摩根大通 (JPM) 2025 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to JPMorgan Chase's fourth quarter 2025 earnings call. This call is being recorded. Your line will be muted for the duration of the call. 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.

女士們、先生們，早安。歡迎參加摩根大通2025年第四季財報電話會議。本次通話正在錄音。通話期間您的線路將會被靜音。現在我們將開始現場直播演示。此簡報可在摩根大通網站上查看。有關前瞻性陳述的免責聲明，請參閱背面。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. Mr. Barnum, please go ahead.

現在，我想把電話交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 and good morning, everyone. This quarter, the firm reported net income of $13 billion and EPS of $4.63 with an ROTCE of 18%. These results included the previously announced reserve bill of $2.2 billion in CCB related to the forward purchase commitment of the Apple card portfolio.

謝謝大家，大家早安。本季度，該公司公佈淨收入為 130 億美元，每股收益為 4.63 美元，ROTCE 為 18%。這些結果包括先前公佈的建行22億美元與蘋果信用卡組合遠期購買承諾相關的準備金。

Revenue of $46.8 billion was up 7% year on year on higher markets revenue as well as higher asset management fees and auto lease income. The increase in NII ex markets was primarily driven by higher firmwide deposit balances and revolving balances in card, largely offset by the impact of lower rates.

營收達 468 億美元，年增 7%，主要得益於市場收入成長、資產管理費上漲以及汽車租賃收入增加。淨利息收入（不含市場）的成長主要由公司整體存款餘額和信用卡循環餘額的增加所推動，但很大程度上被利率下降的影響所抵消。

Expenses of $24 billion were up 5% year on year, predominantly driven by higher volume and revenue-related expenses and compensation growth, including front office hiring, partially offset by the release of an FDIC special assessment accrual.

支出為 240 億美元，年增 5%，主要原因是銷售量和收入相關支出以及薪酬成長（包括前台招聘），部分被 FDIC 特別評估應計款項的釋放所抵消。

Turning to the full year results, I'll remind you that there were a few significant items in 2025 which are listed in the footnote. Excluded those items, the firm reported full year net income of $57.5 billion, EPS of $20.18, revenue of $185 billion with an ROTCE of 20%. And in terms of the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with a standardized CET1 ratio of 14.5%, down 30 basis points versus the prior quarter, as net income was more than offset by capital distributions and higher RWA.

展望全年業績，我提醒各位，2025 年有一些重要事項，這些事項列在註腳中。剔除這些項目後，該公司公佈全年淨收入為 575 億美元，每股收益為 20.18 美元，收入為 1850 億美元，ROTE 為 20%。就資產負債表而言，本季末標準化 CET1 比率為 14.5%，比上一季下降了 30 個基點，因為淨收入被資本分配和更高的 RWA 所抵消。

This quarter's higher standardized RWA is driven by increases in lending across both wholesale and retail, including the Apple card purchase commitment, which contributed about $23 billion of standardized RWA, partially offset by lower market risk RWA. You'll see that sequentially the advanced RWA is up more significantly than standardized, and as you know, our [SCB] is now at the 2.5% floor, which makes advanced RWA more relevant, so we have added it to the page.

本季標準化 RWA 增加，主要受批發和零售貸款增加的推動，其中包括 Apple Card 的購買承諾，這貢獻了約 230 億美元的標準化 RWA，但部分被較低的市場風險 RWA 所抵消。你會發現，高級 RWA 的增幅比標準 RWA 更為顯著，而且如你所知，我們的 [SCB] 目前處於 2.5% 的下限，這使得高級 RWA 更具相關性，因此我們已將其添加到頁面中。

The Apple card transaction's advanced RWA contribution was about $110 billion based on the sum of expected drawn balances and undrawn lines on closing. The elevated level of advanced RWA is temporary and is expected to reduce to approximately $30 billion in the near term.

根據結算時預期提取餘額和未提取額度的總和計算，Apple Card 交易的預估 RWA 貢獻約為 1,100 億美元。目前較高的優先風險加權資產水準是暫時的，預計短期內將減少至約 300 億美元。

Moving to our businesses. CCB reported net income of $3.6 billion or $5.3 billion, excluding the reserve bill for the Apple card portfolio. Revenue of $19.4 billion was up 6% year on year, predominantly driven by higher NII on higher revolving balances in card and a higher deposit margin in banking and wealth management.

轉向我們的業務。建行公佈淨利為36億美元，若不計入蘋果信用卡業務的準備金，則為53億美元。營收達 194 億美元，年增 6%，主要得益於信用卡循環餘額增加帶來的淨利息收入成長，以及銀行和財富管理存款利潤率提高。

A few points to highlight. Consumers and small businesses remain resilient. We continue to monitor leading indicators for any signs of stress, and despite weak consumer sentiment, trends in our data are largely consistent with historical norms, and we are not currently seeing deterioration.

以下幾點需要重點說明。消費者和小型企業依然保持韌性。我們持續監測領先指標，以發現任何壓力跡象。儘管消費者信心疲軟，但我們的數據趨勢與歷史常態基本一致，目前尚未出現惡化跡象。

Across income groups, debit and credit sales volume continued to perform well, up 7% year on year. For the full year, we had strong growth in our franchise with 1.7 million net new checking accounts, 10.4 million new card accounts, and record households in wealth management across digital and advised channels.

各收入群體中，金融卡和信用卡銷售額持續表現良好，較去年同期成長 7%。全年來看，我們的特許經營業務實現了強勁增長，淨新增支票帳戶 170 萬個，新增信用卡帳戶 1040 萬個，透過數位和諮詢管道進行財富管理的家庭數量也創下歷史新高。

Next, the CIB reported net income of $7.3 billion. Revenue of $19.4 billion was up 10% year on year, driven by higher revenues in markets, payments, and security services. To give a bit more color, IB fees were down 5% year on year, reflecting a strong prior year compare and the timing of some deals that were pushed to 2026.

接下來，CIB公佈淨利為73億美元。營收達 194 億美元，年增 10%，主要得益於市場、支付和安全服務業務營收的成長。為了更清楚地說明情況，IB 費用年減 5%，這反映了上一年強勁的業績基數以及一些交易被推遲到 2026 年的時間安排。

In terms of the outlook, we expect strong client engagement and deal activity in 2026, supported by constructive market dynamics, which is reflected in our pipeline. Markets, fixed income was up 7% year on year with strong performance in securitized products, rates, and currencies in emerging markets, largely offset by lower revenue and credit rating. Equities was up 40%, robust performance across the franchise, particularly in prime.

展望未來，我們預計在2026年，在積極的市場動態支持下，客戶參與度和交易活動將保持強勁成長，這體現在我們的專案儲備中。市場方面，固定收益年增 7%，新興市場的證券化產品、利率和貨幣表現強勁，但收入和信用評級的下降在很大程度上抵消了這一增長。股票上漲 40%，整個業務股表現強勁，尤其是優質股。

Turning to asset and wealth management. AWM reported net income of $1.8 billion with a pre-tax margin of 38%. Revenue of $6.5 billion was up 13% year on year, predominantly driven by growth in management fees on higher average market levels and strong net inflows, as well as higher performance fees.

轉向資產和財富管理。AWM公佈淨利為18億美元，稅前利潤率為38%。營收達 65 億美元，年增 13%，主要得益於市場平均上升和淨流入強勁，管理費成長以及業績費提高。

Long-term net inflows were $52 billion for the quarter and $209 billion for the full year, positive across all channels, regions, and asset classes. In liquidity, we saw net inflows of $105 billion for the quarter and $183 billion for the year. And we saw record client asset net inflows of $553 billion for the year.

本季長期淨流入為 520 億美元，全年淨流入為 2,090 億美元，所有通路、地區和資產類別均實現正成長。在流動性方面，本季淨流入資金為 1,050 億美元，全年淨流入資金為 1,830 億美元。我們看到，本年度客戶資產淨流入達到創紀錄的 5,530 億美元。

To finish up the fourth quarter results, corporate reported net income of $307 million and revenue of $1.5 billion.

第四季業績總結如下：公司報告淨利潤為 3.07 億美元，營收為 15 億美元。

Before I go over the outlook, I want to make a few points on non-bank financial institution lending, given the attention it received last quarter. When we look at NBFI lending internally, we use a narrower definition than what the Call Report uses.

在展望未來之前，我想就非銀行金融機構貸款問題談幾點看法，因為上個季度它受到了關注。當我們內部審視非銀行金融機構貸款時，我們使用的定義比《監理報告》中使用的定義更為狹窄。

Our definition focuses on exposure to nonbank financial institutions as collateralized by the loans the NBFI is making to end borrowers. At the top of the page, we provided a reconciliation of the regulatory definition -- our definition. And as you can see, that results in excluding, for example, subscription lending to private equity funds, resulting in about $160 billion of exposure as of the fourth quarter. We've also given you categories of the exposure that we believe are a bit more intuitive and mapped to recognizable industry categories and business models of the NBFIs.

我們的定義著重於非銀行金融機構的風險敞口，該風險敞口以非銀行金融機構向最終借款人發放的貸款作為抵押。在頁面頂部，我們提供了監管定義與我們定義的協調。正如你所看到的，這導致例如對私募股權基金的認購貸款被排除在外，截至第四季度，風險敞口約為 1600 億美元。我們也提供了我們認為更直觀、與非銀行金融機構的可識別行業類別和商業模式相對應的風險敞口類別。

Now looking at the bottom left, you can see that even though our narrower definition produces a smaller absolute number, the growth over the last seven years has been quite significant no matter how you look at it. And the drivers of that growth are well understood in terms of market dynamics and regulatory pressures.

現在來看左下角，你可以看到，儘管我們更嚴格的定義產生了一個較小的絕對數字，但無論從哪個角度來看，過去七年的增長都相當顯著。而推動這一成長的因素，從市場動態和監管壓力方面來看，已經得到了很好的理解。

In terms of risk, on the bottom right of the page, we've given you some detail on the structural features associated with different versions of this lending in the different asset classes. Given the significant amount of credit enhancement involved in this activity, as well as the absence of a traditional credit cycle during the period, it's not surprising that when we look at the loss history since 2018, we've only seen one charge off; one related to apparent fraud.

就風險而言，我們在頁面右下角為您提供了有關不同資產類別中不同版本貸款的結構特徵的詳細資訊。鑑於此活動涉及大量的信用增級，以及在此期間沒有傳統的信貸週期，因此，當我們查看 2018 年以來的損失歷史時，只看到一筆註銷，這並不奇怪；這筆註銷與明顯的欺詐有關。

Stepping back, in light of the growth and the novel elements of some components of this activity, we are quite mindful of the risks. But given the structural protections, you would generally expect losses in this NBFI category to appear either as a result of additional instances of fraud-like problems or as a result of a particularly deep recession erodes all the credit enhancement. In that scenario, losses associated with traditional lending to end borrowers would likely be the greater concern for the industry.

退一步講，考慮到這項活動的成長以及某些組成部分的新穎之處，我們非常清楚其中的風險。但考慮到結構性保護措施，一般來說，非銀行金融機構類別的損失要么是由於類似詐欺問題的進一步發生，要么是由於特別嚴重的經濟衰退削弱了所有信用增級措施。在這種情況下，傳統貸款對最終借款人造成的損失可能會成為該行業更關注的問題。

Now turning to the outlook for 2026. We continue to expect NII ex markets to be about $95 billion. The drivers we explained the last quarter remain largely the same, so I'll cover them quickly. As usual, the outlook follows the forward curve, which currently assumes two rate cuts. Offsetting that was the expectation for continued loan growth in card, slightly less than last year as the resolve normalization tailwind is behind us, as well as modest firmwide deposit growth.

