now happy to take your questions, so let's open the line for Q&A.

我現在很高興回答你們的問題，讓我們開始問答環節。

(Operator Instructions) John McDonald, Truist Securities.

（操作員指示）Truist Securities 的 John McDonald。

Thank you. Good morning. Thanks for the initial outlook on the 2026 NII. Jeremy, I wanted to ask you about the retail deposit assumptions that were embedded in that. At Investor Day, you discussed an expectation for deposits to grow 3% year-over-year by the fourth quarter, and I think accelerating to 6% next year. It looks like they were flat this quarter, so I just wanted to see if you're still expecting those kind of previously expected growth rates of 3% and 6%.

謝謝。早安.感謝您對 2026 年 NII 的初步展望。傑里米，我想問你其中所包含的零售存款假設。在投資者日，您討論了第四季度存款年增 3% 的預期，我認為明年將加速至 6%。看起來本季的成長率持平，所以我只是想看看您是否仍然期待之前預期的 3% 和 6% 的成長率。

Yeah, good question, John. Thanks for that. You're referring specifically to a page that was presented at Investor Day by Marianne for the CCB with some illustrative scenarios for what we might expect CCB deposit growth to do as a function of some different potential macroeconomic scenarios. In the kind of then-prevailing central case scenario, we had 3% growth in the fourth quarter of this year and 6% projected for 2026.

是的，約翰，問得好。謝謝。您具體指的是瑪麗安在投資者日上為加拿大建設銀行 (CCB) 展示的一頁，其中有一些說明性​​情景，說明了我們可能預期的加拿大建設銀行存款增長將如何隨一些不同的潛在宏觀經濟情景而變化。在當時盛行的核心情境下，今年第四季的經濟成長率為 3%，預計 2026 年的經濟成長率為 6%。

So as we sit here right now and we sort of update the macro environment, a few things are true. One is the personal savings rate is a little bit lower than expected. Consumer spending remained robust while income was a bit lower. So that's all else equal, decreasing balances per account in CCB.

因此，當我們現在坐在這裡並更新宏觀環境時，有幾件事是正確的。一是個人儲蓄率略低於預期。儘管收入略有下降，但消費者支出依然強勁。因此，在其他條件相同的情況下，CCB 中每個帳戶的餘額都會減少。

And as you obviously know, equity market performance has been particularly strong, which is driving flows into investments. And we are capturing that in our wealth management business. But again, that's a little bit of a headwind to balances per account. And relative to the scenario that we had at the time, rates are a little bit higher than what was in the forwards. And that is producing, again, slightly higher than otherwise expected yield-seeking flows. They're still below the peak, but they're still a factor.

如大家所知，股票市場表現尤為強勁，這推動了資金流入。我們正在財富管理業務中抓住這一點。但同樣，這對每個帳戶的餘額來說是一個小小的阻力。相對於我們當時的情況，利率略高於遠期利率。這又產生了略高於預期的尋求利益的資金流。它們仍低於峰值，但仍然是一個因素。

So as we look forward from here, the drivers are all still in place. So if you break it down, a key driver is obviously ongoing net new accounts. And if you look at this quarter, it's been strong with over 400,000 net new checking accounts this quarter.

因此，當我們展望未來時，所有驅動因素都仍然存在。因此，如果仔細分析，一個關鍵驅動因素顯然是持續的淨新增帳戶。如果你看一下本季度，你會發現它表現強勁，本季淨新增支票帳戶超過 40 萬個。

And so what you're left with is just the question of how that average balance per customer evolves and when you hit the inflection point of that number based on the factors that we've just gone through. And so at the margin, that kind of upward inflection point has been pushed out a little bit.

因此，剩下的問題就是，根據我們剛剛討論的因素，每個客戶的平均餘額如何變化，以及何時達到該數字的拐點。因此，從邊際來看，這種向上的拐點已經被推遲了一點。

But, you know, at a high level, we remain quite confident about the overall long-term trajectory here and optimistic. But the macro environment shift has just slightly pushed out some of the growth inflection dynamics.

但是，您知道，從高層來看，我們仍然對這裡的整體長期發展軌跡充滿信心，並且持樂觀態度。但宏觀環境的變化只是略微推遲了一些成長拐點的動力。

Got it. That's helpful. And maybe just sticking with that 2026 initial outlook, what are some of the other key assumptions in there, particularly around commercial deposits and maybe loan growth and rates?

知道了。這很有幫助。也許只是堅持 2026 年的初步展望，其中還有哪些關鍵假設，特別是圍繞商業存款和貸款成長和利率？

Sure, yeah. So as we always do, we're using the current forward curves as of September 30. So that has -- whatever the relevant cuts are, I think the impact of the 75 basis points of cuts this year. And I think as of the end of September, it was two -- 25 basis point cuts in the first half of 2026.

當然，是的。因此，正如我們一貫的做法，我們使用截至 9 月 30 日的當前遠期曲線。所以，無論相關的削減幅度是多少，我認為今年 75 個基點的削減都會產生影響。我認為截至 9 月底，2026 年上半年已經降息兩次，每次 25 個基點。

So that all is equal is, obviously a headwind as we remain asset sensitive and the annualization of this year, the first half of next year. And then offsetting that, you have all the growth dynamics, which include card revolve growth, which has been obviously a significant tailwind. It's going to slow down a little bit, given that the normalization of revolve is close to complete now, but we still see very healthy acquisition dynamics there. So that will be a growth driver, albeit a little bit lower.

因此，一切平等顯然是一個逆風，因為我們仍然對資產敏感，而今年、明年上半年的年化也是如此。然後抵消這一點，你就擁有了所有的成長動力，其中包括卡片旋轉增長，這顯然是一個重要的順風。鑑於 Revolve 的正常化進程已接近完成，這一速度將會稍微放緩，但我們仍然看到那裡的收購動態非常健康。因此，儘管幅度略低，但這仍將成為成長動力。

And similarly, I mean, pivoting a little bit to deposits for a second, we just talked about, the contribution of deposit balance growth to that, which will be a factor in a wholesale deposits. It was a very strong growth here this year. So we would expect it to be a little bit more muted next year, but the core franchise is doing great.

同樣，我的意思是，稍微轉向存款，我們剛才談到了存款餘額增長對此的貢獻，這將成為批發存款的一個因素。今年這裡的成長非常強勁。因此，我們預計明年的情況會稍微低迷一些，但核心特許經營表現良好。

And then, wholesale loan growth will kind of be what it is, but trends that are solid. So it's the usual mix of rate headwinds, offsetting, balance, balance, growth and mix. So, we'll refine it more next quarter and we'll see how it goes.

然後，批發貸款成長將會保持不變，但趨勢是穩固的。因此，這是利率逆風、抵銷、平衡、平衡、成長和混合的常見組合。因此，我們將在下個季度對其進行進一步完善，並觀察其進展。

Got it. Thanks, Jeremy.

知道了。謝謝，傑里米。

Thanks, John.

謝謝，約翰。

Glenn Shorr, Evercore ISI.

格倫·肖爾 (Glenn Shorr)，Evercore ISI。

Hi, thanks very much. Wanted to drill down a little bit more on credit, and you gave us enough, I think, on the consumer side. You noted the idiosyncratic names on the syndicated side. So maybe if we could step back and say, you're a big player in obviously everything, broadly syndicated loans, high yield markets, and increasingly on the private debt side. So my question is both of demand and credit fundamentals. What are you seeing in terms of drivers of client demand there on the lending side, a wholesale front?

你好，非常感謝。想要更深入地了解信貸情況，我認為，在消費者方面，您已經給了我們足夠的資訊。您注意到了聯合方中那些獨特的名字。所以，如果我們退一步說，你顯然在所有領域都是一個大參與者，包括廣泛的銀團貸款、高收益市場，以及越來越多的私人債務方面。所以我的問題是關於需求和信貸基本面。您認為貸款方面和批發方面的客戶需求驅動因素是什麼？

And then importantly, are you seeing differentiated credit fundamentals across public and private markets? Because there's been a lot of discussion about that lately, and I feel like you're like in the best position to help us.

然後重要的是，您是否看到公共和私人市場之間存在差異化的信貸基本面？因為最近有很多關於這個的討論，我覺得你最適合幫助我們。

Okay. I'll do my best to try to help. So let me just get one thing out of the way, because you were sort of polite enough not to touch on it, but I already kind of disclosed it on the press call. We, we generally, as you know, Glenn are not in the habit of talking about individual borrower situations, but given the amount of public attention the trial color thing has gotten in particular, I think it's worth just saying that -- that's contributing $170 million of charge offs in the quarter, which we call out on the wholesale side.

