摩根大通 (JPM) 2026 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to JPMorgan Chase's third quarter 2026 earnings call. This call is being recorded. (Operator Instructions) We will now go live to the presentation. Information concerning forward-looking statements and non-GAAP financial measures included in this presentation can be found in JPMorgan Chase's earnings press release and investor presentation posted on the Investor Relations website. Please stand by. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to JPMorgan Chase's Chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon; and Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy Barnum. Mr. Barnum, please go ahead.

各位女士、先生，早安。歡迎參加摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）2026 年第三季財報電話會議。本次電話會議將被錄音。（接線員指示）我們現在將切換至簡報。本簡報所包含之關於前瞻性陳述及非 GAAP 財務衡量指標的資訊，可於摩根大通的財報新聞稿及投資人簡報中查閱，相關文件已張貼於投資人關係網站。請稍候。此刻，我想將電話會議交給摩根大通董事長暨執行長 Jamie Dimon，以及財務長 Jeremy Barnum。Barnum 先生，請開始。

Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. The firm delivered net income of $15.3 billion, EPS of $5.57 and a ROTCE of 20%. These results included $658 million of net investment securities losses in corporate. Revenue of $50.9 billion was up 8% year-on-year. Excluding the net investment securities losses, revenue was up 9% year-on-year, largely driven by markets revenue, higher deposit balances and higher asset management fees in AWM and CCB.

非常感謝，各位早安。本公司實現淨利 153 億美元，每股盈餘（EPS）5.57 美元，普通股權益報酬率（ROTCE）為 20%。上述結果包含公司部門 6.58 億美元的投資證券淨損失。營收 509 億美元，年增 8%。若排除投資證券淨損失，營收年增 9%，主要由市場業務營收、較高的存款餘額，以及 AWM 與 CCB 較高的資產管理費所帶動。

Expenses of $27.3 billion were up 12% year-on-year, largely driven by higher volume and revenue-related expense as well as front office hiring and wage inflation. And credit costs were $2.7 billion with net charge-offs of $2.2 billion and a net reserve build of $539 million. In terms of the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with a standardized CET1 ratio of 13.9%, down 30 basis points versus the prior quarter as net income was more than offset by OCI losses, higher RWA and capital distributions.

費用 273 億美元，年增 12%，主要由更高的業務量與與營收相關的費用，以及前台人員招募與薪資通膨所驅動。信貸成本為 27 億美元，其中淨沖銷 22 億美元，淨提列準備金 5.39 億美元。就資產負債表而言，本季末標準化普通股一級資本比率（CET1）為 13.9%，較前一季下降 30 個基點，因淨利被 OCI 損失、更高的風險加權資產（RWA）及資本分配所抵銷。

You'll note that we've updated the categories on the RWA walk to make it a bit more useful. This quarter's standardized RWA increase of about $52 billion is predominantly driven by an increase in lending across Banking, Markets and AWM as well as the impact of higher energy prices and increased market volatility. Now moving to our businesses. CCB reported net income of $5.7 billion. Revenue of $21.2 billion was up 9% year-on-year, predominantly driven by higher balances and yield in card, asset management fees, deposit balances and auto lease income.

你會注意到，我們已更新 RWA 變動表中的分類，使其更具參考價值。本季標準化 RWA 約增加 520 億美元，主要由銀行業務、市場業務與 AWM 的放款增加所帶動，並受到能源價格上升與市場波動加劇的影響。接著看各業務表現。CCB 淨利為 57 億美元。營收 212 億美元，年增 9%，主要由信用卡較高的餘額與收益率、資產管理費、存款餘額以及汽車租賃收入增加所帶動。

A few points to highlight. Debit and credit spend grew 10% year-on-year with continued momentum across spending categories, including gas and travel, supported by consumer demand. Deposit growth of 4% year-on-year was stronger this quarter as we continue to grow our customer base across consumer and business banking, and we retained our number one position in retail deposit share based on FDIC data. And client investment assets crossed $1.4 trillion, up 15% year-on-year, driven by market performance and strong flows. Next, the CIB reported net income of $8.2 billion.

有幾點重點說明。簽帳卡與信用卡消費金額年增 10%，各消費類別持續增長動能，包括加油與旅遊，並受消費需求支撐。存款年增 4%，本季增長更為強勁；我們持續在個人與企業銀行擴大客戶基礎，並依據 FDIC 資料維持零售存款市占第一的地位。客戶投資資產突破 1.4 兆美元，年增 15%，由市場表現與強勁資金流入所帶動。接下來，CIB 淨利為 82 億美元。

Revenue of $22.7 billion was up 14% year-on-year on strong performance across the businesses. IB fees were up 14% year-on-year, reflecting strong performance across products, notably in advisory. While our outlook remains constructive, supported by ongoing client engagement, evolving market conditions have recently slowed activity a bit, so we'll have to see how the quarter develops.

營收 227 億美元，年增 14%，各項業務表現強勁。投資銀行（IB）費用收入年增 14%，反映各產品線的良好表現，尤其是顧問業務。雖然在客戶持續參與的支持下，我們對前景仍持建設性看法，但近期市場環境變化使活動略有放緩，因此仍需觀察本季後續發展。

In Markets, fixed income was down 4% year-on-year with lower revenues in commodities, rates and credit, largely offset by higher client flows in currencies and emerging markets. Equities was up 49% year-on-year with continued outperformance across the franchise, notably in prime and derivatives. Turning to Asset & Wealth Management.

在市場業務方面，固定收益年減 4%，商品、利率與信用的收入較低，但部分被外匯與新興市場較高的客戶交易流量所抵銷。股票業務年增 49%，整體平台持續跑贏同業，尤其是在主經紀與衍生品方面。接著看資產與財富管理（Asset & Wealth Management）。

AWM reported net income of $1.8 billion with a pretax margin of 36%. Revenue of $6.9 billion was up 14% year-on-year, predominantly driven by growth in management fees on higher average market levels and strong net inflows as well as higher loan balances.

AWM 淨利為 18 億美元，稅前利潤率為 36%。營收 69 億美元，年增 14%，主要由平均市場水準較高帶動的管理費成長與強勁淨流入，以及較高的放款餘額所驅動。

Long-term net inflows were $51 billion, largely driven by continued strength in fixed income. AUM of $5.2 trillion, was up 13% year-on-year, and client assets of $7.9 trillion, were up 15% year-on-year, driven by continued net inflows and higher market levels. Finally, Corporate reported a net loss of $455 million, which included the net investment securities losses mentioned earlier on revenue of $93 million. Turning to the outlook. I'm going to update the full year guidance by giving you the fourth quarter.

長期淨流入為 510 億美元，主要由固定收益持續強勁所帶動。資產管理規模（AUM）為 5.2 兆美元，年增 13%；客戶資產為 7.9 兆美元，年增 15%，主要由持續淨流入與較高的市場水準所驅動。最後，公司部門淨損 4.55 億美元，其中包含先前提到的投資證券淨損失；該部門營收為 9,300 萬美元。接著談展望。我將透過提供第四季的資訊來更新全年指引。

The implied full year numbers are on the page. We expect fourth quarter NII ex markets to be approximately $25.5 billion and fourth quarter total NII to be about $28 billion. And as we've done for a couple of years, you'll note we gave you a central case for 2027 NII ex markets of approximately $107 billion, which we'll refine further next quarter.

頁面上列示了推算的全年數字。我們預期第四季（不含市場業務）的淨利息收入（NII）約為 255 億美元，第四季總淨利息收入約為 280 億美元。此外，如同我們過去幾年所做的，我們提供了 2027 年（不含市場業務）淨利息收入的中性情境約為 1,070 億美元，我們將在下季進一步細化。

It's important to remember that this central case is based on a series of assumptions that are obviously highly uncertain even under the best of circumstances. On expense, we expect the fourth quarter to be about $27.5 billion with the implied full year increase reflecting higher volume and revenue-related expense driven by continued elevated activity levels. Finally, we continue to expect the card net charge-off rate to be approximately 3.2%. With that, we're now happy to take your questions.

需要記住的是，這個中性情境是基於一系列假設；即使在最佳情況下，這些假設顯然也具有高度不確定性。在費用方面，我們預期第四季約為 275 億美元；推算的全年增幅反映了在活動水準持續偏高的情況下，業務量增加以及與營收相關的費用上升。最後，我們仍預期信用卡淨沖銷率約為 3.2%。接下來，我們很樂意回答各位的問題。

So let's open the line for Q&A.

那我們開始 Q&A 提問。

(Operator Instructions)

（接線員指示）

Ebrahim Poonawala, Bank of America.