現在展望一下2026年。我們仍然預計除市場外的淨利息收入約為 950 億美元。我們在上個季度解釋的驅動因素基本上保持不變，所以我將快速介紹一下。與往常一樣，前景遵循遠期曲線，目前曲線假設兩次降息。抵銷這項影響的是信用卡貸款的持續成長預期，儘管由於「決議」正常化帶來的利好因素已經過去，貸款成長速度略低於去年，同時公司整體存款成長也較為溫和。

For completeness, we expect total NII to be about $103 billion for the year as a function of markets NII increasing to about $8 billion due to lower funding costs from the rate cuts, which you should think of as being primarily offset in NIR.

為了完整起見，我們預計全年淨利息收入總額約為 1,030 億美元，其中市場淨利息收入將因降息導致融資成本降低而增加約 80 億美元，而這主要會被淨利息收入抵銷。

On expense, as we told you at an industry conference in December, we expect 2026 adjusted expense to be about $105 billion. Broadly, the expense growth continues to align with where we see the greatest opportunities across our businesses. The details of the thematic drivers are listed on the page and are broadly consistent with what we've told you before.

關於支出，正如我們在 12 月的行業會議上告訴大家的那樣，我們預計 2026 年調整後的支出約為 1050 億美元。整體而言，支出成長與我們認為各業務領域最具發展機會的領域保持一致。主題驅動因素的詳細資訊已列在該頁面上，與我們先前告訴您的內容基本一致。

On the slide, we've shown you 2024 and 2025 as well as 2026 and called out the foundation contribution and the FDIC special assessment. In adjusting for those, the 2026 growth looks a bit more in line. Still, 2026 in isolation clearly represents meaningful expense growth in both dollar and percentage terms, and that growth reflects our structural optimism about the opportunities set for the company when we look through the cycle, as well as some optimism about the near term revenue outlook.

在幻燈片中，我們向您展示了 2024 年、2025 年以及 2026 年，並標明了基金會的貢獻和 FDIC 特別評估。考慮到這些因素，2026 年的成長看起來更符合實際情況。不過，單獨來看，2026 年的支出無論從美元或百分比來看，都明顯具有顯著成長意義。這種成長反映了我們對公司在整個週期中所面臨的機會的結構性樂觀態度，以及對近期收入前景的樂觀態度。

More generally, the environment is only getting more competitive and so it remains critical to ensure that we are making the necessary investments to secure our position against both traditional and non-traditional competitors.

更廣泛地說，市場環境競爭日益激烈，因此，確保我們進行必要的投資以鞏固自身地位，抵禦傳統和非傳統競爭對手的挑戰，仍然至關重要。

To wrap up on credit, we expect the 2026 card net charge off rate to be approximately 3.4% on provable delinquency trends driven by the continued resilience of the consumer. We're now happy to take your questions, so let's open the line for Q&A.

最後總結一下信貸方面，我們預期 2026 年信用卡淨註銷率約為 3.4%，這是由於消費者持續的韌性推動了可證實的違約趨勢。現在我們很樂意回答大家的問題，讓我們開始問答環節吧。

(Operator Instructions) Glenn Schorr, Evercore.

（操作說明）Glenn Schorr，Evercore。

So I want to ask on the stablecoin issue. This week, we're going to have some markings up and talk in Congress. I saw the ABA letter this week talking about the immediacy of the issue and whether or not they can close the loophole on interests on stablecoin.

所以我想問一下關於穩定幣的問題。本週，我們將進行一些標記工作，並在國會進行討論。我本週看到了美國銀行家協會的信函，信中談到了該問題的緊迫性，以及他們是否能夠堵上穩定幣利息方面的漏洞。

And I think they've estimated that -- or Treasury estimated that it's like $6.6 trillion of bank deposits could be at risk if they don't close that loophole. So my question is, it was written from the ABA standpoint, the community bank standpoint, is there any reason why it wouldn't be all banks; you, specifically?

我認為他們估計——或者說財政部估計——如果不堵上這個漏洞，大約有 6.6 兆美元的銀行存款可能面臨風險。所以我的問題是，這份文件是從美國銀行家協會（ABA）和社區銀行的角度寫的，那麼有什麼理由不適用於所有銀行，特別是你們銀行呢？

And then how big of a deal for the banking system if they're not successful closing that hole? Because it does put people at risk of not having insurance and all that stuff. So I'll let you opine.

如果銀行體系無法成功填補這個漏洞，將會造成多大的影響？因為它確實會使人們面臨沒有保險等風險。所以，我讓你發表意見。

Right. Okay. Thanks, Glenn. I guess I'll start by saying you probably know more about this than I do. And I think Marianne is really the expert at this point, and she did give some comments about this, at least in our recent industry conference.

正確的。好的。謝謝你，格倫。我想先說一句，你可能比我更了解這方面的情況。我認為瑪麗安娜才是這方面的專家，至少在我們最近的產業會議上，她也對此發表了一些評論。

But I'll give you my brief take broken into a couple of pieces. So one, it's worth saying, although it's not directly responsive to your question that as a company, we've been quite involved in the whole blockchain technology space for some time, and through our Kinexys offering, are doing a bunch of kind of really cool stuff across both wholesale -- as you know, we launched the first -- our first tokenized money market fund.

但我會把我的看法分成幾個部分簡單地告訴你。首先，值得一提的是，雖然這與你的問題沒有直接關係，但作為一家公司，我們已經在區塊鏈技術領域深耕了一段時間，並透過我們的 Kinexys 產品，在批發領域開展了許多非常酷的事情——正如你所知，我們推出了第一個代幣化貨幣市場基金。

And so that's a capability that we've developed over a long period of time. We are really cutting-edge in terms -- on there. And we're kind of using that kind of across the whole company as we engage more in that ecosystem.

這是我們在很長一段時間內發展起來的能力。我們在這方面確實處於領先地位。隨著我們更多地參與這個生態系統中，我們正在全公司範圍內運用這種方法。

On a related point, also, I think in CCB, we're plugging in a little bit more to the crypto ecosystem. And we have an agreement with Coinbase and it's going to be possible to buy crypto in the CCB ecosystem too. So I say that all by way of saying that like we see the interesting developments in the space, the technological innovation. We're engaged, we're watching, we care.

另外，我認為在CCB，我們也正在更多地融入加密貨幣生態系統。我們與 Coinbase 達成了協議，未來也可以在 CCB 生態系統中購買加密貨幣。所以我說這些，其實是想表達我們看到了該領域有趣的進展和技術創新。我們參與其中，我們密切關注，我們十分關心。

I would just add one quick thing. That letter was signed by the ABA, the FSF, the ICBA. It was all banks; it wasn't a handful of banks.

我只想補充一點。那封信由美國律師協會 (ABA)、自由體育基金會 (FSF) 和國際律師協會聯合會 (ICBA) 共同簽署。涉及所有銀行，而不是少數幾家銀行。

Okay. I didn't actually know that. So helpful. And I think what I was going to say narrowly about that point is there -- I think it's a two-part answer to your question. One, I think it's very clear, and it's in the spirit of the GENIUS Act legislation and everything that we're advocating for, that the creation of a parallel banking system that is sort of -- has all the features of banking, including something that looks a lot like a deposit that pays interest, without sort of the associated credential safeguards that have been developed over hundreds of years of bank regulation is an obviously dangerous and undesirable thing. So that is the core of our advocacy.

好的。我之前並不知道。太有用了。我覺得我原本想就這一點具體說的就是──我認為你的問題可以從兩方面來回答。首先，我認為這一點非常明確，而且符合 GENIUS 法案立法的精神以及我們所倡導的一切，那就是創建一個平行的銀行系統，該系統具備銀行業的所有特徵，包括看起來很像支付利息的存款，但卻沒有數百年來銀行監管所發展起來的相關憑證保障措施，這顯然是一件危險且不可取的事情。這就是我們倡議的核心。

Your narrow question of like, if this doesn't turn out the way we're arguing it should, what is the risk to banking system deposits? I actually think that's a pretty complicated question and it involves a lot of nuances about where does the money come from, where does it go, the securities are purchased from whom, what is the impact on system-wide deposits, and how does that sort of move between consumer and wholesale?

你提出的問題很狹隘，例如，如果事情的發展不像我們預期的那樣，那麼銀行體系存款會面臨什麼風險？我認為這確實是一個相當複雜的問題，它涉及很多細微差別，例如資金從哪裡來，資金流向哪裡，證券是從誰那裡購買的，對系統存款的影響是什麼，以及這些資金如何在消費者和批發商之間流動。

But clearly, there is some risk for some firms, maybe for many firms and some version of a threat to the business model, and I think we always embrace competition. So this is not about saying that we don't want to compete, but it's about avoiding the creation of a parallel ecosystem that has all the same economic properties and risk without appropriate regulation.

但顯然，這對某些公司來說存在一定的風險，或許對許多公司來說也存在一定的風險，而且對商業模式構成某種威脅。我認為我們始終歡迎競爭。所以這並不是說我們不想競爭，而是為了避免創建一個平行生態系統，該系統在缺乏適當監管的情況下，擁有所有相同的經濟特性和風險。

And so -- and the final point to say, I guess, is that in the end, all of our thinking around this from a customer perspective and from an investment and from a franchise perspective is organized around the question of what actual benefit does the consumer get.

所以——最後一點我想說的是，歸根究底，我們從客戶角度、投資角度和特許經營角度出發的所有思考，都是圍繞著消費者實際能獲得什麼好處這個問題展開的。

So as much as like the technology is cool and those interesting stuff there, in the end, you have to ask yourself, how does this actually make the consumer experience better? And in the cases where it does, we either need to get involved or improve our own service offering.

所以，儘管這些技術很酷，也很有趣，但最終你必須問問自己，這究竟該如何改善消費者的體驗？如果確實存在這種情況，我們要么需要介入，要么需要改進我們自己的服務。

In the cases where it doesn't, it's sort of sometimes a little bit of a solution in terms of a problem. So I think the question of the risk to existing business models and banking system deposits needs to be looked at through that lens. But it's obviously an important question and our CCB folks are spending a lot of time on that.

在某些情況下，它並不能完全解決問題，但從某種程度上來說，它也能起到一定的解決方案作用。所以我認為，需要從這個角度來看待現有商業模式和銀行體系存款面臨的風險問題。但這顯然是一個重要的問題，我們的CCB團隊正在投入大量時間來研究這個問題。

I appreciate that. I have a very short, narrow follow-up. You noted the 1.7 million net new checking accounts opened for the year and deposit growth is small. But I also noted the 17% growth in client investment assets. Is that all of it, or are there other things at play that's limiting deposit growth despite all this great checking account growth?

我很感激。我的後續工作非常簡短，範圍也很窄。您提到今年新增淨支票帳戶 170 萬個，但存款成長幅度很小。但我同時也注意到客戶投資資產成長了 17%。就只有這些原因嗎？還是說還有其他因素限制了存款成長，儘管支票帳戶成長迅猛？

Interesting. So I think what you're saying implicitly is like, is the reason that the growth in checking account balances is relatively muted that sort of investment flows are competing that away in some sense? Good question.

有趣的。所以我覺得你言下之意是，支票帳戶餘額成長相對平緩的原因，是不是因為投資流動在某種程度上抵銷了這種成長？問得好。

I would say, partially, but not really. I guess the broader narrative is about sort of a tension between the very robust franchise growth, which we've alluded to with the 1.7 million net new accounts, offset against the systems, albeit at a much lower level of yield-seeking flows.

可以說部分如此，但也不完全如此。我認為更廣泛的敘事是關於特許經營業務強勁增長（我們已經通過 170 萬個淨新增帳戶來暗示這一點）與系統業務之間的一種緊張關係，儘管系統業務的收益導向資金流動水平要低得多。

So to the extent that you consider flows into investments yield-seeking flows, I think there is a relationship between the two. But I would probably put more traditional yield-seeking flows higher up the list relative to investments, but it's clearly both.