好的。我會盡力提供協助。所以讓我先說清楚一件事，因為你很有禮貌沒有提及它，但我已經在新聞發布會上透露了這一點。我們，我們一般，正如你所知，格倫沒有談論個人借款人情況的習慣，但考慮到公眾對試用顏色事件的關注程度，我認為值得一提的是 - 這在本季度貢獻了 1.7 億美元的沖銷，我們在批發方面稱之為。

Also worth noting, there's been a lot of attention on the first brand situation. We don't have any exposure to them. So anyway, that's just worth getting out of the way. So you asked about demand and you asked about public private differentiation on the demand side. I really think -- I mean, not to overuse the phrase, but from the perspective of our franchise, this kind of moment of revived animal spirits, let's say is driving demand. We're seeing very healthy deal flow. We're seeing acquisition finance come back.

同樣值得注意的是，人們對第一品牌的情況給予了極大關注。我們沒有接觸過它們。所以無論如何，這都是值得的。所以你問的是需求，你問的是需求上的公私差異。我真的認為——我的意思是，不要過度使用這個短語，但從我們特許經營的角度來看，這種動物精神復甦的時刻正在推動需求。我們看到交易流程非常健康。我們看到收購融資正在回升。

Obviously we were very involved in a particularly large deal this quarter. And I would say broadly, maybe this goes a little bit also to the public, private point our kind of product agnostic credit strategy across the whole continuum is playing out very nicely.

顯然，本季我們參與了一項特別大的交易。我想說的是，從廣義上講，這也可能對公眾和私人觀點有一定影響，我們在整個過程中採用的與產品無關的信貸策略效果很好。

And I think some of the events of the quarter prove that like now when you've got something big to do, we're the right people to call and we'll give you the best solution across a very complete full product suite. You asked whether -- we're seeing differentiation and fundamentals between private and public spaces. I don't know. I haven't heard that particularly. I think it probably depends a little bit on how you define the spaces and what you're differentiating.

我認為本季發生的一些事件證明，當您現在有大事要做時，我們就是您應該聯繫的人，我們將透過非常完整的產品套件為您提供最佳解決方案。您問我們是否看到了私人空間和公共空間之間的差異和基本面。我不知道。我還沒特別聽過。我認為這可能有點取決於你如何定義空間以及你要區分什麼。

Like obviously to make the obvious point, like subprime auto has been a challenging space for people in that industry. But that's probably not quite what you meant by private credit. And I haven't heard anything to suggest that, the private deals are performing differently from the public deals.

顯然，次級汽車行業對於該行業的人來說是一個充滿挑戰的領域。但這可能不完全是您所指的私人信貸。我還沒有聽到任何跡象表明私人交易的表現與公開交易有所不同。

It probably is true at the margin that, some of the new direct lending initiatives involve underwriting at slightly higher expected losses. And that's significant because, as we've been discussing here the wholesale charge off rate has been very, very low for a long time.

從邊際來看，一些新的直接貸款計劃涉及承保，預期損失略高，這可能是事實。這很重要，因為正如我們在這裡討論的那樣，批發沖銷率長期以來一直非常非常低。

And I think simply having that normalized would produce some increases in wholesale charge offs. And obviously as we've been discussing a lot in consumer over the last couple of years, when you're in that normalization moment, you're constantly wondering is this normalization or have we switched to deterioration?

我認為，只要將其標準化，批發沖銷額就會增加。顯然，正如我們在過去幾年中就消費者問題進行過大量討論的那樣，當你處於正常化時刻時，你會不斷想知道這是正常化還是我們已經轉向惡化？

I don't know if we're seeing that yet in wholesale, but it's also worth noting that the current portfolio is going to have a slightly different mix from what we have had over the last 10 or 15 years. And so the expected charge off rate is going to be a little bit higher, although it's equal, but obviously that comes with appropriate revenues and returns.

我不知道我們是否已經在批發業務中看到這種情況，但值得注意的是，目前的投資組合與過去 10 年或 15 年的投資組合略有不同。因此，預期的沖銷率將會略高一些，儘管是相同的，但顯然這會帶來適當的收入和回報。

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.

好的。我很感激。謝謝。

Thanks.

謝謝。

Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley.

摩根士丹利的 Betsy Graseck。

Hi, good morning. One follow-up on that is on the reserve build. I know that you mentioned largely due to card loan growth, but could you give us a sense as to how you're thinking about the reserve that you have against the commercial book, especially given what you just mentioned around the mix of the portfolio is different today than it was prior cycle. I'm thinking prior cycle means pre COVID, but let me know if it's a different timeframe that you're thinking about.

嗨，早安。對此的後續行動之一是儲備建設。我知道您提到這主要是由於信用卡貸款的增長，但您能否告訴我們，您是如何看待商業賬簿的儲備的，特別是考慮到您剛才提到的投資組合組合與之前的周期不同。我認為之前的周期意味著 COVID 之前，但如果您考慮的是不同的時間範圍，請告訴我。

Well, I think we were thinking of the entire post GFC era. I think a couple of investor days ago, you put up a slide showing that wholesale charge off rate over 10 years. I might be wrong, but from memory, it was like zero on a net basis, which is obviously not reasonable going forward.

嗯，我想我們考慮的是整個後全球金融危機時代。我記得幾天前有一位投資者放出了一張幻燈片，展示了 10 年內的批發沖銷率。我可能錯了，但從記憶看，它的淨值為零，這顯然是不合理的。

But on your narrow question about the reserve, I think you've actually seen that a little bit. I mean, maybe it doesn't pop in the consolidated numbers, but in some of the recent quarters, as we've sort of started doing some more of these direct lending deals, when we put those deals on the books, they come with quite significant day one reserve balances.

但關於您提出的關於保護區的狹義問題，我認為您實際上已經看到了一點。我的意思是，也許它不會出現在合併數字中，但在最近幾個季度，隨著我們開始進行更多此類直接貸款交易，當我們將這些交易記入賬簿時，它們會帶來相當可觀的第一天儲備餘額。

So, in the normal course that growth comes with healthy reserves and hopefully we get the underwriting right and we got all that money back obviously. So, but yeah -- as you well know, our entire wholesale reserve methodology is highly granular and very specific. And so to the extent that the next shifts, long growth will come with slightly higher reserve intensity, but that'll be situation by situation.

因此，在正常情況下，成長伴隨著健康的儲備，希望我們能夠正確承保，並且顯然能夠收回所有資金。所以，是的——正如你所知，我們的整個批發儲備方法非常細緻且非常具體。因此，就下一次轉變而言，長期成長將伴隨著略高的儲備強度，但這將視具體情況而定。

Okay, perfect. Thank you. And then just the follow up is on how you're thinking about your access capital utilization. I know yesterday you had the press release on leaning into industries that are critical for US security, et cetera.

好的，完美。謝謝。接下來的問題是，您如何考慮存取資本的利用率。我知道昨天你們發布了有關傾向於對美國安全至關重要的行業等的新聞稿。

And maybe you could speak a little bit to that incremental $500 billion. Is it that you're talking about supporting growth of over the next 10 years relative to the potential for a dividend hike? I mean, you could do both obviously, but I did just want to understand the press release yesterday in that context, as well as the opportunity set for a dividend hike. Thanks.

也許您可以稍微談談增量的 5000 億美元。您是在談論支持未來 10 年的成長與股息上漲的潛力嗎？我的意思是，顯然你可以同時做這兩件事，但我只是想了解昨天的新聞稿的背景，以及提高股息的機會。謝謝。

Sure, fine. And yeah, you kind of answered your own question a little bit and that like this kind of an all of the above thing, although obviously we're not going to give or guidance on buybacks or dividend policy, but as you know -- yeah, we're generating a lot of organic capital.

當然可以。是的，你有點回答了你自己的問題，就像以上所有的事情一樣，雖然我們顯然不會就回購或股息政策提供指導，但正如你所知 - 是的，我們正在產生大量的有機資本。

We have a very large access. We've kind of said that we wanted to arrest the growth of the access. We've more or less done that since we said it. And that's actually enabling us. Well, and in the meantime, we've actually grown RWA quite a bit, which -- excuse me, has resulted in some actual decreases in the CD to one ratio.

我們擁有非常大的存取權限。我們說過，我們想要阻止訪問的成長。自從我們這麼說以來，我們或多或少已經這樣做了。這實際上幫助我們實現了目標。嗯，與此同時，我們的 RWA 實際上已經增長了不少，這——對不起，導致 CD 與 1 的比率實際上有所下降。

So we all know, we don't love buying back the stock at these levels, but we want to keep the access reasonable. And in the meantime, we're using our financial resources to lend into the real economy very broadly across the entire franchise. And yeah, yesterday's press release is an extension of that.