美國銀行（Bank of America）的 Ebrahim Poonawala。

I guess maybe one question, just there's been a lot of discussion around all things AI over the last couple of months. And maybe if there are two things that you can address specifically, one, when we think about the disruption risk to agentic AI, I know you've talked about in the past. Maybe just frame that given your visibility into the technology, how you think about that? And also the challenge of implementing agentic AI inside a bank given the emergence of all the rogue agents? And does that make it harder for a bank to actually deploy agentic AI as we think about just competitive challenges?

我想可能就一個問題：過去幾個月市場對 AI 的各種議題討論很多。也許有兩點想請你們特別談談：第一，當我們思考「代理式 AI（agentic AI）」帶來的顛覆風險時，我知道你們過去曾談過；以你們對技術的能見度，能否請你們框架一下你們如何看待這件事？以及你們如何思考這個問題？第二，在銀行內部導入代理式 AI 的挑戰，尤其是在各種「失控代理（rogue agents）」出現的情況下？這是否會讓銀行在面對競爭挑戰時，更難實際部署代理式 AI？

I'll start and you want to jump in? Yes, okay. So on the disruption point, a couple of things. There's obviously been a lot of focus on the Smart Cash solution, which I think is a small piece of the overall story. But that is live now actually as of the last couple of weeks, very, very early days, and it remains kind of a targeted pilot type thing.

我先開始，你要補充嗎？好。關於顛覆這點，有幾件事。顯然大家對 Smart Cash 解決方案有很多關注，我認為那只是整體故事中的一小部分。不過它其實在過去幾週已經上線了，仍然非常、非常早期，而且目前仍屬於較為聚焦的試點性質。

But it is interesting to learn some things about what clients care about and sort of see how it works to kind of sell a product like this in the field. So I mean more to come on that in the future. Early days, interesting so far. I think the bigger picture here is around -- there have been a couple of releases of personal agents this quarter, which have really gotten a bunch of attention in the market and we saw a little bit of a response in bank stocks around those releases.

但有趣的是，可以了解一些客戶在意的事情，並且大致看看在第一線要如何運作、如何把這類產品銷售出去。所以我的意思是，未來還會有更多內容。目前還在早期階段，但到目前為止很有意思。我認為更大的脈絡在於——本季已經有幾次個人代理（personal agents）的發布，在市場上引起了相當多的關注，我們也看到銀行股在這些發布後出現了一些反應。

And I guess the way we think about that from our perspective is that on the one hand, it's nothing new, and that -- but that doesn't mean that we're complacent about it. So if you think about what is the nature of the competition that comes from these agents, it's really the intersection of two things that we've been talking about for a long time. One is yield-seeking flows. So obviously, we deal today and have dealt with all the various rate cycles with a lot of competition from yield-seeking flows. And our strategy remains focusing on primary bank share, not chasing every dollar of yield-seeking money.

我想從我們的角度來看，一方面這並不是什麼新鮮事——但這不代表我們對此掉以輕心。所以如果你去想，這些代理帶來的競爭本質是什麼，其實就是我們談了很久的兩件事的交集。第一個是追求收益的資金流（yield-seeking flows）。很明顯地，我們今天在做、過去也一直在做，面對各種利率循環時，都有來自追求收益資金流的激烈競爭。而我們的策略仍然是聚焦於主要往來銀行市占（primary bank share），而不是去追逐每一塊追求收益的資金。

So that doesn't mean that competitive pressure isn't real. It just means it's not particularly new. The other piece is competition from fintechs who are innovating and providing great customer experiences. And we've also been talking about that for a long time and the criticality of ensuring that we have parity with them and that we're leaning in enough to make sure that we're giving people the experiences that they want through all the various channels including digital.

這並不表示競爭壓力不真實。只是表示它並不是特別新的現象。另一個部分是來自金融科技公司（fintechs）的競爭，他們在創新並提供很棒的客戶體驗。我們也談這件事談了很久，以及確保我們能與他們同等（parity）的重要性，並且我們要足夠投入，確保透過各種管道（包含數位）提供人們想要的體驗。

And so in that sense, the kind of agentic personal agents, whatever stuff is just the intersection of those two things, and it's not new. As I said, that doesn't mean we're complacent about it. We're spending a lot of time on it, and it's going to be interesting to see how the space develops and what we ourselves offer there at some point. But when you take a really big step back from a competitive position, I think we really like our hand in no small part because of the sort of multiple decades of investment in the branch network, the value proposition and not least trust that our customers have in us.

因此從這個意義上說，所謂具代理性的個人代理（agentic personal agents）之類的東西，其實就是上述兩件事的交集，並不新鮮。如我所說，這不代表我們會自滿。我們在這上面投入了很多時間，也會很有意思地觀察這個領域如何發展，以及我們自己在某個時間點會提供什麼。但如果你從競爭角度真正退一步看大局，我認為我們很喜歡我們手上的牌，其中很大一部分原因在於我們在分行網路、價值主張上的數十年投資，以及同樣重要的——客戶對我們的信任。

I would just add, internally, we use agents to do good things here, and we're going to continue to do that. And we do -- we'll use it for customers, but our focus will always be do a great job for customers. And so we're not against agents or for agents something like that. There are tools you use them for the customers. There is a defensive side, which is you got to make sure our customers are not hurt by it.

我再補充一下，在內部，我們使用代理來做一些有益的事情，而且我們會持續這麼做。我們也會——把它用在客戶身上，但我們的焦點永遠是把客戶服務做到最好。所以我們不是反對代理或支持代理之類的立場。它們是工具，你用它們來服務客戶。也有防禦面，也就是你必須確保我們的客戶不會因此受害。

And so that is of concern. But that's think of it as an AI agentic concern, which is heightened because you don't want rogue agents and there could be thousands of them. And so we've always been literally on the side of the client. The people are using them; they should understand the risk. There's a liability transfer; they should understand the liability transfer.

所以這確實令人擔憂。但把它視為一種 AI 代理（agentic）的風險疑慮，而且因為你不希望出現失控的代理（rogue agents），而且可能會有成千上萬個，所以這種疑慮會被放大。因此我們一直都是站在客戶這一邊。使用這些工具的人應該了解風險。存在責任轉移（liability transfer）；他們應該了解這種責任轉移。

If that is being misused, they should understand it's being misused. So we have to make sure we protect our customer in the right kind of way. So we're building tools to do that, too. In the meantime, we're not going to allow just any agent to come -- outside agent to come in inside the company because that's just too risky for clients and for JPMorgan.

如果它被濫用，他們應該了解它正在被濫用。所以我們必須確保以正確的方式保護我們的客戶。因此我們也在打造工具來做到這點。同時，我們不會允許任何外部代理隨便進入公司內部，因為那對客戶以及對摩根大通（JPMorgan）來說風險都太高。

Got it. That's good color. And just separately, I think as we assess the risk of interest rates may be moving even higher than what we saw in the third quarter, maybe your latest thoughts around how you assess the resiliency of the economy to handle maybe a 6% rate on 10-year and just the Fed hiking a few times. Do you think the risk of a market event or just stress on the economy is meaningful as we kind of discount that?

了解。這些說明很有幫助。另外，我想在我們評估利率風險時，利率可能會比第三季看到的水準還要更高；想請教你最新的看法：你如何評估經濟承受能力，去應對10年期利率可能到6%，以及聯準會再升息幾次？當我們把這些因素納入折現時，你認為市場事件風險或經濟壓力的風險是否顯著？

I think we have to -- we always prepare for all different events. And that's not the same as predicting them because we want to be a strong company, helping our clients, our communities, countries around the world through thick or thin. So of course, things like that can happen. We never take it off the table. And they can happen for good reason, which is a lot of demand for capital, a lot of productivity and things are fine.

我認為我們必須——我們永遠都要為各種不同事件做準備。這和預測它們不是一回事，因為我們希望成為一家強健的公司，無論景氣好壞，都能協助我們的客戶、社區，以及全球各國。所以當然，這類事情可能發生。我們從不把它排除在外。而且它們可能因為好的原因而發生，例如資本需求很大、生產力很高，整體狀況其實良好。

They can happen for a bad reason, sticky inflation around the world, they can happen not because it's in the United States, they can happen because what happens overseas. So we're not predicting it. I've always thought there's a higher chance than other people. I still kind of think that, but that's not a prediction. That's just a -- think of that as cautious preparation.

也可能因為不好的原因而發生，例如全球通膨黏著（sticky inflation）。也可能不是因為美國本身，而是因為海外發生的事情。所以我們不是在做預測。我一直覺得發生的機率比其他人想的更高。我現在仍然有點這麼想，但那不是預測。

Thank you.

謝謝。

John McDonald, Truist.

Truist 的 John McDonald。

Hi, good morning, Jeremy and Jamie, I was hoping, Jeremy, you could unpack the new outlook for 2027 NII, the central case that you gave, including some of the assumptions around the balance sheet growth, deposit pricing and the impact of higher rates.