所以，如果你把流入投資的資金視為追求收益的資金流，我認為兩者之間有某種關聯。但就投資而言，我可能會把更傳統的追求收益的資金流放在更高的位置，但顯然兩者兼而有之。

And so yeah, as we talked about over the prior few quarters, like the level of yield-seeking flows dropped off a lot, but it's not 0. And so as we talked about last quarter, when you combine that with a slightly lower savings rate and a couple of other dynamics, that sort of moment where we were expecting the balance per account number in CCB to start growing again has just been pushed out a little bit.

是的，正如我們在前幾個季度討論的那樣，尋求收益的資金流動水平大幅下降，但並沒有降至 0。正如我們上個季度所討論的那樣，再加上儲蓄率略微下降以及其他一些因素，我們原本預期建行每帳戶餘額會再次開始增長的時刻，現在被推遲了一點。

And so that's the reason that we talked about previously, I think last quarter, that our expectations for consumer deposit growth in 2026 are lower than they had been in our scenario analysis at Investor Day, and that remains the case.

因此，這就是我們之前（我認為是上個季度）討論過的原因，即我們對 2026 年消費者存款成長的預期低於我們在投資者日情境分析中的預期，而且這種情況仍然如此。

Ken Usdin, Autonomous.

Ken Usdin，自主。

Jeremy, you mentioned when you were talking about the expense outlook that there's obviously part of the investment cycle there. You mentioned that the revenue growth outlook in there also looks pretty good. I was just wondering, and we can see that in the volume-based part of the growth. But I'm just wondering, you have your NII look, we have your expenses, just what parts of the fees are you expecting to be strong? You mentioned some deals pushed out in IB. If you can kind of just help us flavor, kind of understand like just where the biggest drivers of fee revenue growth are going to be as you look across the businesses to help us kind of fill in a little bit?

傑里米，你在談到支出前景時提到，這顯然是投資週期的一部分。您提到那裡的營收成長前景也相當不錯。我只是在想，我們可以從基於成交量的成長部分看出這一點。但我只是想知道，你們已經了解了淨利息收入，我們也了解了你們的支出，你們預計哪些費用部分會表現強勁？你提到了一些在投行被推遲的交易。如果您能幫我們分析一下，了解一下各個業務中費用收入成長的最大驅動因素是什麼，以便我們更好地了解情況，那就太好了！

Sure. Yeah, good question. So -- and I sort of chose my words carefully there because I think there are two versions of this in terms of expenses and investments in terms of like short term versus long term. So narrowly, when you look at 2026, we do show you there volume and revenue-related expense, which what we traditionally described as good expense. And certainly, that is a driver of the overall growth and expenses.

當然。嗯，問得好。所以——我剛才斟酌了一下措辭，因為我認為就支出和投資而言，有兩種情況，即短期投資與長期投資。因此，從更狹義的角度來看，當我們展望 2026 年時，我們會向您展示與銷售和收入相關的支出，而這正是我們傳統上所說的良好支出。當然，這肯定是整體成長和支出的驅動因素。

We do also note in there, there's -- a significant chunk of that is auto lease depreciation, which is essentially should be thought of as primarily a contra revenue item or whatever. So there's some optimism about the fee environment embedded there.

我們還注意到，其中很大一部分是汽車租賃折舊，這基本上應該被視為主要的收入抵減項目或其他什麼。所以，其中蘊含著對收費環境的樂觀態度。

So to answer your question directly, breaking down 2026, I obviously want to kind of break our tradition of not guiding on fees/NIR given how market dependent they are and volatile they are. But you won't be surprised to hear that we're obviously optimistic on investment banking fees generally. I would say on markets, we're very optimistic about the franchise and the environment is quite supportive, but it was an exceptionally strong year this year. So as we always say in markets, the number will be whatever it will be, and we'll try to make it as big as possible.

所以直接回答你的問題，展望 2026 年，鑑於費用/淨利率受市場影響較大且波動性較大，我顯然想打破我們不就此提供指導的傳統。但您或許不會感到意外，我們對投資銀行的收費前景大致上持樂觀態度。就市場而言，我們對特許經營權非常樂觀，市場環境也相當有利，但今年確實是異常強勁的一年。正如我們在市場上常說的那樣，最終的數字會是多少，我們會盡力讓它盡可能大。

And on the rest of the kind of fee items, the sort of broad wealth management, asset management across both CCB and AWM, again, we're very optimistic about the position of the franchise there and the associated implications for fees. But we're a little bit cautious about sort of market appreciation drivers given kind of where we're launching from and given the type of year that it's been this year. So it's a little bit of a balanced story, I would say, in terms of fee outlook for 2026, not for any particularly negative reason but just because 2025 was so exceptionally strong.

至於其他類型的費用項目，例如建行和AWM的廣泛財富管理和資產管理業務，我們對這些業務的特許經營地位以及相關的費用影響同樣非常樂觀。但考慮到我們目前的處境以及今年的特殊情況，我們對市場升值驅動因素持謹慎態度。所以，就 2026 年的費用前景而言，我認為情況比較平衡，這並非出於任何特別負面的原因，而是因為 2025 年的表現異常強勁。

And then just to briefly pivot to the larger point, and the attention I'm drawing to is the relationship between 2026 projected expense growth and the associated 2026 revenues versus the broader category of investments in long-term growth of the franchise, kind of the top part of the page, across bankers, branches, product capabilities, et cetera, which is also a reflection of optimism, but long-term optimism that this is a franchise that rewards investment across all of its parts.

然後，我想簡單地轉到更重要的一點，我想強調的是，2026 年預計支出增長與 2026 年相關收入之間的關係，以及對特許經營權長期增長的更廣泛投資類別（類似於頁面上方的內容，涵蓋銀行家、分支機構、產品能力等等），這也反映了一種樂觀情緒，但這種樂觀情緒是長期的回報，這是一個能夠經營其部分的投資權。

Excellent. And the follow-up to that balancing act also is I think you guys have been more than fine not counting on positive operating leverage every year. How do you balance where your efficiency ratio versus your ROE outputs are, given that you're still in this really strong upper teen zone that is obviously still generating tons of capital and allowing you to do a lot with the company?

出色的。而對於這種平衡策略的後續發展，我認為你們一直以來都做得很好，沒有期待每年都能獲得正向經營槓桿。鑑於您目前仍處於非常強勁的十幾個百分點的水平，顯然仍在產生大量資本，並允許您對公司進行很多操作，您如何平衡效率比率和淨資產收益率之間的關係？

Yeah. I mean, I guess I would sort of anchor my answer on that one on the word output that you used. So on a couple of dimensions. So if you remember my Investor Day presentation, we talked a little bit about the way that we think about capital deployment sort of across the descending stack of marginal return opportunities and the fact that we will very much deploy large amounts of capital below 17%, because the alternative is to buy back stock at implied returns that are much, much, much lower than that. And that's a good thing and we don't apologize for that, and we think it's shareholder accretive.

是的。我的意思是，我想我的答案應該會圍繞著你所使用的「輸出」這個詞。所以從幾個方面來看。所以，如果你還記得我的投資者日演講，我們當時談到了我們如何考慮資本部署，也就是按照邊際回報機會遞減的順序進行部署，以及我們會將大量資本部署在低於 17% 的回報率上，因為另一種選擇是以遠低於這個回報率的隱含回報回購股票。這是件好事，我們對此毫不後悔，我們認為這有利於股東增值。

And so for that reason, we really are starting to pivot much more to really discuss the through-the-cycle ROTCE target as simply an output of like our overall business strategy and the intelligent deployment of our financial resources and our investments across the entire opportunity set.

因此，正因如此，我們開始更加重視討論貫穿整個週期的 ROTCE 目標，將其視為我們整體業務策略以及在整個機會範圍內合理部署財務資源和投資的成果。

And in some respects, that's also true about the efficiency ratio. In the end, we do what we need to do to compete, we're going to invest where we need to invest to secure the future of the company and to drive the revenue growth that we need to drive.

在某些方面，效率比率也是如此。最終，為了保持競爭力，我們會做我們必須做的事情；我們會投資於我們必須投資的地方，以確保公司的未來，並推動我們所需的收入成長。

And as long as what we're doing is still expected to be long-term profitable, in some sense, the efficiency ratio is a bit of an output. Jamie always says, perennially expanding -- the notion of constant operating leverage mathematically implies perennially expanding margins, which is an obvious impossibility in a highly competitive business that we operate in.

只要我們所做的事情預計還能長期獲利，從某種意義上說，效率比率就是一種產出。Jamie 總是說，持續擴張——持續經營槓桿的概念在數學上意味著利潤率持續擴張，這在我們所處的競爭激烈的行業中顯然是不可能的。

So it is a good sanity check. And that number drifts high, maybe you have to look a little harder at your expenses and make sure that everything that you're doing is what you want it to be with the maximum possible efficiency. But we sort of do that all the time anyway. So that's what I would say in response to that.

所以這算是一種很好的理性檢驗。如果這個數字持續走高，或許你需要更仔細地檢視你的開支，確保你所做的每一件事都能達到你想要的效果，並盡可能地提高效率。但我們其實一直都在這樣做。這就是我對這個問題的回應。

I would just add that capital is invested to get a good return through the cycle, which means sometimes you have a better efficiency ratio, sometimes you have a worse efficiency ratio. It's kind of more of an outcome of the decisions you make.

我還要補充一點，投資資本是為了在整個週期中獲得良好的回報，這意味著有時效率比率會更高，有時效率比率會更低。這更多的是你所做的決定所帶來的結果。

100%.

100%。

John McDonald, Truist Securities.

John McDonald，Truist Securities。

I wanted to ask a little bit about the credit card business. I mean, I guess, first, in terms of the Apple Card, acquisition. Maybe you could talk about the attraction of that business to you guys, both the actual book and also what you're hoping to get out of the co-brand partnership and the platform more broadly?

我想稍微了解一下信用卡業務。我的意思是，首先，就 Apple Card 的收購而言。或許你們可以談談這家公司對你們的吸引力所在，包括這本書本身，以及你們希望從聯名品牌合作和更廣泛的平台中獲得什麼？

Yeah, absolutely. So let me start by pointing out what I think is obvious, but it's worth saying in light of how much attention this deal has gotten, which is that, as you say, like from a narrow perspective, just in terms of the portfolio and the transaction, this is an economically compelling transaction for us as a co-brand deal. And I think someone described it as a win-win-win for all three parties and I think that's very much how we feel about it. So that's a good starting point.

是的，絕對的。首先，我想指出一點，我認為這顯而易見，但鑑於這筆交易受到瞭如此多的關注，這一點值得一提。正如你所說，從狹義的角度來看，僅就投資組合和交易本身而言，作為一項聯合品牌交易，這對我們來說是一筆在經濟上極具吸引力的交易。我認為有人將其描述為對三方都有利的三贏局面，我們也深有同感。所以這算是一個不錯的起點。

And then in addition to that, obviously, you're talking here about a partnership with a firm, Apple, that is a leader in payments innovation and user experience, and it's obviously like a very compelling distribution channel for card.

此外，顯然，這裡指的是與蘋果公司（一家在支付創新和用戶體驗方面領先的公司）的合作，這顯然是一個非常有吸引力的信用卡分銷管道。

And so it's going to be challenging for us. The integration is going to take two years for a reason. We feel confident that we'll get it done successfully. And I think the process of getting it done in the narrow sense is going to make us better, just generally accelerate and challenge our modernization agenda, and the user friendliness of everything that we do in the card business.

所以這對我們來說將是一個挑戰。整合過程需要兩年時間是有原因的。我們有信心能夠成功完成這項任務。我認為，從狹義上講，完成這項工作的過程將使我們變得更好，總體上加速並挑戰我們的現代化議程，以及我們在信用卡業務中所做的一切的用戶友好性。

And beyond that, we'll see. We'll see what comes out of the partnership. But obviously, anyone should be thrilled to be in a partnership with Apple.

至於其他方面，我們拭目以待。我們拭目以待這次合作會帶來什麼結果。但很顯然，任何人都應該為能與蘋果公司合作而感到興奮。

Okay. And then maybe you or Jamie could provide some thoughts on the idea of regulators putting caps on credit card APRs, just potential impacts on the industry and how you would think through strategic reactions as a big issuer.