所以我們都知道，我們不喜歡以這樣的價格回購股票，但我們希望保持合理的價格。同時，我們正在利用我們的金融資源向整個特許經營領域的實體經濟廣泛提供貸款。是的，昨天的新聞稿就是對此的延伸。

So both in terms of, you know, what we were already going to do in the normal course, plus an aspiration to add another $0.5 trillion of this type of lending at the margin, that's the type of RWA growth that consumes access. And obviously in the context of the access, $10 billion of direct equity investments that are incremental is a nice deployment of a modest portion of the excess. And obviously it's not going to happen instantaneously. So I think all of the above is probably the short answer to your question.

因此，從我們在正常情況下已經採取的措施來看，再加上希望在邊際上再增加 0.5 兆美元的此類貸款，這就是消耗訪問權限的 RWA 成長類型。顯然，在准入方面，100 億美元的增量直接股權投資是對過剩資金的適度分配。顯然這不會立即發生。所以我認為以上所有內容可能就是對你的問題的簡短答案。

Thank you.

謝謝。

Ebrahim Poonawala, Bank of America.

美國銀行的 Ebrahim Poonawala。

Good morning. I guess maybe Jeremy, a broader question, like when we read the quote from Jamie in the press release, customers are resilient, but there's still massive amounts of uncertainty. I'm just wondering if based on what you see, both commercial versus consumer, are things getting better as we look into '26 or does it feel like we are at a tipping point where we could see a slump in unemployment over the coming months that then leads to concerns around the credit cycle? Just if there's a bias that you have on how things could play out, that would be helpful color.

早安.我想傑里米，也許這是一個更廣泛的問題，就像我們在新聞稿中讀到傑米的話一樣，客戶具有韌性，但仍然存在大量的不確定性。我只是想知道，根據您所看到的情況，無論是商業還是消費者，當我們展望 26 年時，情況是否會變得更好，還是感覺我們正處於一個臨界點，我們可能會在未來幾個月看到失業率下降，從而引發對信貸週期的擔憂？如果您對事情的發展有偏見，那麼這將是有幫助的。

Sure. I mean, Jamie may have his own personal opinions here, but I think that at a high level, the story that we're trying to tell is one that's anchored on the current facts. And the current facts on the consumer side is that the consumer is resilient, spending is strong, and delinquency rates are actually coming in below expectations. So those are facts that we really can't escape.

當然。我的意思是，傑米在這裡可能有他自己的個人觀點，但我認為，從高層次上講，我們試圖講述的故事是基於當前事實的故事。目前消費者方面的情況是，消費者俱有韌性，支出強勁，拖欠率實際上低於預期。所以這些都是我們無法逃避的事實。

Now, talking to our economists, I was struck by something that Mike Paroli said about thinking about the current labor market in this moment of what people are describing as a low hiring, low firing moment. You can think of that as potentially explained by, employers experiencing high uncertainty.

現在，在與我們的經濟學家交談時，我對 Mike Paroli 所說的關於在人們所描述的低招聘、低解僱時刻思考當前勞動力市場的事情感到震驚。您可以認為這可能是因為雇主面臨高度的不確定性。

And so if you believe that, and you think about this moment as a moment of high uncertainty, I think tipping point is a little bit too strong a word, but certainly as you look ahead, there are risks. We already have slowing growth. There are a variety of challenges and sources of volatility and uncertainty. And so it's pretty easy to imagine a world where the labor market deteriorates from here.

所以如果你相信這一點，並且認為此刻是一個高度不確定的時刻，我認為「臨界點」這個詞有點太強烈了，但當你展望未來時，肯定會存在風險。我們的成長已經放緩。存在著各種各樣的挑戰以及波動性和不確定性的根源。因此，我們很容易想像，從現在起，世界勞動市場將會惡化。

And if that happens, obviously, as you will know, we're going to see worse consumer credit performance. So I wouldn't say we're pounding the table with this view, but we're just noting, as we always do, that there are risks and that the fact that things are fine now doesn't mean they're guaranteed to be great forever.

如果發生這種情況，顯然，正如你所知，我們將看到更糟糕的消費者信貸表現。因此，我不會說我們正在大力宣揚這種觀點，但我們只是像往常一樣指出，存在風險，而且現在情況良好並不意味著它們會永遠很好。

Got it. Among shareholders, whether AI and AI-driven productivity gains mean something for the banks as we look out over the next two to three years. You all have obviously talked about this at the Investor Day. I'm just trying to contextualize when you talk about the expense growth outlook or just sort of preliminary indication for next year, how should bank shareholders think about AI-led productivity gains in terms of making a dent on the expense growth either next year or for the next few years?

知道了。在股東中，展望未來兩到三年，人工智慧和人工智慧驅動的生產力成長是否對銀行有意義。顯然，你們都在投資者日上談論過這個問題。我只是想在您談論費用成長前景或明年的初步跡象時，銀行股東應該如何看待人工智慧帶來的生產力成長，以降低明年或未來幾年的費用成長？

Yes. So I'll give you my personal opinion about this. I certainly would presume to tell people how to think about this at the system as a whole. But I think the risk is because of how incredibly overwhelming the AI theme is for the whole marketplace right now and all the various effects that it's having in terms of equity market performance, MAG 7, data center build-out, electricity costs, like it's an overwhelming thing.

是的。因此，我將就此發表我的個人看法。我當然願意告訴人們如何從整個系統的角度來思考這個問題。但我認為風險在於人工智慧主題目前對整個市場的影響是多麼巨大，以及它對股票市場表現、MAG 7、資料中心建設、電力成本等方面產生的各種影響，就像是一件壓倒性的事情。

And I think for us, running a company of this type, we need to make sure we stay anchored in like facts and reality and tangible outcomes. So we're putting a lot of energy into this. A lot of people are spending a lot of time on it. We're spending a lot of money on it. We have very deep experts. As Jamie always says, we've been doing it for a long time, well before the current generative AI boom.

我認為對我們來說，經營這種類型的公司，我們需要確保我們是基於事實、現實和實際的成果。所以我們為此投入了大量的精力。很多人花了很多時間在這上面。我們為此花了很多錢。我們擁有非常資深的專家。正如傑米常說的那樣，我們這樣做已經很長時間了，遠早於當前生成式人工智慧熱潮。

But in the end, the proof is going to be in the pudding in terms of actually slowing the growth of expenses. And so what we're doing is kind of rather than saying you must prove that you're generating this much savings from AI, which turns out to be a very hard thing to do, hard to prove and might, at the margin result in people scrambling around to use AI in ways that are actually not efficient and that distract you from doing underlying process reengineering that you need to do.

但最終，能否真正減緩費用的成長，還需實際檢驗。因此，我們所做的並不是說你必須證明你從人工智慧中獲得了這麼多的節省，事實證明這是一件非常困難的事情，很難證明，而且可能會導致人們爭先恐後地以實際上效率不高的方式使用人工智慧，從而分散你對需要進行的底層流程重組的注意力。

What we're saying instead is let's just do old-fashioned expense discipline and constrain people's growth, constrain people's headcount growth. We've talked about that last year. We're going to do the same this year, have a very strong bias against having the reflective response to any given need to be to hire more people and feeling a little bit more confident on our ability to put that pressure on the organization because we know that even if we can't always measure it that precisely, there are definitely productivity tailwinds from AI.

相反，我們要說的是，讓我們只執行老式的費用紀律並限制人們的成長，限制人們的員工人數成長。我們去年已經討論過這個問題了。我們今年也會這樣做，對任何需要雇用更多員工的情況都抱有強烈的偏見，並且對我們向組織施加壓力的能力更有信心，因為我們知道，即使我們不能總是如此精確地衡量它，人工智慧肯定會對生產力產生推動作用。

So that's how we're going to do it. And hopefully, that will show up in lower growth than we would have had otherwise. But a lot of the drivers of growth, which are per capita labor inflation and revenue-related expense and investments are always going to be there. We're never going to stop doing those things. So that's how we think about it.

這就是我們要做的事情。希望這會導致成長率低於我們原本預期的水平。但許多成長動力，即人均勞動力通膨和與收入相關的支出和投資將始終存在。我們永遠不會停止做這些事。這就是我們的想法。

Thank you.

謝謝。

Mike Mayo, Wells Fargo Securities.

富國證券的麥克梅奧 (Mike Mayo)。

Hi, If I could get an answer to this from both you, Jeremy, and Jamie, the question really is how much of a risk is the lending to the NDFIs? Just -- I mean, because you guys are always outfront highlighting what could happen, whether it's cyber or as you point, labor market or inflation.

你好，如果我能從 Jeremy 和 Jamie 那裡得到答案的話，問題實際上是向 NDFI 提供貸款的風險有多大？只是——我的意思是，因為你們總是站在最前面強調可能發生的事情，無論是網路問題，還是如你所指出的，勞動市場或通貨膨脹。

And I feel like you haven't really highlighted this as a potential risk area. Maybe that's because you don't perceive it as such, but you have Tricolor, you have First Brands. One area of your biggest growth, I think, has been NDFIs over the last year.