嗨，早安，Jeremy 和 Jamie。我想請教，Jeremy，你能否進一步拆解你們對 2027 年淨利息收入（NII）的新展望，也就是你給出的基準情境（central case），包括資產負債表成長、存款定價，以及較高利率的影響等一些假設？

Yeah, sure, John. No problem. So if you start with what we've given you as the NII ex Markets guide for fourth quarter, which is $25.5 billion and you annualize that, you get something like $102 billion. So we're essentially giving you guiding to $5 billion of growth from that to the $107 billion.

好的，當然可以，John，沒問題。如果你先從我們給你的第四季（Q4）「不含市場業務（ex Markets）」的 NII 指引開始，也就是 255 億美元，把它年化後大概是 1,020 億美元左右。所以我們基本上是在指引你們，從那個水準成長 50 億美元到 1,070 億美元。

That $5 billion, probably about a quarter of that, I would say, is related to the yield curve. So we remain asset sensitive and probably a little bit more asset sensitive than the EAR shows just because of the lower than modeled consumer deposit betas. So about a quarter of that is the hikes that are currently in the forward curve. I think there's one in December and then two through the first half of the year. And the rest of it, I would actually describe pretty straightforwardly as just the continuation of the balance sheet growth and mix trends that we've seen this year.

這 50 億美元裡，我會說大概四分之一與殖利率曲線（yield curve）有關。所以我們仍然是資產敏感型（asset sensitive），而且可能比 EAR 顯示的還要更資產敏感一些，原因只是消費者存款 beta 低於模型假設。因此其中約四分之一來自目前遠期曲線（forward curve）所隱含的升息。我想 12 月有一次，然後上半年還有兩次。其餘部分，我會很直接地描述為：就是延續我們今年看到的資產負債表成長與結構（mix）趨勢。

So both continued modest consumer deposit growth, continued wholesale deposit growth, probably wholesale a bit weaker than what was very strong this year, but we don't actually know. And then Card loans, which obviously can be a big driver of NII continued at comp levels. So actually a pretty straightforward story, I would say. I gave you caveats, but I gave you the caveats on the prepared remarks.

也就是消費者存款持續溫和成長、批發存款（wholesale deposit）持續成長；批發端可能會比今年非常強勁的表現稍弱一些，但我們其實也不確定。另外還有信用卡放款（Card loans），這顯然可能是推動 NII 的重要動能，並且會以可比水準（at comp levels）持續。所以我會說，這其實是一個相當直觀的故事。我有提出一些但書，但我已經在事先準備的講稿（prepared remarks）裡把但書都講過了。

I will add one more thing. I think there's more uncertainty around that number than normal because of all the things going on around the world. So -- and obviously, it also relates to what we do, which we can change at any point in time.

我再補充一點。我認為，由於全球正在發生的各種事情，圍繞那個數字的不確定性比平常更大。所以——而且很明顯，這也與我們所做的事情有關，我們可以在任何時間點調整。

Okay. That's helpful. And Jeremy, on expenses, if we move over to there, do you have any preliminary thoughts on your investment spend plans for next year, the other drivers of expenses and how those might line up with the current Street forecast for expenses next year?

好的。這很有幫助。另外，Jeremy，談到費用，如果我們轉到那一塊，你對明年的投資支出計畫、其他費用驅動因素，以及它們可能如何與華爾街目前對明年費用的預測相吻合，有沒有任何初步看法？

So we try to draw a little bit of a distinction between NII and expenses in the sense that despite Jamie's comments, which are obviously true that we can modify the structure of the balance sheet to change the NII, in general, undisturbed the NII is kind of a property of the balance sheet at any given point in time, and it is not that sensitive to the budget cycle.

我們會試著在淨利息收入（NII）與費用之間做一點區分：儘管 Jamie 的評論顯然是對的——我們確實可以透過調整資產負債表結構來改變 NII——但一般而言，在不受干擾的情況下，NII 在任何特定時間點更像是資產負債表的「屬性」，而且對預算週期並不那麼敏感。

And therefore, we feel like we don't have a very good excuse at this point in the year for pretending that we don't have an opinion about 2027. Expenses are a little different in the sense that they are still sensitive to the budget cycle, and there are a lot of discretionary decisions to get made in there. And while we have some preliminary views, we're kind of not done with that.

因此，我們覺得在一年中的這個時間點，如果還假裝我們對 2027 年沒有看法，實在沒有什麼好藉口。費用則有點不同，因為它仍然會受到預算週期影響，而且其中有很多可自行裁量的決策需要做。雖然我們有一些初步觀點，但我們還沒有完全完成這部分。

And you will remember, obviously, John, last year, we did point out that our preliminary read on expenses suggested that the market's consensus was a bit off. That seems to be quite a bit less true this year. So we see the consensus right now for 2027 expenses being around $114 billion, and our current preliminary read isn't too far from that.

而且你也記得，John，去年我們確實指出，我們對費用的初步判讀顯示市場共識有點偏離。但今年這種情況看起來就沒那麼明顯了。所以我們目前看到市場對 2027 年費用的共識大約在 1,140 億美元左右，而我們目前的初步判讀與此相差不遠。

So kind of no news on that front, I would say. And let's see how the budget cycle finishes. And as Jamie points out, I think the uncertainty isn't just about the macro environment. It's also about how dynamic the investment picture is and the effects of AI, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So a lot of moving parts. But for now, the consensus doesn't seem too far off.

所以我會說，在這方面算是沒有什麼新消息。我們再看看預算週期最後會如何收尾。而且如 Jamie 所說，不確定性不只是來自總體環境。也包括投資版圖的動態變化，以及 AI 等等帶來的影響，諸如此類。所以變動因素很多。但就目前而言，共識看起來並沒有差太遠。

Okay. Got it. Thank you.

好的。明白了。謝謝。

Erika Najarian, UBS.

UBS 的 Erika Najarian。

My first question just is on capital management. We were fielding a lot of inbound questions from investors in terms of the $1 billion buyback versus the normal cadence of around $7 billion. And I know that there's no normal cadence, and I know that buyback is the last priority. But perhaps take us through how you should think -- we should think about your capital priorities, particularly given that we're hearing that Basel III endgame and G-SIB should be finalized at year-end.

我的第一個問題是關於資本管理。我們收到很多投資人的詢問，關於 10 億美元的回購相較於平常大約 70 億美元的節奏。我知道沒有什麼所謂的「正常節奏」，也知道回購是最後的優先順序。但或許請你帶我們梳理一下，你們的資本優先順序應該如何理解——尤其是考量到我們聽到 Basel III 終局方案（endgame）以及 G-SIB 可能會在年底定案。

Yeah, so I think we've told you all that we have probably $30 billion or something of excess capital roughly, just estimating what all those end games are, which we don't know, but that's plenty. But the capital hierarchy has always been the same. I mean after you pay a dividend, which hopefully will be steady, we'd like -- we really like investing in organic growth. That is the highest and best use of capital for our shareholders.

是的，我想我們已經跟各位說過，我們大概有 300 億美元左右的超額資本——這只是根據那些終局方案做的估算；我們其實不知道最終會是什麼，但這已經很充足了。不過資本使用的優先順序一直都一樣。也就是說，在支付股利之後——我們希望股利能維持穩定——我們很希望、也非常喜歡投資於內生成長。對我們股東而言，這是資本最高、最好的用途。

And obviously, buyback comes after that, particularly when stock prices are up. So the positive news is the main reason the buyback is down, and it's got nothing to do with AOCI or guessing about the environment or even Basel III. We believe now, which is different than we told you in the past that we can redeploy that capital at very good returns over time. And redeploying that capital at very good returns over time is far better than buying stock at a 6% or whatever the earnings yield would be if you bought it today. And that's simple. I mean that's good. That's good for shareholders.

而且很明顯，回購是在那之後，尤其是在股價上漲的時候。所以好消息是：回購下降的主要原因是正面的，而且與 AOCI 無關，也不是因為猜測環境，甚至也不是因為 Basel III。我們現在相信——這點與我們過去告訴各位的不同——我們可以把這些資本重新部署，並在時間推移中取得非常好的報酬。而把資本以非常好的報酬率長期重新部署，遠比在今天以 6% 或者不管是多少的盈餘殖利率去買回股票要好得多。就這麼簡單。我的意思是，這是好事。這對股東是好事。

And I'll give you one example, and I think there are many more, but the security resiliency initiative, we told you all we deployed $1.5 trillion over 10 years. And we haven't -- I don't think we disclosed the number, but the first year is probably over $200 billion already, and we'll disclose that and do some work on it. But I guess it will be considerably more than that.