好的。然後，或許您或 Jamie 可以就監管機構限制信用卡年利率的想法發表一些看法，例如對行業的潛在影響，以及作為大型發卡機構，您會如何考慮戰略應對措施。

Yeah. Thanks, John. And I appreciate the way you framed the question, because the thing that I'm sort of trying to avoid doing is spend a lot of energy or time speculating on the probability that this does or doesn't happen in whatever form it does or doesn't happen.

是的。謝謝你，約翰。我很欣賞你提出問題的方式，因為我想要避免的就是花費大量精力或時間去猜測這件事發生或不發生的可能性，無論它以何種形式發生或不發生。

So I think for the purposes of this call, and obviously, we can assume that, institutionally, we'll be doing all the relevant contingency planning. But for the purposes of this call, given how little we know at this point, the way I would prefer to talk about it is just assume for the sake of argument that something in the general mode of price controls on credit card interest rates goes through, what would be the consequences of that?

所以我認為，就本次通話而言，顯然我們可以假設，在製度層面上，我們將進行所有相關的應急計劃。但就這次通話而言，鑑於我們目前知之甚少，我更願意這樣討論：為了便於討論，假設對信用卡利率實行價格管制之類的措施得以實施，那麼其後果是什麼？

And I think the first thing to say, which you obviously know very well, is that the card ecosystem is an exceptionally competitive ecosystem. It's among the most competitive businesses that we operate in. And that's true for all levels of borrower credit score, from a high FICO to low FICO.

我認為首先要說的是，這一點你顯然很清楚，那就是信用卡生態系統是一個競爭異常激烈的生態系統。這是我們所處行業中競爭最激烈的行業之一。這一點適用於所有借款人信用評分水平，從高 FICO 到低 FICO。

And so in that context, when you -- just basic economics, when you start with that as your starting point, the right assumption about what the response of the system is going to be to the imposition of these controls is not that you will simply compress the profit margins, which are already at their sort of competitively optimal level, and thereby pass on benefits to consumers.

因此，在這種情況下，當你——僅僅是基本的經濟學原理，當你以此為出發點時，對於系統對這些控制措施的反應的正確假設，並不是你會簡單地壓縮利潤率（利潤率已經處於某種競爭最優水平），從而將利益傳遞給消費者。

What's actually simply going to happen is that the provision of the service will change dramatically. Specifically, people will lose access to credit, like on a very, very extensive and broad basis, especially the people who need it the most, ironically. And so that's a pretty severely negative consequence for consumers and, frankly, probably also a negative consequence for the economy as a whole right now.

實際上，服務提供方式將會發生巨大變化。具體來說，人們將失去獲得信貸的途徑，而且這種失去的程度非常非常廣泛，尤其是那些最需要信貸的人，這真是莫大的諷刺。因此，這對消費者來說是一個相當嚴重的負面後果，坦白說，對目前的整體經濟來說也可能是負面後果。

I don't want to let this pass without saying that I think it should be obvious that that would also be bad for us. I'm not going to get into quantifying, but in a narrow sense, this is a big business for us. It's a very competitive business, but we wouldn't be in it if it weren't a good business for us. And in a world where price controls make it no longer a good business, that would present a significant challenge, clearly.

我不想就此罷休，我想說，很明顯，這對我們來說也是不利的。我不想進行量化分析，但從狹義上講，這對我們來說是一門大生意。這是一個競爭非常激烈的行業，但如果這個行業對我們來說不好，我們就不會涉足其中。在一個價格管制使得商業不再有利可圖的世界裡，這顯然會帶來巨大的挑戰。

Beyond that, the way we actually respond would have a lot to do with the details, and I just don't think we have enough information at this point.

除此之外，我們實際的應對方式很大程度取決於細節，而我認為目前掌握的資訊還不夠。

Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley.

摩根士丹利的貝齊·格拉塞克。

Okay. So just one follow-up to the last question is, does it impact how you're thinking about the co-brand cards you have, the rewards card? Is -- because I think one of the media narratives here is that it would impact only revolvers. And I'm wondering if that's a view that you share, or is this an impact on the entirety of the card book?

好的。那麼，對於上一個問題，我還有一個後續問題：這是否會影響您對您擁有的聯名卡和獎勵卡的看法？因為我認為媒體的一種說法是，這只會影響左輪手槍。我想知道你是否也持這種觀點，或者這會影響整本卡牌書？

Can I just -- look, obviously, it would impact prime less than subprime. It would be dramatic on subprime. And some of the co-brands are a lot of subprime, et cetera, so you really have to go co-brand by co-brand, but you would have to adjust your model for the added risk by this and ongoing price control and things like that. So if it happened the way it was described, it would be dramatic. If it happens in a way which is modified quite a bit, it would be less. And we don't know the number yet, but it would be very dramatic and would be just a [cap].

我只想說——很明顯，它對優質貸款的影響小於對次級貸款的影響。對次貸危機來說，這將是一場災難。而有些聯名貸款屬於次級貸款等等，所以你真的需要逐個聯名貸款進行評估，但你必須調整你的模型以應對由此帶來的額外風險以及持續的價格控制等等。所以如果事情真像描述的那樣發生，那將會非常戲劇性。如果發生的情況經過多次修改，那麼結果就會減少。我們還不知道具體數字，但這將是一個非常驚人的數字，而且會非常…[帽]。

And then on the Apple Card, 2 years to bring on, Jeremy, you mentioned for good reason. Is this primarily a function of the technology that Apple Card is built on, right? Like, so as far as I can -- I'm aware, the current offering had a built-for-purpose technology stack, and I understand -- I guess my question is for you.

至於 Apple Card，Jeremy，你提到兩年才能推出，這很有道理。這主要是 Apple Card 所依賴的技術的功能，對嗎？就我所知——我知道，目前的產品採用了專門建構的技術棧，我也理解——我想我的問題是問你的。

Are you building out a whole new technology to enable that same interface with the users of Apple Card or are you able to take -- are you able to enhance your current system to enable the users to come on to your current system? Or is it under a whole new tech stack? Or are there other reasons why it's a two-year process?

你們是否正在建立一種全新的技術來實現與 Apple Card 用戶相同的介面，還是能夠改進你們現有的系統，使用戶能夠連接到你們現有的系統？或者它採用了一種全新的技術架構？或者還有其他原因導致這個過程需要兩年？

There are no other reasons. It is -- if it was a traditional credit card thing, we can fold it in rather quickly and just put it in our systems. But it's not. They actually built a completely different, integrated into iOS tech stack, and they did a good job. So it's good stuff.

沒有其他原因。沒錯——如果是傳統的信用卡方式，我們可以很快地把它整合到我們的系統中。但事實並非如此。他們實際上建立了一個完全不同的、整合到 iOS 技術堆疊中的系統，而且做得很好。所以這東西不錯。

But we have to integrate that inside our system. And to do that, it's going to take two years and cost a bit of money to meet the terms and standards. Those terms is actually quite good. We looked at them and said, no, that's good. Apple wants to take very good care of those customers and a lot of those things will be built directly into our system, and we could obviously apply some of that customer service stuff in other places. And we want to do it right. And that's all it is. We have to rebuild what their tech stack is, embed it into our system.

但我們必須將其整合到我們的系統中。要做到這一點，需要兩年時間和一些錢才能達到相關條款和標準。這些條款其實相當不錯。我們看了看，然後說，不，這樣很好。蘋果希望好好照顧這些客戶，很多服務都會直接整合到我們的系統中，我們當然也可以把一些客戶服務方面的東西應用到其他地方。我們想把這件事做好。僅此而已。我們必須重建他們的技術棧，並將其嵌入到我們的系統中。

Erika Najarian, UBS.

瑞銀集團的 Erika Najarian。

My first question is for Jamie. Jamie, investors are feeling quite optimistic about the fundamental macro opportunities for the banks in 2026 paired with deregulation, of course. And I think this weekend sort of shook their confidence given the social media posts by -- about credit card rate caps and, of course, additionally, the DOJ subpoenas to Chair Powell. And investors kept saying over the weekend, we can't wait to hear what Jamie has to say about the 2026 outlook.

我的第一個問題是問傑米的。傑米，投資人對2026年銀行業的基本宏觀機會感到非常樂觀，當然，這也與放鬆管制有關。我認為，鑑於社交媒體上關於信用卡利率上限的帖子，以及司法部向鮑威爾主席發出的傳票，這個週末的事件在某種程度上動搖了他們的信心。投資者們在周末不斷表示，他們迫不及待想聽聽傑米對 2026 年前景的看法。

So if you could start there in terms of how you're seeing the macro backdrop unveil in 2026 for the banking industry and how you're considering the risks, whether it's executive overreach or the geopolitical situation at the moment?

那麼，您能否從您如何看待2026年銀行業宏觀環境的變化以及您如何看待風險入手，例如高階主管權力過度擴張或當前的地緣政治局勢？

Yeah. So I'll answer the question, but I think when you're [suggesting] what the macro environment is going to be, if you ask me in the short run, call it, six months and nine months and even a year, it's pretty positive. Consumers have money. There's still jobs, even though it's weakened a little bit. There's a huge -- there is a lot of stimulus coming from the One Big Beautiful Bill. Deregulation is a plus in general, not just for banks, but banks will be able to redeploy capital.

是的。所以我會回答這個問題，但我認為，當你[建議]宏觀環境將會如何時，如果你問我短期內的情況，比如六個月、九個月甚至一年，我認為情況相當樂觀。消費者有錢。雖然就業情況有所好轉，但仍有一些工作機會。《一項偉大的法案》將帶來巨大的經濟刺激。整體而言，放鬆管制是件好事，不僅對銀行有利，銀行還能重新部署資本。

But the backdrop is also important, but the timetables are different. Geopolitical is an enormous amount of risk. I don't have to go through each part of it. It's just a big matter that may or may not be determine the state of the economy. The deficits in the United States and around the world are quite large.

但背景也很重要，只是時間表不同。地緣政治風險巨大。我不需要逐一解釋。這的確是一件可能決定經濟情勢的大事。美國和世界各地的赤字都相當大。

We don't know, and that's going to bite. It will bite eventually because you can't just keep on borrowing money endlessly. And so early on, fine; who knows? And so -- and of course, we have to deal with the world we got, not the world we want. And I've never -- we don't guess about the outcome. We serve clients. We serve them left and right.

我們不知道，而這會給我們帶來麻煩。最終你會為此付出代價，因為你不可能無止盡地借錢。所以，在早期階段，一切都很好；誰知道呢？所以——當然，我們必須面對我們所處的世界，而不是我們想要的世界。而且我從來沒有——我們從不猜測結果。我們為客戶服務。我們竭盡全力為他們服務。

And we'll deal and navigate with the politics and the issues that we have to deal with around the world and stuff like that. And we're comfortable we can build our business. I do think, if you look at things, the rising tide is lifting boats a little bit. I'm quite conscious of that in how I look at the numbers at least. But it does not mean it's going to stop this year.

我們會處理和應對我們在世界各地必須面對的政治和問題等等。我們有信心能夠發展壯大我們的業務。我覺得，如果你仔細觀察，你會發現水位上升確實會稍微抬升船隻。至少在看待這些數字時，我對此非常清楚。但這並不意味著今年就會停止。

Got it. And my follow-up question is for you, Jeremy. Underneath the $95 billion of NII ex markets for the year, could you give us a sense of what kind of balance sheet growth you think is underpinning that? And maybe some commentary on how you're thinking about deposit growth in 2026 relative to your earlier commentary about yield-seeking flows, and how those statistics would compare to balance sheet growth of 8% in '25 and average deposit growth of 5% in '25.