我覺得你並沒有真正強調這是一個潛在的風險領域。也許是因為你沒有這麼認為，但你有 Tricolor，你有 First Brands。我認為，你們最大的成長領域之一是去年的非銀行金融機構 (NDFI)。

So I'm just trying to put this in some sort of context that as it relates to Tricolor, who bears the losses? Does end investors in the funds? Is it -- do you put skin in the game and have your own investments? Are you an underwriter? Where are you exposed?

因此，我只是想將其放在與 Tricolor 相關的某種背景下，誰來承擔損失？最終投資者是否屬於該基金？您是否參與其中並有自己的投資？您是承銷商嗎？你暴露在什麼地方？

So I guess I'm asking JPMorgan specifically but then Jamie more generally for the industry. Is this something that's flashing yellow that you are spending more time on? How should we think about that? Thank you.

所以我想我是專門向摩根大通詢問，然後傑米更籠統地詢問該行業的情況。這是閃爍黃光並讓您花費更多時間的事情嗎？我們該如何看待這個問題？謝謝。

Right. So let me do what you asked, Mike, and put a little bit of context around this. So a couple -- let's do some housekeeping first. So you talked about Tricolor, you talked about First Brands. I just want to reiterate, we do not have any exposure to First Brands.

正確的。所以，麥克，讓我按照你的要求來做，並對此進行一些背景介紹。所以，一對夫妻──我們先做些家事吧。所以你談到了 Tricolor，談到了 First Brands。我只是想重申一下，我們對 First Brands 沒有任何接觸。

On Tricolor, it represents $170 million of the wholesale charge-off this quarter. Obviously, by definition, that reflects on-balance sheet loans that we're charging off. And with respect to other exposures, I don't really have anything additional to say about that at this point. It will play out as it plays out. But in the normal course, we're always quite conservative about taking all possible hits that we can based on what's knowable upfront.

對 Tricolor 來說，這代表著本季 1.7 億美元的批發沖銷。顯然，根據定義，這反映了我們正在註銷的資產負債表貸款。至於其他曝光，目前我沒有什麼好說的。該發生的事就會發生。但在正常情況下，我們總是非常保守地根據預先了解的情況承受所有可能的打擊。

So take that for whatever it's worth. More generally, I think one thing that's important to say in terms of context about NBFI lending is that the vast majority of that type of lending that we do is highly secured or in some way, structured or securitized. In other words, it's not like we're doing extremely high-risk, low-rated lending for the NBFI community. And so that doesn't mean that there's no risk. That doesn't mean that things can't go wrong.

因此，無論其價值幾何，請接受它。更一般地說，我認為就非銀行金融機構貸款的背景而言，有一點很重要，那就是我們所做的絕大多數此類貸款都是高度安全的，或者在某種程度上是結構化的或證券化的。換句話說，我們並不是為非銀行金融機構提供極高風險、低評等的貸款。但這並不意味著沒有風險。這並不意味著事情不會出錯。

And obviously, if you're doing secured lending and there are problems with the collateral, that's an issue, which is clearly relevant in the case of Tricolor. So -- and we've talked a lot about the question about risk inside the regulated perimeter versus risk outside the perimeter. But we've also acknowledged that a lot of the private credit actors are large, very sophisticated, very good at credit underwriting.

顯然，如果你進行的是擔保貸款，而抵押品存在問題，那就是一個問題，這在 Tricolor 的案例中顯然是相關的。所以——我們已經討論了很多有關監管範圍內風險與監管範圍外風險的問題。但我們也承認，許多私人信貸機構規模龐大、經驗豐富、非常擅長信貸核保。

So I don't think you're supposed to the confusion that there are necessarily lower standards there or a huge systemic problem. And to the extent that we lend to some of these folks who are clients of ours as well as competitors of ours, that lending follows our normal practices. It's often highly secured. And everything we do is in one way or another risky. But I'm not sure that our lending to the NBFI community is an area of risk that we see as more elevated than other areas of risk, I guess, is what I would say.

因此，我認為你不應該產生這樣的困惑：那裡的標準一定較低，或者有巨大的系統性問題。當我們向我們的客戶和競爭對手提供貸款時，貸款遵循我們的正常做法。它通常具有高度安全性。我們所做的每一件事都存在著一定的風險。但我不確定我們向 NBFI 社區提供的貸款是否是一個風險領域，我們認為該領域的風險比其他領域更高，我想說的是。

Yes. Mike, I would just add that it's a very large category of nonbank financial institutions and probably a number like half of it, we would consider very traditional, not like different. There is a component, which is different today than it was years ago, and there's a component which isn't that different.

是的。麥克，我只想補充一點，非銀行金融機構是一個非常大的類別，其中可能有一半我們認為非常傳統，而不是與眾不同。有一個組件與幾年前相比已經有所不同，而有一個組件則沒有太大區別。

But if you look at like COs, CLOs and lending to leveraged entities that are underwritten with leveraged loans, so there's kind of a little bit of double leverage in there. I would say that, yes, there will be additional risk in that category that we will see when we have a downturn.

但如果你看一下 CO、CLO 和向以槓桿貸款承銷的槓桿實體提供的貸款，你會發現其中存在一點雙重槓桿。我想說，是的，當經濟陷入低迷時，我們會看到該類別中存在額外的風險。

I expect to be a little bit worse than other people expect it to be because we don't know all the underwriting standards that all of these people did. Jeremy said these are very smart players. They know what they're doing. They've been around a long time but they're not all very smart.

我預計情況會比其他人預期的要糟糕一些，因為我們不知道所有這些人所遵循的承保標準。傑里米說這些都是非常聰明的球員。他們知道自己在做什麼。他們已經存在很長時間了，但並不都很聰明。

And we don't even know the standards that other banks underwriting to some of these entities. And I would suspect that some of those standards may not be as good as you think. Hopefully, we are very good, though we make our mistakes, too, obviously.

我們甚至不知道其他銀行為這些實體承保的標準是什麼。我懷疑其中一些標準可能不如你想像的那麼好。希望我們做得很好，儘管我們顯然也會犯錯。

So yes, I think you'd be a little bit worse. We've had a benign credit environment for so long that I think you may see credit in other places deteriorate a little bit more than people think when, in fact, there's a downturn. And hopefully, it will be a fairly normal credit cycle.

所以是的，我認為你的情況會更糟一些。我們長期以來一直擁有良好的信貸環境，因此我認為，當經濟實際上陷入低迷時，你可能會看到其他地方的信貸狀況比人們想像的要惡化一些。希望這會是一個相當正常的信貸週期。

What always happens is something is worse than a normal credit cycle than a normal downturn. So we'll see. But we think we're quite careful. And obviously, we scour the world looking for things that we should be worried about. But I do remind people, we've had a bull market for a long time. Asset prices are high, a lot of credit stuff that you would see out there, you will only see when there's a downturn.

總是會發生一些比正常信貸週期更糟糕的事情，而不是正常的經濟衰退。我們拭目以待。但我們認為我們已經非常謹慎了。顯然，我們搜尋世界各地，尋找我們應該擔心的事情。但我確實提醒人們，我們已經經歷了很長一段時間的牛市。資產價格很高，很多信貸狀況只有在經濟低迷時才會出現。

And so just a short follow-up after Tricolor, again, this is a real tiny drop in the bucket for you guys but have you gone back and looked at your processes and done anything different?

因此，這只是 Tricolor 之後的簡短跟進，對你們來說，這真的是九牛一毛，但你是否回去查看了你的流程並做了什麼不同的事情？

Yes. I mean, Michael, you should assume that whenever something happens, we scour all process, all procedures, all underwriting, all everything. And we think we're okay in other stuff. But I -- my antenna goes up when things like that happen. And I probably shouldn't say this but when you see one cockroach, there are probably more.

是的。我的意思是，邁克爾，你應該假設，無論何時發生什麼事情，我們都會仔細檢查所有流程、所有程序、所有承保、所有一切。我們認為我們在其他方面做得還不錯。但是當這樣的事情發生時，我就會豎起天線。我可能不應該這麼說，但是當你看到一隻蟑螂時，可能還有更多。

And so we should -- everyone should be forewarn on this one. And first brands, I put in the same category. And there are a couple of other ones out that I've seen that I put in similar categories. So -- but we always look at these things, and we're not -- I'm nipping in. We make mistakes, too.

所以我們應該——每個人都應該對此有所警覺。我將第一批品牌歸入同一類。我還看到了其他一些類似的，我把它們歸入了類似的類別。所以——但我們總是專注於這些事情，而且我們不會——我正在介入。我們也會犯錯。

So we'll see. There clearly was, in my opinion, fraud involved in a bunch of these things. But that doesn't mean we can't improve our procedures.

我們拭目以待。在我看來，這些事情中顯然存在著欺詐行為。但這並不意味著我們不能改進我們的程式。

Got it. Thank you.

知道了。謝謝。

Gerard Cassidy, RBC Capital Markets.