我舉一個例子——我想還有很多——就是安全韌性（security resiliency）倡議。我們跟各位說過，我們將在 10 年內部署 1.5 兆美元。而且我們——我不認為我們已披露過這個數字——但第一年可能就已經超過 2,000 億美元了；我們會披露並做一些相關工作。但我猜最終會遠高於這個數字。

And the world needs capital, the world needs advice, the world is becoming more complex, assets under management around the world are bigger. And so we think there's good news in the long run. And we can't tell you what it means for the next 6 months, but that's why we're doing it. We hope to deploy it very well for our shareholders.

而世界需要資本，世界需要建議，世界正變得更複雜，全球資產管理規模也更大。因此我們認為，長期來看這是好消息。我們無法告訴你這對未來 6 個月意味著什麼，但這就是我們為什麼要這麼做。我們希望能為股東把這些資本部署得非常好。

Yeah, and the only thing I would add to that, Erika, is just that if you notice what the journey has been on the CET1 ratio, I want to say that we started at something like 15.7%, and we're now at 13.9% during a period during which we've done a ton of internal deployment. So there's been a lot of organic growth in RWA and some of the investments that Jamie alludes to. And during that period, we've also done a bunch of buybacks. So but at this point, as Jamie says, the speed with which we've been able to deploy organically relative to the amount of excess that we have and the environment seems pretty clear that it makes sense to keep dry powder.

是的，我唯一想補充的是，Erika，如果你注意到我們 CET1 比率的變化軌跡，我想我們一開始大約在 15.7%，而現在在 13.9%；在這段期間我們做了大量的內部部署。所以風險加權資產（RWA）的內生成長很多，也包括 Jamie 提到的一些投資。而在那段期間，我們也做了不少回購。不過在目前這個時間點，如 Jamie 所說，考量到我們能以多快的速度進行內生部署、相對於我們擁有的超額資本規模，以及整體環境，情況相當清楚：保留一些「乾火藥」（備用資本）是合理的。

I want to brag on the investment bank a little bit. So they've hired a tremendous amount of very talented people in SRI, and we're lucky to have Todd Combs here investing some of the capital. They've had a lot of ideas. It's not just meeting at this point. They've helped fund some interesting types of things.

我想稍微誇一下投資銀行部門。他們在 SRI 招募了非常多非常有才華的人，我們也很幸運有 Todd Combs 在這裡協助投資部分資本。他們提出了很多想法。目前不只是開會討論而已。他們也協助資助了一些有意思的類型的項目。

We have more ideas. They're doing a really great policy around it, too, which is what can you do to accelerate security resilience in the United States around shipbuilding or we had a big announcement in Philadelphia. So I just I'm proud of them. We've had a bunch of people who retired, who raised their hand. They're coming back more for patriotism than anything else.

我們還有更多想法。他們也在這方面制定了非常好的政策，也就是：你能做些什麼來加速美國的安全韌性——例如在造船方面，或者我們在費城有一個重大宣布。所以我只是——我為他們感到驕傲。我們有不少已退休的人主動舉手。他們回來更多是出於愛國心，而不是其他原因。

And so -- it's just a great effort for the company. As we pointed out, it's global and the global response has also been exceptional. I have something across my desk, which is alone over $10 billion or $20 billion of financing in one country. So a lot more to come. And I would put in the same category, the American Dream Initiative, the Innovation Economy Initiative, the Commercial Banking Initiative around the world. These things are working. We think we're doing the right kind of good business and good returns.

所以——這對公司而言是一項很棒的努力。如我們指出的，這是全球性的，而全球的回應也非常出色。我桌上就有一份資料，單是一個國家就有超過 100 億或 200 億美元的融資。所以後面還會有更多。而我也會把它歸在同一類：美國夢倡議、創新經濟倡議、以及全球的商業銀行倡議。這些事情正在奏效。我們認為我們正在做對的、既是好生意也能帶來好報酬的事情。

So as a follow-up here, that all sounds very positive for activity levels going forward in a very broad way. And Jamie, I know you did some media over the past few weeks and talked about the pipeline. And maybe in that context, especially given market fears, that the bond market rout around the world has a chilling effect on activity levels. Maybe talk about what the pipeline looks like for activity levels in both the investment -- both Wall Street and Main Street.

所以作為這裡的後續問題，整體而言，這些聽起來都對未來的活動水準非常正面、而且是相當廣泛的正面訊號。Jamie，我知道你在過去幾週接受了一些媒體訪問並談到案源管線。也許在那個脈絡下，特別是考量到市場的擔憂——全球債券市場的暴跌是否會對活動水準產生寒蟬效應。能否談談投資端——也就是華爾街與主街——兩邊的活動水準案源管線目前看起來如何？

Well, first, before I do that, the bond volatility in the market, the fear is not going to change what we do. We serve clients through thick or thin. We know that -- I call some of the economic winds. It's the weather. That's not exactly referred to.

好，首先，在我談那個之前，市場上的債券波動、那些恐懼，不會改變我們要做的事。不論景氣好壞，我們都會服務客戶。我們知道——我把它稱作一些經濟的風向。那就是天氣。那並不是精確可指稱的東西。

The pipeline is fine. But I pointed out many times before, the pipeline is like an accordion. It can open close pretty quick. You've seen in the United States, it's been, as Jeremy says, the word delayed, probably, we don't really know, and we'll see. And I was in Europe recently, and the pipeline there is actually quite healthy and even more so in IPOs than we would have thought. So we just don't know and -- but serving the clients and doing a good job is the most important thing. Pipelines, we always forecast the pipeline, as you call the probability --

案源管線沒問題。但我之前多次指出，案源管線就像手風琴。它可以很快地打開或收起來。你在美國已經看到，如同Jeremy所說，那個詞是「延後」，大概吧——我們其實也不確定，還要再看。我最近在歐洲，那邊的案源管線其實相當健康，甚至在IPO方面比我們原先想的還要強。所以我們就是不知道——但服務客戶、把工作做好才是最重要的。至於案源管線，我們總是會去預測你所說的那個機率——

The probability adjustment.

機率調整。

And we know one thing for sure. It will be wrong.

而且我們確定一件事。那個預測一定會錯。

It's important to emphasize, like when Jamie and I talk about not knowing, I think we mean we don't obviously know exactly what investment banking fee revenue is going to be in the fourth quarter. I think that we do know that the overall environment is robust and supportive, and there's a lot of business that wants to get done and needs to get done.

我想強調的是，像Jamie和我談到「不知道」時，我們的意思是：我們當然不可能精準知道第四季的投資銀行手續費收入會是多少。但我認為我們確實知道，整體環境是強健且具支撐性的，有很多業務想要做、也需要做。

And as you point out, Erika, not surprisingly, given the rate sell-off, you're going to have the market take a little bit of a breath and a pause to make sure buyers and sellers can meet on valuation terms. And so we did see a little bit of that slowdown in the second half of September basically, and we'll see how that plays out into December, but I mean, sorry, into the fourth quarter. But the big picture, I think, is pretty clear.

而且如你所指出的，Erika，在利率大幅拋售之後，市場不意外會稍微喘口氣、暫停一下，確保買賣雙方能在估值條件上達成一致。所以我們確實在9月下半月基本上看到一些放緩，接下來看它如何延伸到12月——我是說，延伸到第四季。但我認為大方向其實相當清楚。

Thank you.

謝謝。

Chris McGratty, KBW.

Chris McGratty，KBW。

Great. Thanks. Just following up on the capital allocation. Maybe a comment or two on where you're less comfortable allocating capital to. It seems like there's plenty of opportunities to deploy it. Where are you pulling back? Where are you seeing structures or peers maybe doing something you may not want to do?

很好。謝謝。我想追問一下資本配置。能否談一兩點你們在哪些地方比較不那麼願意配置資本？看起來有很多機會可以部署資本。你們在哪些領域正在收縮？你們看到哪些結構或同業可能在做、但你們可能不想做的事？

I'm not going to give you very specific stuff, but we're tightening up a little bit on credit. I think some of the credit terms have gotten a little bit loose. And you've heard us talk about that before and other people, a little too much PIK, a little too weak covenants, a little too much priming good assets, little too much, pushing on it. We just don't feel you have to chase that kind of stuff anymore.

我不會給你非常具體的細節，但我們在信用方面會稍微收緊一些。我認為有些信貸條款變得有點鬆。你之前也聽我們談過，其他人也提過：PIK（利息資本化）有點太多、契約條款（covenants）有點太弱、用優先權（priming）去壓在好資產之上的情況有點太多，整體就是有點推得太過頭。我們覺得現在已經不需要再去追那類交易了。

Okay. Great. And then secondarily, the health of the consumer is getting a lot of attention. I guess the question is durability to withstand these kind of rates. I think you talked about 10% year-on-year spend in debit and credit. If we're a year from now and we still have rates where we are, what's your expectation for the ability for the consumer to hold on?