知道了。傑里米，我的下一個問題是問你的。在今年950億美元的淨利息收入（不含市場收入）之下，您認為支撐這一數字的資產負債表增長是什麼樣的？或許可以就您先前關於追求收益的資金流動，對 2026 年存款成長的看法做一些評論，並說明這些統計數據與 2025 年 8% 的資產負債表增長率和 2025 年 5% 的平均存款增長率相比如何。

Sure. So I mean, not to be pedantic here, Erika, but I'm going to pivot away from balance sheet per se and just talk about loans and deposits recognizing that some non-trivial portion of the balance sheet growth is coming from inside of markets these days and that NIM on that stuff is variable and also not part of the NII ex markets.

當然。所以我的意思是，Erika，我不想在這裡吹毛求疵，但我打算不再討論資產負債表本身，而是談談貸款和存款，因為如今資產負債表增長的相當一部分來自市場內部，而這部分淨息差是可變的，也不屬於市場淨利息收入的一部分。

But taking a step back in terms of the big sort of balance sheet drivers and growth and mix drivers of the NII, number one, as the slide says, and as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, card loan growth is still a driver. I think we're expecting something like 6% or 7% card loan growth for 2026. So that is lower than we've seen recently, obviously, but we've been talking about that for some time as a function of the normalization of the revolver account.

但從資產負債表的主要驅動因素、成長因素以及淨利息收入的組合驅動因素來看，正如幻燈片所示，正如我在準備好的發言稿中提到的，信用卡貸款成長仍然是一個驅動因素。我認為我們預計 2026 年信用卡貸款成長率將達到 6% 或 7%。所以這顯然比我們最近看到的要低，但我們已經討論這個問題一段時間了，因為它與循環信貸帳戶的正常化有關。

So that as a tailwind is largely behind us and what we have now is just growth from overall system growth and consumer balance sheet growth as well as our optimism about share and client engagement, customer engagement across the card ecosystem. So that's one important loan driver.

因此，順風因素已基本過去，我們現在所擁有的成長來自整體系統成長、消費者資產負債表成長，以及我們對市場佔有率和客戶參與度、整個信用卡生態系統的客戶參與度的樂觀態度。所以這是貸款的一個重要驅動因素。

On the deposit side, starting with wholesale, 2025 was an exceptionally strong year for wholesale deposit growth. So as we look to '26, we're still pretty optimistic about the wholesale deposit franchise and the payments franchise, products, offerings, customer engagement, growth opportunities, et cetera. But it's going to be tough to beat the 2025 performance in wholesale deposit growth. So we have a more modest expectation for 2026 wholesale deposit growth.

從存款方面來看，先從批發存款開始，2025 年是批發存款成長異常強勁的一年。展望 2026 年，我們仍然對批發存款業務和支付業務、產品、服務、客戶互動、成長機會等持相當樂觀的態度。但要超越 2025 年批發存款成長的成績，恐怕很難。因此，我們對 2026 年批發存款成長的預期較為保守。

And then I touched a little bit on what we're thinking about consumer deposit growth earlier, but just to reiterate, the narrative there is that the balance between what is very robust engagement and franchise success manifested through the 1.7 million net new accounts that were originated this year, and the fact that the balances per account are sort of not growing quite as fast as we thought earlier in the year, as a function of yield-seeking flows that are much, much lower than they were at the peak, but are still not exactly 0.

然後，我之前稍微談到了我們對消費者存款增長的看法，但我想重申一下，目前的情況是，非常強勁的客戶參與度和特許經營的成功之間的平衡體現在今年新增的 170 萬個淨賬戶上，而每個賬戶的餘額增長速度並沒有我們年初預期的那麼快，這是因為尋求的資金流動遠低於峰值，但仍然沒有完全收益。

So there's a kind of tension between those two things. And at this point, we're sort of expecting that inflection in balance per account to kick in in the second half of 2026, at which point you would start to see kind of a reassertion of the consumer deposit growth, which would get us to modest deposit growth for CCB in 2026. But certainly lower than that 6% scenario that we talked about at Investor Day, which is stuff we already told you about last quarter and that Marianne has discussed.

所以這兩者之間存在著某種緊張關係。目前，我們預計每帳戶餘額的轉折點將在 2026 年下半年出現，屆時消費者存款成長將開始恢復，這將使建行在 2026 年實現適度的存款成長。但肯定低於我們在投資者日上討論的 6% 的情況，這是我們上個季度已經告訴過你們的，也是 Marianne 討論過的內容。

Can I just add one more factor, which is the Fed, they don't call it QE, but they're talking about doing $40 billion a month of buying T-bills. That adds $40 billion a month into bank -- all things being equal, to bank reserves. And most of that initially shows up in wholesale deposits and then maybe gets redeployed. So we'll see how that plays out too. But it does create more liquidity in the system, which I should have mentioned is another tailwind for [economy].

我還可以補充一點，那就是美聯儲，他們雖然不稱之為量化寬鬆，但他們正在討論每月購買 400 億美元的國庫券。如果其他條件不變，這將每月為銀行增加 400 億美元，增加銀行儲備。其中大部分最初會以批發存款的形式出現，然後可能會被重新部署。所以，我們拭目以待。但這確實為系統創造了更多流動性，我應該提到，這對…來說也是一個好因素。[經濟]。

Yeah. No, that's exactly right. And I think in our sort of crude framework, we, as Jamie says, we'd initially tend to assume that that growth in system-wide deposits would accrue to extremely high beta wholesale deposits and is therefore not going to tend to be a big driver of the NII story year-on-year, but it's significant in terms of the system and the functioning.

是的。沒錯，完全正確。我認為，在我們這種粗略的框架下，正如傑米所說，我們最初傾向於假設系統存款的增長將歸因於極高的批發存款，因此不會成為每年淨利息收入增長的主要驅動因素，但就係統和運作而言，它意義重大。

Does that conclude your questions, Erika?

艾麗卡，你的問題都問完了嗎？

Yeah. Thank you.

是的。謝謝。

Gerard Cassidy, RBC Capital Markets.

傑拉德·卡西迪，加拿大皇家銀行資本市場。

Jeremy, thank you for the data around the NBFI portfolio. Can you share with us, in expansion, you talked about the growth over the last seven years has been significant and the drivers of the growth or the market dynamics and regulatory pressures. Can you expand upon that to give us a little more color of what's behind that?

Jeremy，謝謝你提供的非銀行金融機構投資組合的數據。您能否與我們分享一下，在擴張方面，您提到過去七年的成長非常顯著，以及推動成長的因素，例如市場動態和監管壓力？您能否詳細說明一下，讓我們更清楚地了解背後的原因？

Yeah. You want to take that? Go ahead, Jamie.

是的。你想拿走它嗎？請繼續，傑米。

Well, look, it is -- we obviously do things that we think are safe and proper and stuff like that. But it is arbitrage. We participate in that. We're better from regulatory capital, holding AAA piece of something on top of something else, as opposed to doing the direct loan itself. That's what it is. It's also arbitrage between banks and insurance, stuff like that, and that is leading to some of that growth.

嗯，你看，確實如此——我們當然會做我們認為安全、恰當的事情等等。但這是套利。我們參與其中。我們更傾向於使用監管資本，持有AAA級資產作為抵押，而不是直接發放貸款。就是這樣。銀行和保險公司之間的套利交易等等，也是造成成長的部分原因。

One of the things that we talk to regulators is when you see arbitrage, it should -- you should look at it -- always ask the question why, you're better off doing it that way as opposed to otherwise. There's nothing mystical about the loans that all these NBFIs are making, and this has definitely been going on for a long period of time. It's just bigger now.

我們與監管機構討論的一件事是，當你看到套利行為時，你應該——你應該審視它——總是要問，為什麼這樣做比不這樣做更好。這些非銀行金融機構所發放的貸款並沒有什麼神秘之處，而且這種情況已經持續很久了。它現在更大了。

Yeah, exactly. On the point of nothing mystical, my version of that, Gerard, and part of the reason that I chose those words in the prepared remarks, is to ask the question, well, like what's the narrative here if you go back in terms of regulation and competitive dynamics with the private credit ecosystem in particular, and what has led to what and how has that all evolved?

對，沒錯。傑拉德，就我而言，這並非什麼神秘的事情。我之所以在準備好的演講稿中選擇這些詞語，部分原因是為了提出這樣一個問題：如果我們回顧一下監管和競爭動態，特別是私人信貸生態系統，那麼這裡的故事是什麼？是什麼導致了現在的情況，這一切又是如何演變的？

And I think it's well understood that in addition to the regulatory capital factors, there were also the leveraged lending guidelines, which really did meaningfully constrain bank lending into this type of space when those were released, and I think there's an argument to say that that ceded or accelerated the growth of this ecosystem in ways that otherwise might not have happened.

而且我認為大家都很清楚，除了監管資本因素之外，還有槓桿貸款指導方針，這些方針的出台確實有效地限制了銀行向這類領域放貸，我認為可以說，這在某種程度上促進或加速了這一生態系統的發展，否則這種情況可能不會發生。

But at some level, that is what it is. And I think as we've been talking about for the last couple of years, there's no reason that we can't compete head-to-head in that space. So the whole direct lending initiative and the realization that, in many cases, what sponsors want is like a quick execution of a unitranche structure where they don't have to negotiate with a syndicate, but other times, they want to go through the syndication process. And that's why we really leaned into this whole product agnostic strategy that we talk about.

但某種程度上，事實的確是如此。而且我認為，正如我們過去幾年一直在討論的那樣，我們完全可以在這個領域展開正面競爭。因此，整個直接貸款計劃以及人們意識到，在許多情況下，發起人想要的是快速執行單一貸款結構，這樣他們就不必與銀團談判，但有時，他們又希望經歷銀團貸款流程。這就是為什麼我們如此重視我們所談論的這種與產品無關的策略。

And at the same time, in the cases where we don't wind up being a lender, yeah, sometimes we're competing with these folks. Sometimes they're our clients, sometimes they're both. And done properly, as we talked about on the slide, we're very happy to be lenders to them. So it's all part of a competitive partner ecosystem. And yeah, we just wanted to frame it out a little bit given all the questions last quarter.

同時，在那些我們最終沒有成為貸款方的情況下，是的，有時我們會與這些人競爭。有時他們是我們的客戶，有時他們既是我們的客戶又是我們的客戶。如果一切順利，就像我們在幻燈片上討論的那樣，我們非常樂意為他們提供貸款。所以這一切都是競爭性合作夥伴生態系統的一部分。是的，鑑於上個季度大家提出的所有問題，我們想稍微梳理一下思路。

No, that was very helpful. I appreciate it. And as a follow-up question, you guys obviously have given us the guidance for NII with and without markets. And when you go back to the markets number in 2024, I think you guys put up about $1 billion in revenues. You show us '25 at 3.3, and market conditions, of course, that will impact your guidance on the $8 billion. But what's the strategy of growing that business from where it was in '24 to where we are today?

不，那很有幫助。謝謝。還有一個後續問題，你們顯然已經為我們提供了有市場和無市場情況下的 NII 指導。展望 2024 年的市場前景，我認為你們的收入將達到 10 億美元左右。您向我們展示了 2025 年 3.3 的收益率，當然，市場狀況也會影響您對 80 億美元的預期。但是，從 2024 年到今天，公司的發展策略是什麼？

Yeah, good question. So a couple of things about this. So number one, broadly speaking, over short periods of time, that markets' NII number is going to fluctuate primarily as a function of rates and is liability sensitive. So in other words, at higher rates, the number is lower. So what we saw -- if you sort of -- and we show the number every quarter. If you plot the evolution of that number as a function of the policy rate, you're going to see that relationship very strongly.

嗯，問得好。關於這件事，有幾點需要說明。所以，首先，總的來說，在短期內，該市場的淨利息收入 (NII) 數值將主要隨利率波動，並且對負債敏感。換句話說，利率越高，這個數字就越低。所以我們看到的是——如果你仔細觀察——我們每季都會公佈這個數字。如果你將該數值隨政策利率變化的趨勢繪製成圖表，你會非常清楚地看到這種關係。

It's also true, I pointed out in different moments, but part of the reason that we deemphasized it is that if there are particular mix changes in any given moment, resilient future versus cash or something, high interest rate countries, you can get pretty big swings in the number in ways that have essentially no bottom line impact, which is the reason we deemphasized the change.