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

Hi Jeremy, I'm Jamie. Jeremy, obviously, you guys are in the residential mortgage lending market, big players granted home lending. When you look at the revenue relative to banking and wealth management, obviously, it's not that big. But I got a question for you. This administration seems to be -- when they come out with comments, they follow up on those comments with actions. And Secretary of the Treasury, Bessent has pointed out about a couple of months ago that he thinks there's a housing emergency in this country.

你好，傑瑞米，我是傑米。傑里米，顯然，你們是住宅抵押貸款市場的大玩家，提供房屋貸款。當你查看與銀行和財富管理相關的收入時，顯然它並不是那麼大。但我有一個問題想問你。本屆政府似乎——當他們發表評論時，他們會採取行動來跟進這些評論。財政部長貝森特幾個月前就指出，他認為美國正面臨住房危機。

And so the question for you guys is, what do you think they could do to lower the spread between mortgage rates and the corresponding treasury yield, assuming the treasury yields don't go down. But what do you think they can actively do to lower that spread to lower mortgage rates to get housing more active and refinancing activity, of course, would pick up with that.

所以你們的問題是，假設國債殖利率不下降，你們認為他們可以做些什麼來降低房貸利率和相應的國債殖利率之間的利差。但您認為他們可以採取哪些積極措施來降低利差，降低抵押貸款利率，從而使住房更加活躍，當然，再融資活動也會增加。

So I'll take that one. First, on the supply side. I mean it's -- we know what it is. It's permitting, it's rules, it's local rules. It's how long it takes to get permits and build not my backyard, you can't build two stories in certain places. That's the supply side.

所以我會選擇那個。第一，供給側。我的意思是——我們知道它是什麼。這是許可，這是規則，這是地方規則。獲得許可證和建造需要多長時間，而不是我的後院，你不能在某些地方建造兩層樓。這就是供應方。

The demand side -- and remember, don't always push homeownership. I was -- we made a huge mistake in the government policy years ago. But the supply side, we pointed out over and over and over again. I've been talking about it for years that they should focus on reducing requirements require and we think you reduce the cost of mortgages 30 basis points to 40 basis points overall.

需求面－記住，不要總是推動購屋。我曾經──幾年前我們的政府政策犯了一個巨大的錯誤。但我們一再指出供應方面的問題。多年來我一直在談論這個問題，他們應該專注於降低要求，我們認為應該將抵押貸款成本總體降低 30 個基點至 40 個基點。

without creating any additional risk. There is just excessive stuff put in place after the great financial crisis, which obviously demanded a response but it's excessive. Anyone to take it out a mortgage will tell you they had to sign 17 forms, 17 documents and all these things. So that to me is the most obvious one. And obviously, government policy, if the government wants to do more FHA, they can do that.

而不會產生任何額外的風險。金融危機爆發後，政府推出了一些過度措施，顯然需要回應，但這些措施過於過度。任何辦理抵押貸款的人都會告訴你，他們必須簽署 17 份表格、17 份文件以及所有這些東西。對我來說這是最明顯的。顯然，根據政府政策，如果政府想要做更多的聯邦住房管理局，他們可以這樣做。

But that's up to them about where they want to cheap in mortgages for near prime or all stuff like that. But if they did anything like that, I would say, always do it really thoughtfully.

但這取決於他們想要在哪裡以低廉的價格獲得接近優質貸款或諸如此類的東西。但如果他們做了這樣的事，我想說，一定要深思熟慮。

Very good. And as a follow-up, just speaking about regulators in general, there's obviously been a major change with this administration. Can you guys give us any color of what you're actually seeing on the ground. We're, what, nine months or so into this new administration with the new regulators? And then also any color on when you think Basel III end game may come out and what you're hearing in terms of how it will compare to what the original proposal was in July of '23. Thank you.

非常好。接下來，就監管機構總體而言，本屆政府顯然發生了重大變化。你們能告訴我們你們在地面上實際看到的顏色嗎？新政府和新監管機構上任已經九個月了？另外，您認為巴塞爾協議 III 的最終結果何時會出台，以及您聽到的與 2023 年 7 月最初提出的方案相比有何不同？謝謝。

Yes. Thanks for that, Gerard. So I agree with you. This administration is saying things and from what we're seeing, transitioning to action quite quickly. So what we're seeing from our engagement in Washington, and there's been some reporting in the press recently that's quite comprehensive on the evolution of potential new proposals, which is aligned with what we're hearing as well.

是的。謝謝你，傑拉德。所以我同意你的看法。本屆政府正在發表言論，而且從我們所看到的情況來看，正在迅速採取行動。因此，我們從華盛頓的接觸中看到的情況以及最近媒體對潛在新提案的進展的一些相當全面的報道，也與我們聽到的情況一致。

But in general, there's a bias for action, getting things done quickly and they're looking at things quite comprehensively from what we see. And as you know, we've argued for a long time, Jamie has argued a lot that this is not about some overall calibration of the system, some like backsolving exercise for some number of whatever type. This is about looking at all the individual components of the capital rules understood holistically, doing the math right and letting that roll up to whatever answer it's going to be.

但總的來說，他們傾向於採取行動，快速完成任務，而且從我們所看到的情況來看，他們看待事物的方式相當全面。如你所知，我們已經爭論了很長時間，傑米也多次爭論說，這與系統的整體校準無關，有些人喜歡對某種類型的數字進行回溯求解練習。這是關於從整體上理解資本規則的所有單一組成部分，進行正確的計算，然後將其匯總到任何答案中。

And by the way, that answer is going to be different for different firms depending on their business mix. And that's okay. And that's part of the reason it doesn't really make sense to kind of try to calibrate to some overall level for the system. It's just like do the math right in a way that makes sense for the individual product or business area or source of risk, and you'll get a reasonable outcome the system.

順便說一句，根據業務組合的不同，不同公司的答案也會有所不同。沒關係。這也是為什麼嘗試校準系統的整體水平實際上沒有任何意義的部分原因。這就像以對單一產品或業​​務領域或風險源有意義的方式進行正確的計算，您將獲得合理的系統結果。

And from what we're hearing, that's very much the direction of travel. The relevant agencies are working well together. There's a sense of urgency. And so we're encouraged. And I would note actually, back to your first question, that one area where getting things right at the individual product level has relevance is allowing banks to play their appropriate role in the residential mortgage lending market when it -- in the instances where it makes sense, keep those instruments on the balance sheet, you want the capitalization of those to be reasonable and aligned with the risk. And again, from what we understand, that is the direction of travel.

從我們所聽到的消息來看，這正是旅行的方向。相關機構正在進行良好合作。有一種緊迫感。因此我們感到鼓舞。實際上，回到你的第一個問題，我想指出，在單一產品層面上做好事情的一個相關領域是允許銀行在住宅抵押貸款市場中發揮適當的作用——在合理的情況下，將這些工具保留在資產負債表上，你希望這些工具的資本化是合理的並與風險相一致。再次強調，根據我們的理解，這就是旅行的方向。

So in terms of timing, I mean, your guess is as good as mine. I think there have been some public comments, and I would just anchor myself on those and the press reporting. But we definitely hear a desire to get things done quickly. And these things are complicated. In some areas, we might have some disagreements at the margin. We'd still dislike G-SIB as a matter of principle. But we don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good here and what we're hearing is trending in the right direction.

所以就時間而言，我的意思是，你的猜測和我的一樣好。我認為已經有一些公眾評論，我只是想根據這些評論和新聞報導來判斷。但我們確實聽到了希望快速完成任務的願望。這些事情很複雜。在某些領域，我們可能會存在一些分歧。從原則上來說，我們仍然不喜歡 G-SIB。但我們不想讓完美成為好的敵人，我們聽到的趨勢是正確的。

Yes. And I just add the Dana number, they are doing that. They're looking at it holistically, that's great. But Dana number is right. I've said for years, G-SIB, CCAR, operational risk capital, double counting of the trading book, I mean it's just wrong.

是的。我剛剛添加了 Dana 號碼，他們正在這樣做。他們從整體上看待這個問題，這很好。但達納的數字是正確的。多年來我一直在說，G-SIB、CCAR、操作風險資本、交易帳簿的重複計算，我的意思是，這是錯誤的。

And some of these numbers are so inaccurate that they published that they should publish them with the disclosure saying, we know these are highly inaccurate like the CCAR test. We know that this is not remotely related to reality or stuff like that. So it's almost a dishonest disclosure of these things, like do the actual number. The second thing they really should do, which I think they're doing is what is the intended effect and what's the unintended effect. So we talk about -- we've gone from 8,000 public companies to 4,000 public companies.