好的，很好。第二個問題，消費者的健康狀況受到很多關注。我想問的是，在這樣的利率水準下，承受力（耐久性）如何。我記得你提到簽帳金融卡與信用卡支出年增10%。如果一年後利率仍維持在目前水準，你對消費者撐住的能力有何預期？

I mean, obviously, if you keep real rates very high for a long time, at some level, that's designed to slow down economic activity to fight inflation. And it's hard to imagine that, that wouldn't have an impact on the consumer. So far, what we see in the current data and what's been true, I would say, for the last few years is that the consumer has been quite resilient in the face of a number of headwinds that under different circumstances you might have expected would present a challenge. But I think the conditional expectation of consumer credit health as a function of higher rates is a fairly nuanced question.

我的意思是，顯然如果實質利率長時間維持在很高水準，在某個程度上，那本來就是為了抑制經濟活動、對抗通膨而設計的。很難想像那不會對消費者造成影響。到目前為止，從我們看到的現有數據，以及我會說過去幾年一直如此的情況來看，消費者在面對多種逆風時都相當有韌性；在不同情境下，你可能原本會預期那些逆風會帶來挑戰。但我認為，把消費者信貸健康狀況視為高利率的函數來看，這是一個相當細緻、需要分辨的問題。

But fundamentally, the picture is pretty simple. Like the consumer is currently very healthy, primarily because of a healthy labor market. But the Central Bank needs things to cool off and that involves an aggressive extended rate cycle, almost by definition, that's going to involve higher unemployment, which will produce weaker consumer credit results.

但從根本上說，圖像其實很簡單。消費者目前非常健康，主要是因為勞動市場健康。但央行需要讓情勢降溫，而那涉及一個更激進、且延長的升息／高利率循環；幾乎按定義來說，那將伴隨更高的失業率，進而導致較弱的消費者信貸表現。

Ken Usdin, Autonomous Research.

Ken Usdin，Autonomous Research。

Hi, good morning. On the consumer side, it's nice to see the 4% year-over-year CCB deposit growth. I just wondering, aside from agentic, just what are you seeing in terms of either rate-seeking behavior? Is it the deposit margin has been up for the last few quarters, which is also good to see. And I'm just wondering any change in your expectations for either growth or how you're adjusting to the current marketplace and competition for deposits?

嗨，早安。在消費者端，看到CCB存款年增4%很不錯。我想問的是，除了代理性（agentic）之外，你們在「追逐利率」的行為方面看到了什麼？另外，存款利差（deposit margin）過去幾季也在上升，這也很好。我想了解你們對存款成長的預期是否有任何改變，或你們如何因應目前市場環境以及存款競爭？

Sure. Yeah, it's an important question. It's a good question. I think the simple answer is no significant change to our core expectations here. I think we've seen kind of the reassertion of consumer deposit growth over the last couple of quarters as the yield-seeking flows have faded and that continues to be our basic expectation.

當然。是的，這是個重要的問題。這是個好問題。我想簡單的答案是：我們對核心預期沒有重大改變。我們看到在過去幾季，隨著追求收益的資金流動（yield-seeking flows）退潮，消費者存款成長某種程度上重新回來，而這也仍是我們的基本預期。

So that's the big picture. I do think that since that outlook was shaped, we have seen a somewhat higher rate environment, and that does raise the question of what will be the impact of that on consumer deposits. So in the normal course, you will obviously have higher rate paid from the high beta products from CDs and premium deposits. And all else equal, you would probably expect some amount of additional internal migration out of checking and savings into CDs or simplicity, resulting in higher weighted average rate paid.

所以這是大方向。我確實認為，自從那個展望形成以來，我們看到利率環境略為更高，這也引發一個問題：這對消費者存款會有什麼影響？在一般情況下，你顯然會在高beta產品上支付更高利率，例如定存（CDs）與高端存款（premium deposits）。在其他條件不變下，你可能會預期會有一定程度的內部遷移，從活期與儲蓄轉向定存（為求簡化），導致支付利率的加權平均上升。

And maybe you see a little bit of additional outflow pressure, which results in, therefore, slightly weaker deposit growth. So that's all totally speculative. And it's very much a function of which side of the argument you land on in terms of some people believe, well, all the cash sorting that's going to happen has already happened and therefore, these things are relatively insensitive to slightly higher rates. I don't personally believe that. I think it's probably a little bit more on a continuum than that.

也許你會看到一些額外的資金外流壓力，因此存款成長會略為偏弱。所以這些都完全是推測。而且很大程度取決於你站在哪一邊：有些人認為，所有會發生的現金重新排序（cash sorting）都已經發生了，因此這些事情對於利率小幅走高相對不敏感。我個人不相信那種看法。我認為它更像是一個連續光譜，而不是非黑即白。

And therefore, I would expect a little bit of additional pressure. But in the end, it's a matter of degree. No one really knows. And the good news, I would say, is that the core franchise performance is exceptionally strong, driven in no small part by the net new checking account acquisition, which I think we had like 650,000 this quarter or something.

因此，我預期會有一些額外的壓力。但歸根結底，這是程度上的問題。沒有人真的知道。而我會說，好消息是，核心特許經營表現異常強勁，其中很大一部分動能來自淨新增支票帳戶的獲取，我想我們本季大概有 65 萬戶左右之類的。

So it's really been very, very strong, and it's proof of kind of the value proposition and the engagement that we're seeing through our marketing efforts and the power of the brand. So from a long-term perspective, that's the most important thing and the impact of rates in the near term will just be what it is.

所以整體確實非常、非常強勁，這也證明了我們價值主張的吸引力，以及透過行銷努力所看到的客戶參與度與品牌力量。因此從長期角度來看，那才是最重要的事，而短期內利率的影響就是它本來會呈現的樣子。

Excellent. Thanks, Jeremy. One follow-up on the markets business. Obviously, we're seeing quite a bifurcation of just the continued strength in equities. And as you mentioned earlier, there are some tougher comps, I guess, and the impact of higher rates on FICC. Any change to just client demand for balance sheet usage?

很好。謝謝你，Jeremy。關於市場業務我還有一個追問。顯然，我們看到股權市場持續強勁，呈現相當明顯的分化。而如你先前提到的，我想也有一些比較基期變得更具挑戰，以及較高利率對 FICC 的影響。客戶對資產負債表使用的需求有任何變化嗎？

Is it kind of insatiable as it seems to be in the equities business? Just the state of things in the markets business in terms of activity and kind of your willingness to provide balance sheet, but more so the demand side, too.

在股權業務中看起來像是永不滿足那樣嗎？就市場業務的現況而言，無論是活動度、你們提供資產負債表的意願，但更重要的是需求端的情況。

Yeah, so at a high level, I think the simple answer is no real change. Yes, I like your insatiable -- yes, exactly. I like your insatiable demand for capital point that feels about right. I haven't heard anything to the contrary, frankly, recently.

是的，從高層次來看，我認為簡單的答案是沒有真正的變化。是的，我喜歡你用「永不滿足」——對，正是如此。你提到對資本的永不滿足需求，感覺相當貼切。坦白說，最近我沒有聽到任何相反的說法。

But to Jamie's point about tightening up credit, that's a little bit of an overall point about just making sure we're really scrubbing everything. And in this moment where AI is such an overwhelming theme, it's producing so much innovation and so many different pockets. There's capital being tapped through all kinds of different mechanisms. We just need to be really, really on top of things to make sure that nothing slips through.

但就 Jamie 提到收緊信貸而言，那更像是一個整體性的提醒：確保我們確實把所有事情都徹底檢視一遍。而在這個 AI 成為壓倒性主題的時刻，它帶來大量創新與許多不同的領域。資本正透過各式各樣不同的機制被動員。我們必須非常、非常掌握狀況，確保沒有任何事情漏網。

Mike Mayo, Wells Fargo Securities.

Mike Mayo，Wells Fargo Securities。

Hi. Can you say the degree that AI helps out JPMorgan? I saw you were ranked highly in a recent AI and bank poll. But I squint and I look at the earnings release, I'm trying to find the benefits, and I'm not sure if I can. I think -- and you can update these numbers. You spend, what, $2 billion in AI and you have like $2 billion of benefits or maybe that stale, if you could update that.

嗨。你能談談 AI 對摩根大通的幫助程度嗎？我看到你們在最近一項 AI 與銀行的民調中排名很高。但我仔細看了財報新聞稿，試著找出這些效益，卻不確定是否看得到。我想——你也可以更新一下這些數字。你們在 AI 上花了大概 20 億美元，然後有大概 20 億美元的效益？或者那個數字可能已經過時了，能否更新一下。

And then also address the risk that AI agents will take deposits out of JPMorgan. And as far as that answer, maybe you can talk about that value proposition and the trust and the way you protect customers' privacy and the value they place on that.