我也曾在不同場合指出這一點，但我們淡化這一現象的部分原因是，如果在任何特定時刻出現特定的資產組合變化，例如韌性未來與現金的對比，或者高利率國家的情況，那麼數字可能會出現相當大的波動，而這些波動實際上對最終結果沒有任何影響，這就是我們淡化這一變化的原因。

But third piece is just that as has been noted, markets' balance sheet has grown a lot over time. And so as we extend more financing to clients, the size of this effect gets bigger, which is all the more reason that we find it useful to carve it out and make it clear that, in general, short-term fluctuations don't have any bottom line impact. And Jamie wanted to add something.

但第三點如前面提到的，隨著時間的推移，市場的資產負債表已經成長了很多。因此，隨著我們向客戶提供更多融資，這種影響的規模也會越來越大，正因如此，我們才覺得有必要將其單獨列出來，並明確指出，一般來說，短期波動不會對最終結果產生任何影響。傑米還想補充一點。

Yeah. We don't run the business at all trying to grow NII in particular, because we just look at the revenue created by the trade, sometimes NII, sometimes it's net revenue. But growing the business is important. We have the best FICC business in the world, one of the best equity business in the world. We have extraordinary people around the world.

是的。我們經營業務時根本不會刻意追求增加淨利息收入，因為我們只專注於交易產生的收入，有時是淨利息收入，有時是淨收入。但發展業務至關重要。我們擁有全球最好的固定收益、外匯和大宗商品業務，以及全球最好的股票業務之一。我們擁有遍佈世界各地的傑出人才。

We grow the business by building technology, adding research, adding sales, doing a better job in parts of the world where we don't have a great market share, but someone else is doing better than us. So we're going to grow that business, we're quite good at it. It's critical to the capital markets of the world. And the capital markets of the world are going to grow dramatically over the next 20 years. So we're -- that's how we build the business. NII is just an outcome. On its own, almost irrelevant.

我們透過開發技術、增加研發、增加銷售來發展業務，並在我們市場份額不大但其他公司做得比我們好的地區做得更好。所以我們要發展這項業務，我們很擅長這個。這對世界資本市場至關重要。未來20年，世界資本市場將大幅成長。所以，我們就是這樣建立業務的。NII 只是一個結果。單就其本身而言，幾乎無關緊要。

Mike Mayo, Wells Fargo Securities.

麥克梅奧，富國證券。

I think I get it, JPMorgan spends for growth. You're getting growth, up 7% year-over-year in the fourth quarter. And you're willing to sacrifice returns for more growth, I guess, because that increases SBA. But it is a wow, the $9 billion increase in expenses, your guide year-over-year, and I get it that some of that is simply because revenues are likely to come in higher than expected. But if we could please have some more details on the rest?

我想我明白了，摩根大通的支出是為了成長。你們實現了成長，第四季年增 7%。我猜你願意為了更大的成長而犧牲回報，因為這會增加小型企業管理局（SBA）的撥款。但令人震驚的是，支出比前一年增加了 90 億美元，我知道其中一部分原因只是因為收入可能會高於預期。但能否請您提供其餘部分的更多細節？

This is the first time we have a chance to address that $9 billion increase in expense guide. So maybe some areas, Jeremy, as far as tech spending, I think you went up $17 billion to $18 billion last year, went up even more after you include the savings that you achieved and especially since your past peak modernization, where you expect tech spend to be in 2026? And as it relates to AI, what was your spend last year? And where do you expect that to go? And what sort of payoffs? And then, Jamie, since you're upping the bar, upping the stakes with the $9 billion of investments, the degree of your confidence that you're going to get the desired returns and outcomes from that?

這是我們第一次有機會討論增加90億美元的支出指南。所以，傑里米，就技術支出而言，我認為去年你們的支出增加了 170 億至 180 億美元，如果算上你們實現的節省，特別是自你們過去的現代化高峰以來，支出還會增加更多。你們預計 2026 年的技術支出會是多少？那麼，在人工智慧方面，你們去年的支出是多少？你覺得它會走向何方？能獲得什麼樣的回報？那麼，傑米，既然你提高了標準，加大了投資力度，投入了90億美元，你對能夠獲得預期的回報和結果有多大信心呢？

We're not going to give -- Mike, we owe you all as shareholders as much information we view, but we're not going to give you information which I think puts us at a competitive disadvantage. So we've been quite blunt with you guys. First of all, we try to put it in there, everything. So even the Apple name is in there, inflation is in there, the expectation that revenue might go up is in there. So if revenue don't go up, that number won't be as big.

我們不會——麥克，作為股東，我們有義務向你們提供我們所掌握的所有信息，但我們不會向你們提供我認為會使我們處於競爭劣勢的信息。所以，我們對你們一直都很直白。首先，我們盡量把所有東西都放進去。所以，就連蘋果這個名字也包含在內，通貨膨脹也包含在內，對收入可能成長的預期也包含在內。所以如果收入沒有成長，這個數字就不會那麼大。

But for the most part -- and tech is going to go up. But the good news is when we look at the world, we see huge opportunities. We're opening rural branches which really will be good. We're opening more branches in foreign countries. We're building better payment systems. We're adding better personalization and consumer banking credit card where we're adding AI across the company. And those are all opportunities.

但總的來說——科技將會發展壯大。但好消息是，當我們放眼世界時，我們看到了巨大的機會。我們正在開設農村分行，這真的很有好處。我們正在海外開設更多分公司。我們正在建立更好的支付系統。我們正在提升個人化服務，並在公司各方面引入人工智慧技術，從而改善消費者銀行信用卡業務。這些都是機會。

And I understand your issue or concern about the $9 billion, but I think you should be saying, if you really believe they're real, you should be doing that. That's the right way to grow a company. And you look at the complexity of the world, the amount of capital requirements, the -- our SRI initiative, I think that SRI initiative may be far bigger than we thought. And that's in there. So we're going to -- you'll be justified by the results, but we're not going to be giving detail on every single thing every single quarter. You're going to have to, as partners, trust me. I'm sorry.

我理解你對這 90 億美元的看法或擔憂，但我認為，如果你真的相信它們是真的，你就應該這麼做。這才是發展公司的正確方式。看看世界的複雜性，資本需求量，以及我們的社會責任投資計劃，我認為社會責任投資計劃的規模可能比我們想像的要大得多。裡面就包含這個。所以我們會——結果會證明一切，但我們不會每季都詳細說明每件事。作為合作夥伴，你們必須這樣做，相信我。對不起。

All right. Well, I guess I could probably just leave it there. I do have a couple -- a little bit more color, if you want, Mike. I would also point out we do have company update coming, so that's an opportunity to talk in a bit more detail on this. I do think we highlighted the vast majority of the major thematic drivers on the page subject to Jamie's caveat about not giving away too much competitive information.

好的。嗯，我想我大概可以就這樣放吧。我確實還有幾張——如果你想要的話，顏色可以再豐富一些，麥克。我還想指出，我們即將發佈公司最新動態，屆時我們將有機會更詳細地討論這個問題。我認為我們已經在頁面上重點介紹了絕大多數主要主題驅動因素，但傑米也提醒我們不要透露太多競爭資訊。

Maybe I'll just do one minute of like a little bit of additional context.

或許我可以花一分鐘補充一些背景資訊。

I think one thing that's notable is that we did do a big kind of living within our means thing last year, and we did that. And we're going to continue to do that. So I think as a company, we still, generally speaking, want to make sure that when someone needs to get something done, whether it's in technology or elsewhere, their first reaction is not hire more people.

我認為值得一提的是，去年我們確實認真地實踐了量入為出的生活方式，而我們也做到了。我們將繼續這樣做。所以我認為，作為一家公司，總的來說，我們仍然希望確保當有人需要完成某件事時，無論是在技術領域還是其他領域，他們的第一個反應都不是僱用更多的人。

Having said that, the process of emphasizing that a little bit more last year did give us some confidence that we were actually using resources optimally. And now as we look ahead, there's a lot that we want to get done. There's a lot that we need to get done. The Apple Card is part of that, but there's other stuff too.

話雖如此，去年我們更加強調這一點，這確實讓我們更有信心，我們實際上正在以最佳方式利用資源。展望未來，我們有很多事情要完成。我們有很多事情要完成。Apple Card是其中的一部分，但還有其他東西。

And so at the margin, we are allowing ourselves to at least plan for some additional hiring in technology in order to support what Jamie is saying, like the long-term investment initiative, in particular in the businesses where we need to develop and deliver products and features. And yeah, AI is a little bit of that, but there are other things too.

因此，在邊際上，我們至少允許自己計劃在技術方面進行一些額外的招聘，以支持 Jamie 所說的長期投資計劃，尤其是在我們需要開發和交付產品和功能的業務方面。是的，人工智慧確實包含一些這方面的因素，但還有其他因素。

There's maybe one other thing I would say, which I don't think is competitively sensitive and is important, which is that if you think about what's happened to the head count of the company over, say, the last five or six years, it's grown a lot. And that happened during an obviously complicated period. There was the whole return to the office, hot-desking, remote work, all the stuff.

我可能還有一點要說，我認為這並不涉及競爭敏感訊息，而且很重要，那就是，如果你想想公司在過去五六年裡的員工人數發生了什麼變化，就會發現它增長了很多。而這顯然發生在一個複雜的時期。還有重返辦公室、共享辦公桌、遠距辦公等等這些事。

The end-result of that is that the amount of real estate square footage over that period grew a lot more slowly than the headcount. And at the same time, as we've decided as a company to be an in-office company, we realized it's obviously the case that we need to provide employees a reasonable in-office experience.

最終結果是，在此期間，房地產面積的成長速度遠低於員工人數的成長速度。同時，由於我們公司決定採用辦公室辦公模式，我們也意識到，顯然我們需要為員工提供合理的辦公室工作體驗。

And that, in some cases, means a little bit of de-densification and catching up on some space renovations from the world now, we're not just talking about Midtown Manhattan here, for all of our 320,000 employees that were a little bit overdue. So I would call that a little bit of catch-up to the headcount growth.

在某些情況下，這意味著要稍微降低辦公密度，並趕上一些空間改造進度，我們現在說的不僅僅是曼哈頓中城，而是我們所有 32 萬名員工，這些改造都有些拖延了。所以我認為這是對人員成長的一種追趕。

Jeremy, don't scare them. It's a very small number.

傑里米，別嚇他們。這是一個非常小的數字。

It's not a big driver of -- it's a small number. But I think it's thematically --

這並非主要驅動因素——數量很少。但我認為這在主題上是成立的。--

Health care is $300 million. And I guess you can go item by item, but everyone is going to have health care inflation. But the real estate is a very small number, so we shouldn't expound too much--

醫療保健支出為3億美元。我想你可以逐項分析，但每個人都會面臨醫療通膨。但房地產數量非常少，所以我們不該過度贅述——

Yeah. I don't want to overemphasize it. I just thought it was dramatically interesting and not, I would say, competitively sensitive. So that's what we got. We may give you a bit more color in that company update.

是的。我不想過度強調這一點。我只是覺得這件事很有戲劇性，而且，我認為，它並不具有競爭性。這就是我們得到的結果。我們可能會在那份公司動態報告中提供更多細節。

All right. If I could just -- I guess, as you know, for any analyst, it's trust, but verify, right? So if I could just try one follow-up, just what do you think about your tech spending or AI spending for 2026?

好的。如果我能——我想，如你所知，對於任何分析師來說，信任固然重要，但驗證也同樣重要，對吧？那麼，如果我可以再問一個問題，您對2026年的技術支出或人工智慧支出有何看法？

It's going to go up a bit. But Mike, we have -- we're building more payment systems. We're building more AI systems. We're building more -- connecting more branches, which means the higher network expenses. We're doing all the things you want us to do.