他們發布的一些數字非常不準確，他們應該在披露中指出，我們知道這些數字與 CCAR 測試一樣非常不準確。我們知道這與現實或諸如此類的事情毫無關係。因此，這幾乎是對這些事情的不誠實披露，就像實際數字一樣。他們真正應該做的第二件事，我認為他們正在做的是，什麼是預期效果，什麼是非預期效果。所以我們談論的是——我們的上市公司數量從 8,000 家減少到了 4,000 家。

We've gone from pushing mortgages out of the banking system to a huge buildup in parts of the nonbank institutions and a huge amount of arbitrage taking place. I was a regulator, I'd be looking at all that and say, my God, is that what I wanted. And the biggest frustration is they couldn't fixed all these things, reduce liquidity, reduce capital, all these things and made the system safer.

我們已經從將抵押貸款排除在銀行系統之外，到在部分非銀行機構中大量增加抵押貸款，並發生大量套利。我是一名監管者，我會看著這一切並說，天哪，這就是我想要的嗎。而最大的挫折是他們無法解決所有這些問題，減少流動性，減少資本，所有這些問題，並使系統更安全。

So we had a Silicon Valley Bank blow up because they're so focused on governance, they forgot to focus on interest rate exposure. And they are making changes that, like what is actually real risk banks are bearing as opposed to walk signaling on what a bank should be doing all the time. So hopefully, they'll do it. I think they're devoted to doing it. Like look at their words and their speeches, I'm talking about the OCC, the Fed, the FDIC. So I think it's very good. Let's get it done quickly.

因此，矽谷銀行破產了，因為他們過於注重治理，而忘記了關注利率風險。他們正在做出改變，例如了解銀行實際上承擔的真正風險，而不是一直發出銀行應該做什麼的訊號。所以希望他們能夠做到。我認為他們致力於做這件事。看看他們的言論和演講，我在談論美國貨幣監理署 (OCC)、聯準會 (Fed)、聯邦存款保險公司 (FDIC)。所以我認為這非常好。我們快點完成它。

Thank you for the color. I appreciate it.

謝謝你的顏色。我很感激。

Erika Najarian with UBS.

瑞銀的 Erika Najarian。

Yes, thank you. My first one is for you, Jeremy. Under the category no good deed goes unpunished. Just wanted to ask a quick question on the expense outlook for '26. You mentioned that $100 billion could be a little low and that you're in the middle of the planning cycle. That would imply 4% growth year-over-year. Is that the sort of new normal labor rate inflation that we should assume at this point?

是的，謝謝。我的第一個問題是給你的，傑瑞米。在這一類別下，善惡皆有報。我只是想問一個關於 26 年支出前景的簡單問題。您提到 1000 億美元可能有點低，而且您正處於規劃週期的中期。這意味著同比增長4%。這是我們目前應該假設的新的正常勞動率通膨嗎？

Okay. So yes, a couple of things about that. One is not to get too much into the weeds here but our expenses are a little bit seasonal. So annualizing the fourth quarter, like sometimes you get a bunch of offsets and it's like okay to do that, sometimes it's not. So we always try to do this based on a sort of launch point of the annualized fourth quarter rate.

好的。是的，關於這一點有幾件事。這裡我們不想討論太多細節，但我們的開支有點季節性。因此，將第四季度進行年度化，有時您會得到一堆抵消，這樣做是可以的，但有時則不行。因此，我們總是嘗試根據第四季年化利率的啟動點來做到這一點。

And while that's a reasonable thing to do for NII, it's a lot harder to do for expenses. But taking a step back for a second, I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know, like you can look at whatever ECI or whatever other government measure of labor cost inflation, we know that even while inflation is like a lot lower, we're very far from the moment in the mid-2010s where inflation was, for all intents and purposes, practically zero.

雖然這對 NII 來說是一件合理的事情，但對於費用來說卻困難得多。但退一步來說，我不會告訴你任何你不知道的事情，例如你可以看看 ECI 或其他政府衡量勞動力成本通膨的指標，我們知道，即使通膨率低了很多，我們也離 2010 年代中期通膨率幾乎為零的水平還很遠。

So yes, I think the new normal for labor is some number like that, whatever, 3%, 4%. And it's not just labor, right? I mean, again, I don't want to fail to recognize the extent to which inflation has more or less come back to normal. But by normal, we mean the Fed's target. And for a while, it was below target. So whether it's labor or goods and services, not to get into tariffs or whatever, that's a factor that applies to our entire cost base.

所以是的，我認為勞動力的新常態就是這樣的數字，不管怎樣，3%、4%。這不僅僅是勞動力，對吧？我的意思是，我不想忽視通貨膨脹在多大程度上已經恢復正常。但所謂正常，是指聯準會的目標。有一段時間，它低於目標。因此，無論是勞動力或商品和服務，不涉及關稅或其他什麼，這都是適用於我們整個成本基礎的因素。

In addition to that, as we noted, we're going to invest where it makes sense. We're going to pay for performance to the extent that there's higher performance and also generally, higher revenues will be associated with other variable expenses.

除此之外，正如我們所指出的，我們將在合理的領域進行投資。我們將根據績效支付更高的報酬，而且一般來說，更高的收入將與其他變動費用相關。

And then overlying all of that is the question of productivity. And it includes but is not limited to AI-driven productivity. So you can assume that we're going to be pushing hard on all fronts to extract as much productivity out of the organization as possible. But as is always true, we're going to try to keep that focus separate from our commitment to invest for growth in the places where we want to.

而這一切之上的就是生產力問題。它包括但不限於人工智慧驅動的生產力。因此，你可以假設我們將在各個方面竭盡全力，並盡可能提高組織的生產力。但一如既往的是，我們將努力將這一重點與我們在希望實現成長的地方進行投資的承諾分開。

And Erika, just add to that, medical, we spent $3 billion or so in medical. That's going to be up 10% next year. And so when you look at some of these things, and we know that already and maybe we think it actually might be up another 10% in 2027 for a whole bunch of different reasons. And that's one thing. The other thing about comp, I just want to point it out, there's normal inflation and pay-for-performance, all that.

艾莉卡，另外還要補充一點，我們在醫療方面花了大約 30 億美元。明年這一數字將上漲 10%。因此，當您查看其中一些內容時，我們已經知道了這一點，也許我們認為由於各種不同的原因，到 2027 年它實際上可能會再上漲 10%。這是一件事。關於薪酬的另一件事，我只想指出，有正常的通貨膨脹和績效工資等等。

There's a lot of pressure on -- from other people who are paying people quite well, hedge funds, law firms, private equity, nonbank financial institutions, and we are going to pay our people competitively. That is sine qua non if you want to have a great company for the next 20 years.

我們面臨著很大的壓力——來自其他支付員工豐厚薪酬的機構，如對沖基金、律師事務所、私募股權、非銀行金融機構，而我們將為員工提供具有競爭力的薪酬。如果你想在未來 20 年內擁有一家偉大的公司，這是必要條件。

And so there's some of that, too. I'm not sure that it's going to change very much when you look at it but I would put in the back of your mind, too. It's probably good for you all to hear me say that. It'll be true for research.

所以也有一些這樣的情況。我不確定當你看到它時它是否會發生很大的變化，但我也會把它放在你的腦海裡。聽我這麼說可能對你們都有好處。對於研究來說這確實是正確的。

I'll make sure to send this transcript to my boss. But the second question is actually for you, Jamie. You have always had a differentiated way of thinking about risk and a two-part question for you. Number one, I feel like we don't even know what the right questions are to ask when it comes to NDFI exposure and risk, which is such a broad category. And so a two-part question here. Number one, what would be the questions you think investors should ask when assessing NDFI exposure as it relates to future credit risk?

我一定會將這份成績單寄給我的老闆。但第二個問題其實是問你的，傑米。您一直對風險有著差異化的思考方式，並且您有一個由兩部分組成的問題。首先，我覺得我們甚至不知道在談到 NDFI 風險敞口和風險這個非常廣泛的類別時應該問什麼正確的問題。這裡的問題分為兩部分。第一，您認為投資者在評估與未來信用風險相關的 NDFI 曝險時應該提出哪些問題？

And second, should investors be concerned about the SSFA accounting for RWAs in certain structures where you could lower the RWAs to NDFI exposures from 100% to something much lower?

其次，投資者是否應該擔心 SSFA 在某些結構中對 RWA 的核算，在這些結構中，您可以將 RWA 與 NDFI 曝險的比例從 100% 降低到更低的水平？

Which SSFA?

哪個 SSFA？

Got it. I used to know that acronym. It's a technical thing inside securitization where under some conditions, you can lower the RWA weighting.

知道了。我以前知道這個縮寫。這是證券化內部的技術問題，在某些條件下，你可以降低 RWA 權重。

Is that insurance related.

那跟保險有關嗎？

No, it's for us. It's like a part of the rate cap rules. Yes. Do you want me to do that one first and you can do the first one? So even though I don't remember what the -- I think it's like standardized securitization, something, something.