另外也請談談 AI 代理人把存款從摩根大通帶走的風險。至於這個問題的回答，也許你可以談談你們的價值主張、信任，以及你們如何保護客戶隱私，還有客戶對此所重視的價值。

So Mike, let me just tidy up a couple of things. So first of all, on the AI expense, you're right. I think we did say that in some media setting at some point. I think it's not exactly right, and I think we corrected it later. I think the at the time, and I think it is a little stale at this point, the AI expense number was significantly less than that. I want to say something like $700 million annually or something like that.

Mike，我先把幾件事釐清一下。首先，關於 AI 費用，你說得沒錯。我想我們確實曾在某個媒體場合提過。但我認為那不完全正確，而且我想我們後來也更正了。我認為在當時——而且到現在看來也有點過時——AI 費用的數字明顯低於那個水準。我想大概是每年 7 億美元左右之類的。

But more importantly, like there's a lot of counting effects there, right? If you sort of price out the amount of time we're all spending thinking about it, you can probably get a higher number, too. So it's, at this point, like not really something that you can ring fence. It's pretty well diffused inside the whole institution, and it's obviously like a very, very high priority.

但更重要的是，裡面有很多重複計算的影響，對吧？如果你把我們所有人花在思考這件事上的時間也用價格去估算，你也可能得到更高的數字。所以到目前為止，這已經不是一個你能夠清楚劃定範圍（ring fence）的項目。它已經相當廣泛地滲透到整個機構內部，顯然也是非常、非常高的優先事項。

On the question of benefits, you're right, we have quantified that in the past. I'm really trying to move away from that. I think that old quantification was accurate and correct as far as it went, but it included a lot of, what you might call, pre-generative AI, machine learning type stuff that's particularly significant in consumer fraud prevention and so on. And that -- while that's relevant, I think when you and others ask about AI in the current moment, you're really asking about the impact of generative and agentic AI on productivity, on the expense line across a range of places, especially software engineering, but also other places. And maybe you're asking about new exciting revenue opportunities at the margin.

至於效益的問題，你說得對，我們過去確實量化過。我正努力不要再那樣做。我認為那套舊的量化在其適用範圍內是準確且正確的，但它包含了很多你可能稱之為生成式 AI 之前的、機器學習類型的東西，尤其在消費者詐欺防制等方面特別重要。而那——雖然相關——但我認為當你和其他人問到當下的 AI 時，你們真正想問的是生成式與代理式（agentic）AI 對生產力的影響、對各個領域費用線的影響，特別是軟體工程，但也包括其他領域。也許你們還在問一些邊際上的、令人興奮的新營收機會。

And so that, I think, is the more relevant focus right now. And I'm just very reluctant to spend a lot of energy quantifying it because it winds up wasting a lot of people's time inside the institution when we actually need to get them to focus on doing things. So on that point, and in terms of the visibility of the benefits, I think you're right to point out that the benefits aren't observable in our current quarterly earnings.

因此，我認為那才是目前更相關的焦點。而我非常不願意花很多精力去量化它，因為那最後會浪費機構內很多人的時間；我們其實需要他們把注意力放在把事情做出來。所以就這點而言，以及就效益的可見度而言，我認為你指出得很對：這些效益在我們目前的季度盈餘中並不明顯可觀察到。

And I think that's probably not that surprising because as much -- as important and dramatic and exciting as this theme is, it takes a long time to really do things that are visible at an institution of our size. I can tell you that just anecdotally for me personally, the types of use cases and benefits that I'm starting to see even in my own technology organization that supports finance are increasingly exciting.

而我認為這大概也不令人意外，因為儘管這個主題非常重要、非常戲劇性、也非常令人興奮，但要在我們這種規模的機構做出可見的成果，確實需要很長時間。我可以就我個人的觀察告訴你，即便是在我自己支援財務的科技組織裡，我開始看到的使用案例與效益也愈來愈令人振奮。

We've done some experiments of some minor legacy tools that need to be rewritten and trying to see if we could essentially one shot the rewrite in like a couple of weeks and it didn't work perfectly, but you're starting to see some really exciting opportunities for acceleration and productivity change. So how long it's going to take for that to show up, we'll see. And obviously, some of those benefits are going to be offset with token costs, which is a whole other conversation, but we're excited. There's a lot going on. And I guess your other question was the agentic question and the trust question.

我們做了一些實驗，針對一些需要重寫的小型舊系統工具，嘗試看看能不能在大概幾週內基本上一槍完成重寫（one shot）。結果並非完美，但你開始看到一些非常令人興奮的加速機會與生產力變化。所以這要多久才會反映出來，我們再看看。而且顯然，其中一些效益會被 token 成本抵銷，那又是另一個話題，但我們很興奮。有很多事情正在發生。我想你另一個問題是關於代理式（agentic）以及信任的問題。

I think I addressed some of that earlier already. But at a high level, as Jamie pointed out, the true north here is protecting the client and the company, obviously, but narrowly focusing on agents giving customers access to money movement in their accounts.

我想我先前已經談到其中一些了。但從高層次來看，如 Jamie 所指出的，這裡的最高指導原則（true north）是保護客戶與公司，當然；但更狹義地說，是聚焦在代理人讓客戶能夠存取其帳戶中的資金移轉功能。

I think right now, some of the services that offer that do it through credential sharing, and we have a long record of being against that way of doing things, screen scraping, et cetera. It's not secure. And so to the extent that we're able to block those, we are blocking them to protect customers and protect ourselves. And it's important that customers understand that if they give up their credentials to the agent and the agent does something that they don't want, that's going to be on them. And that's sort of not an ideal state of things.

我認為目前有些提供這類服務的做法，是透過共享憑證（credential sharing）來實現，而我們長期以來一直反對這種做法，例如螢幕擷取（screen scraping）等等。那並不安全。因此，在我們能夠阻擋的範圍內，我們正在阻擋，以保護客戶並保護我們自己。而且很重要的是，客戶必須理解：如果他們把憑證交給代理人，而代理人做了他們不想要的事，那責任將會在他們自己身上。而那種狀態並不理想。

We are working on being able to do this correctly. So that's a piece of the puzzle. And in the big picture, trust is clearly an asset, and we've spent decades building it. And as I said previously, we like our hand in that respect. But we need to be clear that the fact that we're trusted is not an excuse for complacency or a reason to provide mediocre customer experiences. So we really need to do both at the same time.

我們正在努力讓我們能夠把這件事正確地做好。所以這是拼圖中的一塊。從大局來看，信任顯然是一項資產，而我們花了數十年去建立它。正如我先前所說，在這方面我們對自己的優勢感到滿意。但我們必須清楚：被信任並不是自滿的藉口，也不是提供平庸客戶體驗的理由。因此，我們確實需要同時把兩件事都做好。

And one short follow-up on the token costs. Do you get a benefit from scale with the token cost, say, versus a small bank? And are you also transitioning more toward kind of open model AI systems that can cost a lot less?

另外就 token 成本再追問一個簡短問題。相較於小型銀行，你們在 token 成本上是否能從規模中獲益？以及你們是否也正更多轉向那種成本可能低很多的開放模型 AI 系統？

It's a little bit of everything. I would say our strategy is quite focused on minimizing lock-in and maximizing optionality and the ability to manage costs. So part of the strategy is model agnosticism, harness agnosticism and ability to run both proprietary models, but also open weight and open source models, some of which we run in our data center. So it's very much an all of the above strategy designed to get the best of what's available at the best price and control our own destiny.

其實各種因素都有一些。我會說，我們的策略相當聚焦在把鎖定效應降到最低、把選擇性與成本管理能力最大化。因此策略的一部分是模型不可知（model agnostic）、編排/承載層不可知（harness agnostic），並且能同時運行專有模型，以及開放權重與開源模型，其中有些我們是在自家資料中心運行。所以這非常是一種「全都要」的策略，目的是以最佳價格取得市面上最好的可用方案，並掌握我們自己的命運。

And there are tools coming that model routing but send it to the best, quickest, cheapest, you don't need the most expensive thing for every query you have and very often people just see the one they're comfortable with. So that's all coming to have that cost under control.

而且也會有一些工具出現，用於模型路由，把請求送到最好、最快、最便宜的那個；你不需要對每個查詢都用最昂貴的東西，而很多時候人們只是用他們最熟悉的那一個。所以這些都會到來，以便把成本控制住。

Great. All right.

很好。好。

Thank you.

謝謝。

Gerard Cassidy, RBC.

Gerard Cassidy，RBC。

Your line is open. Can you guys share with us the deposit beta outlook? Obviously, interest rates are starting to go up. The Fed fund futures are suggesting more rate increases over the next three to six months. And with your growth in your consumer deposit base since the last tightening cycle in '22, '23, how are you guys thinking about what you might see this time around? And also, obviously, we're starting from a much higher interest rate level than we did in '22. So could that mean deposit betas may not be as high this time around for you folks?