價格還會漲一點。但是麥克，我們已經——我們正在建立更多的支付系統。我們正在建構更多的人工智慧系統。我們正在建立更多——連接更多分支機構，這意味著更高的網路費用。我們正在做你們希望我們做的一切。

But the tech spend is always one of the harder ones to measure and evaluate. That's been true my whole life. You could imagine we are pretty detailed about that, what we're doing, why we're doing it, are we delivering on time.

但科技支出始終是最難衡量和評估的支出之一。我一生都是如此。您可以想像，我們對這方面非常注重細節，包括我們正在做什麼、為什麼要這樣做、是否按時交付等等。

But there isn't an area where you -- if you dug into it that you wouldn't say, yeah, you want to be -- you got to be the best in the world in tech. So we spend money on trading. We spend money on payments. We spend money on consumer. We spend money at asset management.

但是，如果你深入研究某個領域，你會發現，是的，你想成為──你必須成為科技領域世界頂尖的人才。所以我們把錢花在交易上。我們花錢支付各種費用。我們在消費方面投入資金。我們在資產管理方面投入資金。

We spend money in corporate. We spend money -- we need to have the best in the world. That drives investment, it drives margin, it drives competition. A lot of it is consumer-facing, digital personalization, travel, offers, all these things, which we think are wonderful things. And I like the fact that we have these organic opportunities.

我們在企業方面花錢。我們花錢——我們需要世界上最好的。這會推動投資，提高利潤率，加劇競爭。其中很多都是面向消費者的，例如數位個人化、旅遊、優惠等等，我們認為這些都是很棒的事情。我喜歡我們擁有這些自然而然的機會。

I think -- I'm looking at it and saying, it's a good thing that I can point out, we have, in every single area, in every single part of the company, we can grow. In some areas, it's like trench warfare, think of certain trading and investment banking. In other areas we're kind of out front and we want to build the next generation of technology.

我認為——我看著它說，這是一件好事，我可以指出，在公司的每個領域、每個部門，我們都有發展的空間。在某些領域，這就像塹壕戰，想想某些交易和投資銀行業。在其他領域，我們處於領先地位，我們希望打造下一代技術。

But investment, the thing about -- you've heard me talk about this before, a lot of businesses, you build a new plant, you capitalize it and then you expense it over 20 years. In a lot of our businesses, everything gets expensed upfront. It doesn't mean it isn't a good return.

但關於投資，你以前也聽我說過，很多企業，你建一座新工廠，你先投入資本，然後在 20 年內分攤費用。在我們許多企業裡，所有費用都會預先報銷。但這並不意味著它沒有帶來良好的回報。

And you're spending more on AI?

你們在人工智慧方面投入了更多資金？

I think that AI -- we will be spending more, but it is not a big driver. I do think it will be driving more efficiency down the road. But I'd also point out about that, efficiency -- because other banks have to do it too, it will eventually be passed on to the customer. This isn't like you're going to build 3 points of margin and get to keep it. You don't.

我認為人工智慧——我們會投入更多資金，但它並不是主要驅動因素。我認為這將在未來提高效率。但我還想指出，效率問題在於──因為其他銀行也必須這麼做，最終成本會轉嫁給客戶。這不像是你能建立起3個百分點的利潤空間然後就一直維持下去。你沒有。

So you need to build some of these to keep up. And we have -- we look at -- and we look at all of our competitors, but those competitors include all the fintechs. You have Stride, you have SoFi, you have Revolut, you have Schwab. You have everyone out there. And these are good players, and we analyze what they do and how they do them, I would say, upfront. And we are going to stay upfront. So help us God. We're not going to try to meet some expense target, and then 10 years from now, you're asking us the question, how did JPMorgan left behind?

所以你需要建造一些這樣的設施來跟上腳步。我們會關注所有競爭對手，其中包括所有金融科技公司。你有Stride，你有SoFi，你有Revolut，你有Schwab。外面有所有人。這些都是優秀的球員，我會說，我們會事先分析他們的表現和表現。我們將始終保持坦誠。願上帝保佑我們。我們不會為了達到某些支出目標而努力，然後 10 年後，你們會問我們，摩根大通是如何落後的？

Ebrahim Poonawala, Bank of America.

Ebrahim Poonawala，美國銀行。

I guess maybe, Jeremy, a quick one to follow up on this whole credit card interest rates. I think you said, understandably, this would be very bad for the credit card industry and JPMorgan, given that the President put out a timeline for Jan 20. Is it fair for us to conclude there has been no communication with the administration to the banks or the industry on how they plan to implement this? And are you expecting anything over the coming days?

我想，傑里米，或許可以快速地跟進一下信用卡利率的問題。我認為你說過，考慮到總統已經公佈了 1 月 20 日的時間表，這對信用卡行業和摩根大通來說將非常糟糕，這是可以理解的。我們是否可以得出這樣的結論：政府部門沒有與銀行或業界就如何實施這項計畫進行任何溝通？你對未來幾天有什麼預期嗎？

Yeah. I guess I'd just -- this has happened so quickly and there's just so little [morsel] of information, at least that I'm aware of, that I just think it's better to not answer those questions. I mean it's entirely possible that in the last 12 hours, someone has spoken to someone. I don't know. But this is happening very quickly in a sort of unconventional way, starting with a social media post. So I understand why you're asking the question, but I just don't have anything for you.

是的。我想……這件事發生得太快了，而且目前掌握的資訊非常少，至少據我所知是這樣，所以我認為最好還是不要回答這些問題。我的意思是，完全有可能在過去的 12 小時裡，有人和別人交談過。我不知道。但這一切發生得非常迅速，而且方式也有些非傳統，一切都始於社群媒體上的貼文。我明白你為什麼會問這個問題，但我真的沒有什麼可以回答你的。

Got it. And just very quickly on capital. When we think about more updates coming on GSIB, Basel End Game probably over the coming months, when you think about the right level of capital, just in your seat, do you think 200, 300 basis points of excess capital wherever the regulatory minimum shakes out is the right place to be, given all the risks that Jamie talked about, geopolitics, competitive landscape, et cetera? Or do you have a view on where in a perfect world you would want to operate the bank relative to where kind of requirements shook out?

知道了。而且很快就能拿到資金。當我們想到未來幾個月可能會有更多關於全球系統重要性銀行（GSIB）和巴塞爾協議最終方案的更新時，考慮到傑米提到的所有風險，例如地緣政治、競爭格局等等，你認為合適的資本水平是多少？無論監管最低標準最終如何確定，你認為保持 200 到 300 個基點的超額資本是否合適？或者，在理想情況下，您認為銀行應該在哪裡運營，而具體地點又取決於實際的需求？

Okay. So I want to be very precise in my answer to your question here, and there are a few pieces to it. So let's start first with the fact that the rules aren't done yet and there are some things that are still out there. And then there is periodically reference to a discussion about the right level of capital for banks for the system.

好的。所以我想非常精確地回答你的問題，這個問題包含幾個面向。首先，我們要明確一點，規則尚未最終確定，還有一些問題需要解決。然後，人們會不時提及關於銀行體系所需適當資本水準的討論。

And our answer to that, which we've said frequently, but I'll just say it again, is that the answer to that question is do every part of the methodology across RWA, GSIB and stress testing correctly supported by data to get the right answer for that individual thing, and whatever the sum of those things is, for the system, for any individual bank is what it is. And it should very much not be a sort of goal-seeking exercise for some arbitrary number at the level of the system or for large banks or for small banks, and certainly not for any given firm.

對此，我們的回答（我們已經多次說過，但我還是要再說一遍）是，這個問題的答案在於，RWA、GSIB 和壓力測試方法論的每個部​​分都必須有數據支持，才能得到針對具體問題的正確答案。而對於系統或任何一家銀行而言，這些因素的總和就是最終的結果。而且，這絕不應該是系統層面、大型銀行或小型銀行，當然也絕不應該是任何特定公司追求目標的一種方式。

I think the good news is that from what we're hearing and from what we understand, that is, in fact, the direction of travel from the agencies. And so that's encouraging. Let's see what happens. But in that context, an obvious example, what we always talk about, but it's really just worth saying out again, is GSIB, where at some point you really have to ask yourself, what is the right difference between the amount of capital that we should be required to hold, and for example, a very large American regional bank, especially given the enormous amount of progress that's been made over the last 10 or 15 years on resolvability and all other aspects of the framework?

我認為好消息是，根據我們聽到的和了解到的情況，這實際上正是各機構的發展方向。所以令人鼓舞。讓我們看看會發生什麼。但就此而言，一個顯而易見的例子，我們總是談論它，但真的值得再次強調，就是全球系統重要性銀行（GSIB），在某種程度上，你真的必須問問自己，我們應該被要求持有的資本金額與例如一家非常大的美國地區性銀行之間的正確區別是什麼，特別是考慮到過去 10 或 15 年來在可處置性和框架的所有其他方面取得巨大的進展？

So I won't give you the long speech about why GSIB is completely poorly conceived. Hopefully, that gets adjusted in a way that's reasonable, but it should be done correctly. You want to jump on, Jamie?

所以我就不長篇大論地解釋為什麼 GSIB 的構思完全糟糕了。希望能夠做出合理的調整，但必須以正確的方式進行。傑米，你想上來嗎？

Look, we'd end up with $30 billion, $40 billion or more billions of dollars of excess capital, we have tons of capital. There's no scenario where capital is going to be the issue. I think it's very important that you got to look at, of course, the full spectrum of capital liquidity, stress testing and all these things about what can you do to make the system safer. And for a lot of these banks, it's not capital. It's interest rate exposure or it's liquidity or it's resolution-related type of stuff.

你看，我們最終會擁有 300 億美元、400 億美元甚至更多的過剩資本，我們有大量的資本。資金絕對不會成為問題。我認為非常重要的一點是，當然要全面考慮資本流動性、壓力測試以及所有能為使系統更安全而採取的措施。對很多銀行來說，這不是資本問題。可能是利率風險敞口、流動性問題，或是與處置相關的問題。

And so I think there's overly focus on capital and so -- and you're going to get to see as people respond to all the Fed APRs they put out, whatever, the NPR that they put out, what people think about capital. But I actually believe, and this is the important fact, that you could make the system with less capital, change liquidity and make it safer. That's what we should be focusing on. Make it as safer so that you all don't have to worry about bank failures. And it isn't just capital.

所以我認為人們過於關注資本，因此——你會看到，隨著人們對聯準會發布的所有年利率、全國利率等做出反應，人們對資本的看法會如何。但我真心相信，而且這才是重要的事實，你可以用更少的資本來建構這個系統，改變流動性，讓它更安全。這才是我們該關注的重點。盡可能提高安全性，讓大家都不必擔心銀行倒閉。而且這不只是資金的問題。

Yeah, very much so. I do want to go back and answer your actual question just for the avoidance of doubt because you talked about kind of the right level of capital for us and where we want to run the company, and you referred to like a few hundred basis points. And I think there, it's very important to draw the distinction between what we think is the right amount of excess capital for us to carry now given the risks that we see now in the short to medium term.

是的，確實如此。為了避免任何疑問，我想回到你提出的問題上來回答一下，因為你談到了適合我們的資本水平以及我們希望公司的發展方向，你也提到了幾百個基點。我認為，區分我們認為鑑於目前在中短期內看到的風險，我們現在應該持有的超額資本的適當金額是非常重要的。

We obviously have a lot of access right now relative to basically any version of final rules, and that feels more appropriate than ever, I would argue, given what we see out there in terms of the risks and potential opportunities to deploy in the event of a disruption.

顯然，相對於任何版本的最終規則而言，我們現在擁有大量的權限，而且我認為，考慮到我們所看到的風險以及在發生中斷時可以採取的部署措施的潛在機會，這種權限比以往任何時候都更加合適。

There's another version of your question, which is implicitly a question about long-term buffers. And that's what I'm -- sort of want to steer away from. Because in the end, like we're going to run the company at the right level of capital and capital requirements or requirements, there's a larger discussion about buffer usability, so I just want to not leave any doubt about a sort of implicit 300 basis point management buffer, which is very much not the way we're thinking about that.