不，這是給我們的。這就像是利率上限規則的一部分。是的。你想讓我先做那個，然後你做第一個嗎？所以，儘管我不記得是什麼——但我認為它就像標準化的證券化，某種東西。

I forget what it stands for. But from what I recall about looking at that one, I think it is a mechanism by which you can take otherwise punitive risk weighting for certain types of structures and reduce it from 100 to 20 where arguably 20 is actually probably still too high because you've essentially mitigated the entire risk.

我忘了它代表什麼。但從我記得看過那份文件的情況來看，我認為這是一種機制，透過這種機制，你可以對某些類型的結構採取懲罰性風險權重，並將其從 100 降低到 20，而 20 實際上可能仍然太高，因為你基本上已經減輕了整個風險。

So my question is all the things to worry about, I wouldn't worry about that whatever you want to call it. protection enhancement or risk weighting decrease in that narrow context. And on your question of like what questions to ask about the NBFI space in general, I mean, Jamie will have his views.

所以我的問題是，所有需要擔心的事情，無論你想怎麼稱呼它，我都不會擔心。在那個狹窄的背景下，保護增強或風險權重降低。至於您問的關於 NBFI 領域總體上應該問什麼問題，我的意思是，Jamie 會有他的看法。

But yes, I think it starts by acknowledging that like it's a very, very broad space. And so we probably need to narrow the focus a little bit. Like subprime auto is one thing, lending to like trillion asset is a very different thing.

但是的，我認為首先要承認它是一個非常非常廣闊的空間。因此我們可能需要稍微縮小一下關注範圍。次級汽車貸款是一回事，而向數萬億資產提供貸款又是另一回事。

Maybe we take a crack and tell you a little bit more about it. We feel fairly comfortable with our exposure in that. But I think what you should do is -- I think when we have a downturn, this is the important thing, there will be a credit cycle. And we shouldn't be surprised. The credit card losses go up, middle market loss go up, everything gets worse in a downturn in credit.

也許我們可以嘗試一下並向您詳細介紹。我們對自己在這方面的曝光度感到相當滿意。但我認為你應該做的是——我認為當我們陷入經濟低迷時，重要的是會出現一個信貸週期。我們不應該感到驚訝。信用卡損失增加，中間市場損失增加，信用低迷時期一切都變得更糟。

I do suspect -- I can't prove this, and I don't know because we don't know everyone's underwriting standards. Every now and we see what someone else is doing, we're surprised that their standards are not particularly good, but that's always been true. I suspect when there's a downturn, you will see higher than normal downturn type of credit losses in certain categories. I just suspect that. And so the other thing, which you can do, which I'm going to ask Mike Grub to do for me because I asked periodically, look at the pricing of BDCs and their publicly traded private credit facilities and do the homework.

我確實懷疑——我無法證明這一點，而且我不知道，因為我們不知道每個人的承保標準。每當我們看到別人在做什麼時，我們都會驚訝地發現他們的標準並不是特別好，但事實總是如此。我懷疑，當經濟出現低迷時，你會看到某些類別的信貸損失高於正常的低迷類型。我只是懷疑這一點。所以另一件事，你可以做，我會請 Mike Grub 幫我做，因為我會定期詢問，查看 BDC 及其公開交易的私人信貸工具的定價並做好功課。

There are disclosures around that, and we do it. And so maybe we take just a crack at one point, laying out the different carriers of MBFIs and ones that might be concerning and ones that aren't concerning.

有關於此的披露，我們也會這樣做。因此，也許我們只是在某個時候嘗試一下，列出 MBFI 的不同運營商，以及哪些可能令人擔憂，哪些不令人擔憂。

Thank you.

謝謝。

Thanks Erika.

謝謝 Erika。

Jim Mitchell, Seaport Global Securities.

吉姆·米切爾，Seaport Global Securities。

Hey, good morning. Maybe just on the investment banking environment. Obviously, things have gotten better. Just curious where you see the most strength in the pipeline. And as we get rate cuts coming, do you feel that we're starting to see more activity pick up or the potential for more activity to pick up among financial sponsors? Just curious your thoughts.

嘿，早安。也許只是關於投資銀行環境。顯然，情況已經好轉。我只是好奇您認為管道中最強大的部分在哪裡。隨著利率下調，您是否覺得我們開始看到金融贊助商的活動有所回升，或者有潛力看到金融贊助商的活動有所回升？只是好奇你的想法。

Okay. Interesting question on the sponsors. I mean, I don't know. I personally am not persuaded of the notion that cuts coming through that are fully priced in are going to meaningfully change behavior in a sort of highly sophisticated professional community like financial sponsors. If that plays into like flattening of the yield curve for other reasons, et cetera, beyond what's priced in from the forwards, that could be a little bit of a different story.

好的。關於贊助商的有趣問題。我的意思是，我不知道。我個人並不相信，已經完全計入價格的削減措施能夠顯著改變金融贊助商等高度複雜的專業群體的行為。如果由於其他原因導致殖利率曲線趨於平緩，超出了遠期價格的影響，那麼情況可能會有所不同。

But I think what is clearly true, a little bit to the point of your question is that the environment is -- the results are very robust and the tone is very upbeat. I think an interesting thing from my perspective is to think about the narrative starting from the beginning of the year, right? We had the moment of -- everyone was talking about animal spirits and a big booming moment. And then we had Liberation Day and all the tariff uncertainty and equity market volatility. And so things kind of went quiet for a while.

但我認為，顯然事實是，有點切中你的問題的要點，那就是環境是——結果非常強勁，基調非常樂觀。我認為從我的角度來看一件有趣的事情是從年初就開始思考敘述，對嗎？我們經歷了這樣的時刻——每個人都在談論動物精神和繁榮的時刻。然後我們迎來了解放日以及所有的關稅不確定性和股票市場波動。事情就這樣暫時平靜了下來。

But what's interesting is that from the IPO perspective, for example, processes were kicked off early in the year. And those processes continued even during the moments where conditions weren't ideal for the deals. And what that meant is that there's a lot of stuff like in the queue that's kind of ready to go. And now conditions are much more favorable, both in terms of equity market valuations, at least until recently, relatively low equity market volatility, a bit more breadth in the rally in terms of multiples, including smaller cap tech sector or whatever.

但有趣的是，從 IPO 的角度來看，相關流程在今年初就已經啟動。即使在條件不利於交易的情況下，這些流程仍在繼續。這意味著隊列中有很多東西已經準備好了。現在的情況要有利得多，無論是從股市估值來看，至少直到最近，股票市場波動性相對較低，市盈率上漲幅度也更大，包括小型科技股等。

So yes, that's one area. And in the meantime, as you know, we're starting to see more M&A activity as well. I noted earlier, I think it was the busiest summer we've had in like a long time in terms of announced M&A activity. We're seeing that play through into acquisition finance. I think the rate environment is good enough from the perspective of being able to get deals done. So it's a pretty supportive environment. But as you well know, that can change overnight.

是的，這是一個領域。同時，如您所知，我們也開始看到更多的併​​購活動。我之前提到過，就宣布的併購活動而言，我認為這是我們很長一段時間以來最繁忙的夏天。我們看到這種現象正在滲透到收購融資中。我認為從達成交易的角度來看，利率環境已經夠好了。所以這是一個非常支持的環境。但正如你們所知，這種情況可能在一夜之間改變。

Yes. That's all fair. And then maybe just a follow-up on just capital relief and how you're adjusting or at least starting to think about adjusting to that RWA growth that's picking up. Is there other aspects, whether it's in the Markets business or other marginal return activities before that you see opportunities to lean into growth to use up capital because obviously, IRRs on buybacks today at these levels are not great.

是的。這很公平。然後也許只是對資本減免的後續關注，以及您如何調整或至少開始考慮如何適應正在回升的 RWA 成長。還有其他方面嗎？無論是在市場業務還是之前的其他邊際回報活動中，您都看到了依靠成長來消耗資本的機會，因為顯然，目前這些水準的回購的 IRR 並不高。

Yes, exactly. I mean that's the exact math that we're always doing, which is like, okay, subject to certain assumptions, what is the return on a buyback and what's the alternative. Now obviously, we want to be careful there, right? I mean if you take that argument to the extreme and you say like, oh, we want to do every piece of business that's like 1 basis point above the theoretical return on buybacks, you wind up potentially making a lot of really dumb risk decisions.

是的，確實如此。我的意思是，這就是我們一直在做的精確計算，好吧，在某些假設下，回購的回報是多少，替代方案是什麼。現在顯然我們要小心，對吧？我的意思是，如果你把這個論點推向極端，你說，哦，我們想做的每項業務都比回購的理論回報率高出 1 個基點，你最終可能會做出很多非常愚蠢的風險決策。

So you want it to be franchise accretive business and you want to recognize that your estimate of the return of that business is itself subject to some uncertainty. Jamie always says, like putting liquid par assets on the balance sheet and adding leverage is not a thing that actually generates value no matter what the supposed return of that instrument is in the spreadsheet.