你的線路已開通。你們能否跟我們分享一下存款 beta 的展望？顯然，利率開始上升。聯邦基金期貨顯示未來三到六個月還會有更多升息。而且自從 2022、2023 年上一輪緊縮週期以來，你們的消費者存款基礎有所成長，這次你們怎麼看可能會出現的情況？另外，顯然我們這次的起點利率水準比 2022 年高得多。那是否意味著這次你們的存款 beta 可能不會像上次那麼高？

So it's a very good question, Gerard, actually. And I think it is an important thing for people to be thinking about because this particular rate cycle, this latest rate cycle is arguably even more unprecedented than the last one. We just don't have a lot of historical data about how people behave when you see rate hikes from the launch point that we've seen in this cycle. So it's been an unusual 10-plus years, I would say.

Gerard，這其實是個非常好的問題。我也認為這是大家應該思考的重要議題，因為這一輪利率週期——最新這一輪——可以說甚至比上一輪更前所未見。當你從我們這一輪所見的起始點開始升息時，人們會如何行為，我們並沒有太多歷史資料可供參考。所以我會說，這十多年來一直都很不尋常。

And I think it's quite important for people to realize, especially people who are doing this by training models on historical data that the historical data set is just not that rich. So it's very important to be kind of thinking out of the box. In that context, though, I think locally, our beta story is pretty easy actually in the sense that you can almost think about the franchise as pretty barbelled between a bunch of very high beta deposits like most of wholesale as well as CDs and premium deposit and consumer and then a stack of very low beta deposits.

我認為讓大家意識到這點很重要，特別是那些透過用歷史資料訓練模型來做判斷的人：歷史資料集其實並不那麼豐富。所以以更跳脫框架的方式思考非常重要。不過在這個脈絡下，我認為就我們本地而言，我們的 beta 故事其實相當容易理解：你幾乎可以把我們的特許經營（franchise）視為呈現「槓鈴型」分布——一端是一堆 beta 很高的存款，例如大多數批發存款，以及定存（CDs）、高端存款與消費者存款；另一端則是一疊 beta 很低的存款。

And the question is probably less the pricing of any given product, although that's always going to respond to competition and to market conditions and more the sort of migration behaviors across products in this cycle. And I don't think we have like our local expectations are that it's going to behave roughly the way it has been behaving. But I do think it's right to note that this is a different cycle, and therefore, we have to be thinking about all scenarios as we always do.

問題可能不太在於任何單一產品的定價——雖然那當然總是會對競爭與市場狀況做出反應——而更在於在這一輪週期中，各產品之間的遷移行為。而我不認為我們有什麼——我們本地的預期是，它大致會以目前一直以來的方式運作。但我也認為，指出這是一個不同的週期是正確的，因此我們必須像一貫那樣思考所有情境。

Very good. And then pivoting over to a different question. The IMF came out very recently this month with the global stability report, and they have talked about how the hedge fund industry has grown dramatically and it's now in their eyes, a systemic risk. Leveraged finance, in particular, was highlighted as another high risk. Obviously, that's in your guys' wheelhouse as with your peers and competitors. Can you share with us your insights on how you're managing these risks? And what do you worry about since these businesses now are so much bigger today than they were 10 or 15 years ago?

非常好。接著換到另一個問題。IMF 本月稍早剛發布全球金融穩定報告，提到避險基金產業大幅成長，在他們看來如今已是系統性風險。槓桿融資（leveraged finance）也被特別點名為另一個高風險領域。顯然，這些都在你們的業務範圍內，和你們的同業與競爭對手一樣。你們能否分享一下你們如何管理這些風險的洞見？以及鑑於這些業務如今規模比 10 或 15 年前大得多，你們最擔心的是什麼？

We worry about a lot of stuff, not what the IMF thinks about it.

我們擔心很多事情，但不太是 IMF 對此怎麼想。

Got it.

了解。

They aren't wrong because there's a lot of leverage in some of this stuff.

他們也沒說錯，因為這裡面有些東西槓桿確實很高。

Yeah. I mean it's not wrong, but it's also a little bit obvious. And I would also say it's not really new, right? I mean the hedge fund industry has been relevant to our franchise for decades now and a source of risk for the system for a long time now, and everyone knows that, including the hedge funds themselves that are increasingly institutionalized with very professional risk management and control over their margin relationships and stuff like that. So there is risk.

是的。我的意思是，這不算錯，但也有點顯而易見。我也會說，這其實也不新，對吧？避險基金產業幾十年來一直與我們的特許經營密切相關，也長期以來一直是系統風險的來源；大家都知道這點，包括避險基金自己——它們愈來愈制度化，具備非常專業的風險管理，並且對其保證金關係等有良好控管。所以確實存在風險。

Obviously, that's the business is knowing it and managing it and preparing for the unknown. But I would say that hedge fund leverage as a contributor of risk to the system is very much in the category of known unknowns. It doesn't mean it's riskless, but we kind of know what it is.

顯然，這門生意的本質就是了解它、管理它，並為未知做好準備。但我會說，避險基金槓桿作為系統風險的貢獻者，非常屬於「已知的未知」（known unknowns）這一類。這不代表沒有風險，但我們大致知道那是什麼。

There are a couple of unwinds that happened recently, not huge, some on the equity side, some on the fixed income arbitrage type of side, and they were handled pretty easily by the Street.

最近確實發生過幾次去槓桿/平倉（unwind），規模不大；有些在股票端，有些在固定收益套利那一類的端，華爾街（the Street）都相當容易就處理掉了。

Very good. Thank you.

非常好。謝謝。

Glenn Schorr, Evercore ISI.

Glenn Schorr，Evercore ISI。

Hi. One quick follow-up on the whole Agentic and AI impact across the deposit portfolio. My question is your comfort level and ability to protect from the standpoint of how you and the regulators thinking about liquidity stress testing and liquidity risk management and just by the nature of the technology existing, do things change? I don't know if I'm being too much into the future here, but --

嗨。關於 Agentic 與 AI 對整體存款組合影響，我再快速追問一下。我的問題是：從你們以及監管機構如何看待流動性壓力測試與流動性風險管理的角度，你們的安心程度與防護能力如何？而且就技術本身存在的特性而言，事情會不會有所改變？我不知道我是不是把問題問得太超前了，但——

Yes, no, I understand the question, Glenn. I mean you can argue that it's sort of downstream of the narrative that the SVB run was a sort of social media phenomenon. And we were never big buyers of that idea. I think the better way to understand that situation was an extremely concentrated and undiversified deposit base that was wholesale non-op and kind of monoculture in terms of who was shaping the thinking around that.

是的，不，我理解你的問題，Glenn。我的意思是，你可以說這有點是「SVB 挤兑是社群媒體現象」那種敘事的下游延伸。而我們從來都不是那種說法的忠實擁護者。我認為更好的理解方式是：那是一個極度集中、缺乏多元化的存款基礎，屬於批發、非營運性（non-op）存款，而且在影響市場想法的來源上也幾乎是單一文化（monoculture）。

And so arguably, in a world with TV and fax machines, I think you probably would have gotten essentially the same answer in terms of the speed of the run. It might have been the processing of the fax machines into wires might have taken an additional eight hours, but the core ingredients there were the same. So I think everyone is pretty eager to tell a sort of fast deposit run story in this new technology-enabled world.

因此可以說，在一個有電視和傳真機的世界裡，我認為就擠兌發生的速度而言，你大概也會得到基本相同的答案。可能只是把傳真機的處理轉成線路傳輸會多花八個小時，但核心要素其實是一樣的。所以我認為大家都很急著在這個由新科技驅動的世界裡，講一個「快速存款擠兌」的故事。

I'm just a little bit less persuaded that you really have cliff effects there. And sure, therefore, like in a world with agentic consumer cash movement, it's easy to create a story where it becomes even easier to move cash under certain types of crises. But I think the right way to sort of ensure that your deposits are stable is to run the company with fortress principles so that people are confident in you. And the ease -- you're probably not supposed to be hoping that your deposits are stable because the money is difficult to move, I guess, is what I would say.

我只是沒那麼相信你真的會在那裡看到所謂的斷崖式效應。當然，因此在一個由代理式（agentic）的消費者資金移動所構成的世界裡，很容易編出一個故事：在某些類型的危機下，資金會變得更容易移動。但我認為，確保存款穩定的正確方式，是用「堡壘式」原則來經營公司，讓人們對你有信心。而且我想說的是，你大概不應該指望存款之所以穩定，是因為錢很難被移動。

I think that's fair, I appreciate that one --

我覺得這很公平，我也很感謝你這點——

You take a big step back, we have $1.5 trillion of cash in marketable securities, so not worried about JPMorgan liquidity. But if you take a big step back, banking services are necessary, credit cards and debit cards and moving money and insured deposits and need of branches. And one of the ways you earn that is NII from money that sits there idle. But if you couldn't do it that way, over time, you do something different. Subscription, of course, you're getting investment accounts combined with checking accounts. And so over time, it will adjust. We want to do a great job for our clients. It will cost a lot of money to run these banking systems. Most of it is a fixed cost.