你的問題還有另一個版本，實際上是指關於長期緩衝的問題。而這正是我想要盡量避免的。因為歸根結底，就像我們要以合適的資本水平和資本需求來運營公司一樣，這涉及到緩衝資金可用性的更大討論，所以我只是想澄清一下，是否存在某種隱含的 300 個基點的管理緩衝資金，這完全不是我們正在考慮的方式。

There should be no buffers. And the fact is these capital numbers are already set to handle maximum stress. That's how they're set.

不應該有緩衝空間。事實上，這些資本金金額已經足以應付最大壓力。他們的設定就是這樣。

That was very comprehensive.

內容非常全面。

Jim Mitchell, Seaport Global Securities.

吉姆·米切爾，海港環球證券。

I just want to ask about loan growth. Jeremy, as you pointed out, a lot of the growth has been driven by NDFI and cards. But we've seen three rate cuts in September, we have a few more expected. Deregulation is beginning too, have an impact in areas like leverage lending with more to come. So are you seeing any sort of -- I guess, number one, are you seeing any early signs of a broadening out of demand across other categories like traditional C&I, mortgage or auto? And what are your expectations for '26?

我只想問一下貸款成長情況。傑里米，正如你所指出的，許多成長都是由非金融機構和銀行卡推動的。但9月我們已經看到三次降息，預計還會有幾次。放鬆管制也開始對槓桿貸款等領域產生影響，未來將有更多領域受到影響。所以，你有沒有看到任何——我想，首先，你有沒有看到任何早期跡象表明，其他類別（如傳統商業和工業、抵押貸款或汽車）的需求正在擴大？您對2026年有什麼期待？

Yeah, Jim. So a couple of things about that. I did actually hear that it was a pretty busy day in the home lending business on the back of what happened in the mortgage market. So maybe we'll actually start to see some pickup there. But obviously, there are still some larger dynamics in the housing market that will be a challenge there.

是的，吉姆。關於這一點，有幾點需要說明。我確實聽說，由於抵押貸款市場發生的事情，房屋貸款業務今天非常繁忙。所以或許我們真的會看到一些回升的跡象。但顯然，房屋市場仍存在一些更大的動態因素，這將構成挑戰。

So at a high level, when we look out to 2026, I still think that, for CCB, the story is really about card. I think in wholesale, if you set aside sort of mARKETS lending for the sake of argument, I actually think we have a -- what I would describe as a moderately optimistic outlook for loan growth in terms of traditional C&I in CIB.

所以從宏觀層面來看，展望 2026 年，我仍然認為，對 CCB 來說，關鍵在於卡片。我認為，就批發業務而言，如果為了討論起見，將市場貸款放在一邊，實際上我認為我們對傳統企業和工業貸款在企業和投資銀行領域的成長前景持較為樂觀的態度。

Now obviously, you don't need to hear my speech about how in CIB, C&I lending is an output, not an input. It's kind of a loss leader, whatever. But still, it does give you some indication of the level of client engagement and optimism maybe in C-suites.

顯然，你不需要聽我講關於企業及投資銀行（CIB）中的工商貸款是產出而不是投入的理論。不管怎樣，這算是虧本促銷吧。但即便如此，它仍然能讓你對客戶的參與度和高階主管的樂觀程度有所了解。

And I think the way that outlook of ours is built up, sort of like modest C&I loan growth, outside of markets, is a combination of generally optimistic outlook for, frankly, the global corporate environment as a whole as well as some optimism about our growth and expansion strategies in the space, which are significant and is one of the areas in which we're investing. And of course, as we acquire new clients, while we don't acquire them for the sake of lending, the new clients often come with [plans] and that's very much part of the strategy. So I would say, broadly, nothing that dramatic as a function of the lower rate environment in particular, but a modestly optimistic outlook.

我認為，我們之所以對市場前景持樂觀態度，就像在市場之外實現適度的工商業貸款增長一樣，是因為我們總體上對全球企業環境持樂觀態度，同時也對我們在該領域的增長和擴張戰略持樂觀態度，這些戰略意義重大，也是我們正在投資的領域之一。當然，在我們獲得新客戶的過程中，雖然我們獲取他們的目的不是為了放貸，但新客戶通常會帶著[計劃]而來，這很大程度上也是我們策略的一部分。因此，總的來說，我認為，由於低利率環境，不會有任何劇烈的變化，前景略顯樂觀。

Okay. And maybe just a follow-up on credit. You had some more charge-offs this quarter that seemed a little elevated, but NPAs came down in commercial. So just trying to think what's your view there? Do you feel like with rates coming down and the outlook pretty solid, do you feel like still Steady Eddy, any improvement, or any concerns out there on the corporate credit side?

好的。或許還需要跟進一下信用方面的問題。本季你們的壞帳核銷額似乎略高，但商業貸款的不良貸款率下降。所以，我只是想問你對此有什麼看法？您覺得隨著利率下降和前景相當穩健，企業信貸方面是否依然保持穩定，是否有任何改善或擔憂？

Yeah, good question. I guess a couple of nuances there. So the charge-offs this quarter were largely already provisioned actually, which is part of the reason that we sort of explained the wholesale credit cost narrative through the lens of the net provisioning, because if you're charge-offs and allowance, it's a little bit nonintuitive.

嗯，問得好。我想這裡面有一些細微差別。因此，本季的核銷款項實際上大部分已經提列了準備金，這也是我們透過淨準備金的角度來解釋批發信貸成本的原因之一，因為如果你把核銷款項和撥備金放在一起比較，那就有點反直覺了。

But when you do that and you look at the drivers of the provision, I think it's fair to say that, at the margin, and it's a very small margin I would point out, but it's more negative than positive, meaning downgrades are exceeding upgrades by a little bit. And we did make some parameter updates to assume slightly higher loss given default in the wholesale lending portfolio, which drove a little bit of an increase in the [AWM].

但是，當你這樣做並查看撥備的驅動因素時，我認為可以公平地說，從邊際上看，而且我要指出的是，邊際非常小，但負面多於正面，這意味著降級略微超過了升級。我們也進行了一些參數更新，假設批發貸款組合的違約損失率略有上升，這導致…略有增加。[AWM]

So I don't want to make too big a deal out of that stuff. It's pretty small in the scheme of things. And I definitely would not say we're seeing anything concerning in a broader sense. And also, it's worth noting that when it comes to wholesale charge-offs, the numbers have been running at exceptionally low levels for a long time as the portfolio has also grown. So simply bringing that back to slightly more normal through-the-cycle charge-off rates would still involve some increase in charge-offs.

所以我不想把這些事看得太嚴重。從整體來看，這微不足道。而且我絕對不會說從更廣泛的意義上講，我們看到了任何令人擔憂的情況。此外，值得注意的是，就批發核銷而言，由於投資組合的成長，相關數字長期以來一直處於極低的水平。因此，即使簡單地將沖銷率恢復到稍微正常的周期沖銷率，仍然會導致沖銷額增加。

So in other words, it's a wholesale version of the whole like normalization versus deterioration story that we were talking a lot about in card as the cycle normalized, with the caveat being, of course, that in wholesale, things tend to be a lot more lumpy.

換句話說，這就像我們在卡片中經常討論的「正常化與惡化」的故事的批發版本，隨著週期的正常化而展開，當然，需要注意的是，批發的情況往往更加不均衡。

And at any given moment, you don't know whether something is idiosyncratic or a sign of a larger trend. But at a high level, I would say, nothing that concerning. And it's not particularly, in my mind, driven by rate one way or the other.

而且在任何特定時刻，你都無法判斷某件事是個別現象還是更大趨勢的徵兆。但從宏觀層面來看，我認為沒有什麼值得擔憂的。在我看來，這並非完全由利率驅動。

Great. Thanks.

偉大的。謝謝。

By the way, we lost Jamie. He had to go to another meeting. But you still have me for any remaining questions.

對了，我們把傑米弄丟了。他還要去參加另一個會議。不過，如果您還有任何疑問，我隨時可以為您解答。

Chris McGratty, KBW.

克里斯·麥格拉蒂，KBW。

Jeremy, my question is on consumer deposit competition as rates come down, and we talked about loan growth showing some signs of life. I'm interested in your thoughts on incremental competition by market product peer more or less competitive. Anything you could add?

傑里米，我的問題是關於利率下降時消費者存款的競爭，我們之前也討論過貸款成長出現一些復甦跡象。我想聽聽您對市場產品競爭程度逐漸加劇的看法，以及同類產品之間的競爭程度差異。還有什麼要補充的嗎？

I mean that piece has always very competitive, I would say, has been throughout this entire cycle. I wouldn't -- I haven't heard anything recently to change that narrative one way or the other. I mean, I think the larger point, of course, is that all else being equal, with a lower policy rate, you would expect yield-seeking flows to abate even further.

我的意思是，這件作品一直都很有競爭力，可以說，在整個週期中都是如此。我不會——我最近沒有聽到任何可以改變這種說法的消息。我的意思是，當然，我認為更重要的一點是，在其他條件相同的情況下，隨著政策利率的降低，你會預期追求收益的資金流動會進一步減少。

Again, they're already at very low levels, but as we discussed previously when talking about the consumer deposit outlook, there's currently a little bit of this sort of standoff between this low level of yield-seeking flows and the pending return to growth of deposits per account.

再次強調，這些資金目前已經處於非常低的水平，但正如我們之前在討論消費者存款前景時所討論的那樣，目前在這種低水平的尋求收益的資金流動和即將恢復的每帳戶存款增長之間存在著某種僵局。

And one thing that you might expect, all else equal, that when the headline policy rate drops, it incrementally decreases the amount of yield-seeking flow pressure, aside, obviously, from the direct translation into lower CD rates, which is just straightforward. But at a high level, I would say I haven't really heard anything interesting or new beyond the background ever-present factor of a very competitive marketplace.

在其他條件相同的情況下，人們可能會預期，當政策利率下降時，除了直接轉化為較低的定期存款利率（這顯而易見）之外，尋求收益的資金流動壓力也會逐漸減少。但從宏觀層面來看，除了競爭激烈的市場這一始終存在的背景因素之外，我並沒有聽到任何有趣或新穎的內容。

Great. And then a follow-up on AWM. The flows and margins remain very, very good. I'm interested in your thought about -- thoughts about sustainability and opportunities for the greatest pieces of growth in the medium term.

偉大的。然後是關於AWM的後續報道。資金流動和利潤率依然非常非常好。我對您關於永續發展以及中期內實現最大成長機會的想法很感興趣。

Yeah. I mean I think AWM is one of the businesses where we're investing. I think we've been optimistic there for a long time. We've been investing there for a long time. We've had a bunch of product innovation in the asset management space that's worked out very well and led to AUM growth. And yeah, I mean, specifically, obviously, hiring advisers and bankers in the private bank has been a source of -- it's been very successful, and we're continuing to lean in there quite aggressively. So that franchise is doing great. Flows have been exceptional, and it's one of our areas of optimism for the future.

是的。我的意思是，我認為AWM是我們正在投資的企業之一。我認為我們長期以來一直對此持樂觀態度。我們長期以來一直在那裡投資。我們在資產管理領域進行了一系列產品創新，這些創新都取得了非常好的效果，並帶動了資產管理規模的成長。是的，我的意思是，具體來說，很明顯，在私人銀行聘請顧問和銀行家一直是——而且非常成功，我們正在繼續積極地加大投入。所以這個系列的生意做得很好。流量一直都非常出色，這也是我們對未來充滿信心的領域之一。

Thank you. We have no further questions.

謝謝。我們沒有其他問題了。

Okay. Thank you very much, everyone. See you next quarter.

好的。非常感謝大家。下個季度見。

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

感謝各位參加今天的會議。您可以斷開連接，祝您今天餘下的時間愉快。