因此，您希望它成為特許經營增值業務，並且您希望認識到您對該業務回報的估計本身受到一些不確定性的影響。傑米總是說，將流動資產放在資產負債表上並增加槓桿並不是一件真正能產生價值的事情，無論該工具在電子表格中的預期回報是多少。

So it's a thing that we -- it's a thing that we think about a lot. And -- but I would say to the extent that, that's shaping our behavior, it's probably already shaping our behavior because, as you know, we've had the access for quite a while. The price of tangible book multiple has been going up for quite a while. So we're going to continue looking for constructive ways to deploy while making sure that we don't do anything stupid, frankly.

所以這是我們常常思考的事情。而且——但我想說，從某種程度上來說，它正在塑造我們的行為，它可能已經在塑造我們的行為了，因為如你所知，我們已經擁有這種權利很長一段時間了。實體書的價格已經上漲了相當長一段時間。因此，坦白說，我們將繼續尋找建設性的部署方式，同時確保我們不會做任何愚蠢的事情。

Okay, thanks for the color,

好的，謝謝你的顏色，

Thanks, Jim.

謝謝，吉姆。

Ken Usdin, Autonomous.

肯‧烏斯丁，自治。

Thank you. Good morning. I wanted to ask a question about just overall loan yields. I noticed that they were up 3 basis points in the quarter. Obviously, rates hadn't been moving during the quarter and now that we're starting to head back down. Just wondering just what are the main drivers of still being able to actually see higher loan yields.

謝謝。早安.我想問一個有關整體貸款收益率的問題。我注意到本季它們上漲了 3 個基點。顯然，本季利率一直沒有變動，現在又開始回落。我只是想知道究竟是什麼主要驅動因素能夠真正實現更高的貸款收益率。

I never look at that. So I have literally no idea why the loan yield is up 3 basis points in the quarter. But if I had to guess, I think it's almost always a function of various types of mix effects, recognizing that we have loans of radically different yields across the company from SOFR plus 20 basis points too. And so relatively small changes in mix can make a big difference.

我從來不看那個。所以我真的不知道為什麼本季貸款收益率上升了 3 個基點。但如果我必須猜測的話，我認為這幾乎總是各種混合效應的函數，同時認識到我們整個公司的貸款收益率與 SOFR 加上 20 個基點的收益率截然不同。因此，混合物中相對較小的變化可能會產生很大的影響。

Then obviously, you've got a lot of floating rate instruments all else equal, you would expect those yields to be lower given the cuts that have come in but mix effects can easily overwhelm that. So I'm sure Michael will have a good answer for you by the time the call is over, but I had not looked at that one.

那麼顯然，在其他條件相同的情況下，你有很多浮動利率工具，考慮到已經實施的降息，你會預期這些收益率會更低，但混合效應很容易壓倒這一點。所以我相信邁克爾在通話結束時會給你一個很好的答案，但我還沒有看過那個。

Okay. I'll follow up on that. And secondly, with the Sapphire refresh, just assume that we're starting to see some of the awards amortization show in the card fees line and in the card revenue rate. So I'm just wondering if you could kind of walk us through that now that, that card is coming on and you mentioned good additions there.

好的。我會跟進此事。其次，隨著 Sapphire 的更新，我們假設我們開始看到一些獎勵攤銷顯示在卡片費用線和卡片收入率。所以我只是想知道您是否可以向我們詳細介紹一下，因為那張卡即將推出，而且您還提到了其中的一些很好的補充。

Just what do we have to think about in terms of what leads the horse in terms of card revenue rate and eventual volume growth and related benefits.

我們究竟要考慮什麼才能在卡片收入率、最終銷售成長和相關收益方面佔據領先地位。

Yes, it's a good question. So one thing that you might have noticed talking about kind of micro supplement points is that the revenue rate is actually lower than the NII yield, which implies a negative NIR yield. And by the way, that yield is a number that's often quite close to zero.

是的，這是個好問題。因此，您可能已經注意到，在談論微補充點時，收益率實際上低於 NII 收益率，這意味著負 NIR 收益率。順便說一句，這個收益率通常非常接近零。

So it doesn't take a lot to make it negative, but it is like currently negative. And while there's a lot of puts and takes inside that number in terms of rewards liability, annual fees and so on, the particular dynamic that's happening now is that as part of the refresh, customers are getting increased value ahead of the moment where the annual fee goes up. So there's a kind of transitional period of a few months as the refresh rolls through where those numbers are slightly elevated.

因此，不需要花費太多就能使其變為負值，但目前的情況就像是負值一樣。雖然在獎勵責任、年費等方面，這個數字中有很多得失，但現在發生的具體動態是，作為更新的一部分，客戶在年費上漲之前獲得了更高的價值。因此，在更新過程中，會有幾個月的過渡期，在此期間這些數字會略有上升。

The fee comes in over a year and some of these rewards come into negative NII over a year.

費用在一年內到賬，其中一些獎勵在一年內變成了負的 NII。

Exactly.

確切地。

It's one example of like really bad accounting.

這是一個非常糟糕的會計行為的例子。

Yes. As that stuff normalizes through, we -- some of these numbers like return to slightly more normal appearance but it might actually take a couple of quarters for that to play out.

是的。隨著這些事情逐漸正常化，我們——其中一些數字會恢復到稍微正常一點的狀態，但實際上可能需要幾個季度才能實現。

Okay, got it. Thank you.

好的，明白了。謝謝。

Thanks.

謝謝。

Chris McGratty, KBW.

克里斯·麥格拉蒂，KBW。

Oh great, thanks for sneaking in. Related to the 15% long-term national retail deposit market share, does your pricing need to be materially different from recent history? Or said another way, do you need to price a little bit more competitive to get that 4 points of improvement over time?

哦，太好了，謝謝你偷偷溜進來。與 15% 的長期全國零售存款市佔率相關，您的定價是否需要與近期歷史有重大差異？或者換句話說，您是否需要提高價格競爭力，以便隨著時間的推移獲得這 4 點的改進？

In short, I would say no, unless my CCB colleagues disagree or eventually change their strategy. But I think what you see right now actually from those numbers is you do see us losing a little bit of share in the FDIC recently released results, which have us as number 1, which we're happy to celebrate for the fifth year in a row.

簡而言之，我會說不，除非我的 CCB 同事不同意或最終改變他們的策略。但我認為，從這些數字中你現在實際上看到的是，在聯邦存款保險公司 (FDIC) 最近發布的結果中，我們的份額確實有所下降，而我們的排名是第一，我們很高興連續第五年慶祝這一成績。

And the other leading banks or other large banks, which have adopted similar pricing strategies are also seeing a little bit of loss of share. So that is, from our perspective, expected as a conscious result of being disciplined about the pricing of deposits. And it sort of has no particular bearing on the long-term growth strategy to get to 15%, which is all about expansion and deepening and the core value proposition that we offer.

而其他採用類似定價策略的領先銀行或其他大型銀行的市佔率也出現了一定程度的下降。因此，從我們的角度來看，這是有意識地嚴格控制存款定價的結果。這與達到 15% 的長期成長策略並沒有什麼特別的關係，我們的策略重點在於擴張和深化，以及我們提供的核心價值主張。

And interestingly, interestingly, when you look inside the granular market-by-market results in that FDIC data, what you see is us actually taking share in a lot of the kind of highest priority, highest profile expansion markets. So in that sense, it's actually a validation of the strategy. And by the way, I got my answer on the loan yield question. It is mix, including cards. So my guess was correct.

有趣的是，當你查看 FDIC 數據中逐個市場的詳細資訊時，你會發現我們實際上在許多最高優先級、最受關注的擴張市場中佔據了份額。從這個意義上來說，這實際上是對該策略的驗證。順便說一句，我得到了貸款收益率問題的答案。它是混合的，包括卡片。所以我的猜測是正確的。

The retail branch system, as Jeremy said, deepening. But remember, it's better products, better services, more branches and better location, deepening with customer segmentation. If we do a good job in all that, then we hope to gain share. And I think we are doing a good job on that but that -- we have to deliver that for a year to get to 15%.

正如傑里米所說，零售分公司體係正在不斷深化。但請記住，隨著客戶細分的深入，產品會更好、服務會更好、分公司會更多、位置會更好。如果我們在所有這些方面都做得很好，那麼我們希望獲得份額。我認為我們在這方面做得很好，但是我們必須用一年的時間才能達到 15% 的目標。

Great. Thank you for the call. I appreciate it.

偉大的。謝謝您的來電。我很感激。

Folks, thank you very much, for spending time with us. We'll talk to you all soon. Thank you.

各位，非常感謝你們花時間與我們在一起。我們很快會和你們交談。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，享受美好的一天剩餘時間。