如果退一步看，我們有1.5兆美元的現金與可流通證券，所以不擔心摩根大通的流動性。但如果退一步看，銀行服務是必要的：信用卡、簽帳卡、資金移轉、受保險的存款，以及分行的需求。而你賺取這些的一種方式，是來自那些閒置資金的淨利息收入（NII）。但如果你不能用這種方式，隨著時間推移，你就會改用不同做法。例如訂閱制，當然，還有把投資帳戶與支票帳戶結合。所以長期來看，會自行調整。我們希望為客戶把事情做到最好。營運這些銀行系統會花很多錢。其中大部分是固定成本。

So I'm not worried about over time. But in the short run, of course, you got to figure out how you want to handle that kind of stuff. And I do think you raised an issue, which is different, which is should regulators be thinking about what they're going to do with some of these things. Yes, of course, they should. It's a new world and with all these bots and agents and stuff like that, could someone get hurt and cause a problem? Maybe. If I was a regulator, I try to be prepared for that.

所以我不擔心長期。但短期內，當然，你得想清楚要怎麼處理這類事情。而且我確實認為你提出了一個不同的議題：監管機構是否應該思考他們要如何處理其中一些事情。是的，當然應該。這是個新世界，有這些機器人、代理（agents）之類的東西，會不會有人受傷、進而造成問題？也許。如果我是監管者，我會試著為此做好準備。

Got you. I have one question on concentration risk. The public equity markets don't know anything about that and don't care. But bank loan books and bond books and insurance portfolios do. So I guess my question is this amazing hyperscaler race to expand compute power and everybody wants to finance it, the money and capital is there. But from your vantage point, can we finance it without breaking some concentration limit issues? Like can the market digest what the compute power suggests for the spend?

了解。我有一個關於集中度風險的問題。公開股票市場對這件事一無所知，也不在乎。但銀行的放款組合、債券投資組合，以及保險投資組合會在乎。所以我的問題是：這場令人驚嘆的超大規模雲端業者（hyperscaler）擴張算力的競賽，大家都想為它融資，資金與資本都在那裡。但從你的角度看，我們能在不觸發一些集中度上限問題的情況下完成融資嗎？也就是說，市場能消化算力所暗示的支出規模嗎？

Yeah, it's a really good question, right? Because I mean, we think a lot about our current exposure to that. But arguably, the more important question is our appetite for future exposure in light of the kind of announced amount of CapEx that needs to happen in this ecosystem and the associated demands or requirements for capital from the financial system. So I guess a couple of things. One, clearly, single issuer concentration is a thing that's going to get managed.

是的，這真的是個很好的問題，對吧？因為我們確實花很多時間思考目前對此的曝險。但可以說，更重要的問題是：考量到這個生態系中已宣布、需要發生的資本支出（CapEx）規模，以及金融體系相應的資本需求或要求，我們對未來曝險的風險偏好是什麼。所以我想有幾點。第一，很明顯，單一發行人集中度是一個需要被管理的議題。

And clearly, given the nature of these structures, you have to be sophisticated about assessing both your indirect exposure, your direct exposure, where you sit in the capital structure, the value of the collateral, like there's a lot of nuanced credit analysis that needs to be done correctly to assess your individual issuer exposure across the ecosystem.

而且很明顯，鑑於這些結構的性質，你必須很成熟地評估你的間接曝險、直接曝險、你在資本結構中的位置、擔保品的價值——要做的細緻信用分析很多，而且必須做對，才能評估你在整個生態系中對單一發行人的曝險。

And you can assume that institutions are going to contain that. And I guess one thing that we've seen over the last year is just increasing usage of different parts of the capital markets ecosystem to get as much diversified financing of this build-out as possible. And there is a lot of capital out there waiting to be deployed. So some of it will be from the banking system, some of it will be from elsewhere. But I think at the system level, I don't know, some people are talking about crowding out effects, so that will be interesting to see.

你可以假設各機構會把這件事控制住。而我想我們在過去一年看到的一件事，是越來越多地運用資本市場生態系的不同部分，盡可能為這些建置取得更分散的融資。而且市場上有大量資本正等著被部署。所以其中一部分會來自銀行體系，一部分會來自其他地方。但我認為在系統層面，我不確定——有些人在談「排擠效應」，這會很值得觀察。

But anyway, I think for us, we need to focus on our institutional risk appetite and institutional exposure. And I think there, in addition to the obvious single name focus, the other thing to be very careful about is just the AI theme because the AI theme is so broadly diffused into the marketplace, it's not just traditional construction lending. Now increasingly, it's working capital revolvers. You also see it in the equity markets. It's kind of everywhere.

不過無論如何，對我們而言，我們需要聚焦在本機構的風險偏好與機構曝險。而我認為在那裡，除了顯而易見的單一名稱（single name）聚焦之外，另一個需要非常小心的是 AI 主題，因為 AI 主題在市場中擴散得非常廣，不只是傳統的建設融資。現在愈來愈多是營運資金循環額度（working capital revolvers）。你也在股票市場看到它。它幾乎無所不在。

And so you really need to be running stresses that test your resilience to a meaningful change in the overall theme across the entire enterprise. And that's something that we spend a lot of time thinking about. Currently, our exposures are still quite modest in the context of our overall wholesale exposure, but that's not the same as saying that we would be immune to a major change in sentiment in the AI space. I think I would be surprised if anyone, frankly, was immune to that at this point.

因此你真的需要做壓力測試，檢驗在整個企業範圍內，若整體主題出現顯著變化，你的韌性如何。這也是我們花很多時間思考的事情。目前，相對於我們整體的批發業務曝險，我們的曝險仍然相當溫和，但這不等於說，一旦 AI 領域的情緒出現重大轉變，我們就能免疫。坦白說，我想在這個時間點，如果有人說自己能免疫，我會感到意外。

That's great. Thanks so much, Jeremy.

太好了。非常感謝你，Jeremy。

Manan Gosalia, Morgan Stanley.

Manan Gosalia，摩根士丹利。

Hi, good morning. I wanted to check in on the commercial banking side. What are you seeing with your core middle market clients? Is there an insatiable demand for capital there, too? Or as short-end rates move higher, the belly of the curve moves higher, are you seeing any pullback in demand there?

嗨，早安。我想了解一下商業銀行這一端。你們在核心的中型市場客戶（middle market clients）那邊看到了什麼？那裡也有對資本永不滿足的需求嗎？或者隨著短端利率走高、曲線中段走高，你們是否看到需求有任何回落？

Yeah, I don't think that when we talk about the insatiable demand for capital, we're talking about our core middle market clients. I think there, the theme for some time now has been people worried about other people while doing fine themselves. The theme is always like, Oh, we run these surveys and they're also like, Oh, I'm worried about this. I'm worried about that.

是的，我不認為我們在談「對資本永不滿足的需求」時，指的是我們核心的中型市場客戶。我認為那邊一段時間以來的主題是：人們擔心別人，但自己其實過得不錯。主題總是像這樣：喔，我們做這些調查，他們也會說，喔，我擔心這個。我擔心那個。

And it's like, how are you doing? I'm doing great. So it's kind of an interesting dynamic there. No question that higher rates, I think input costs, inflation, the diesel narrative, like these things are tough for middle market clients. And so we see them trying to manage that to the best of their ability.

然後你問：那你自己怎麼樣？我很好。所以那裡有一種挺有趣的動態。毫無疑問，利率更高、我認為還有投入成本、通膨、柴油的敘事——這些事情對中型市場客戶來說都很艱難。因此我們看到他們正盡其所能去管理這些問題。

And I think it does create a little bit of caution in that space. But I think balance sheets are strong. People have been through a lot over the last few years, and so they're well prepared. But yes, I don't think insatiable demand for capital applies to that subset of the client base.

而且我認為這確實會讓那個領域多一點謹慎。但我認為資產負債表很強健。過去幾年大家經歷了很多，因此準備得很充分。但沒錯，我不認為對資本的無止盡需求適用於那一部分客戶群。

Got it. And then separately, Jeremy, on the liquidity side, in the past, you've noted that you need to see changes in the liquidity rules to fully realize the impact of freeing up excess capital. As we get closer to the regulators coming out with new liquidity proposals and if you do get more credit for discount window readiness, how would that change how you manage the balance sheet and over what time frame?

了解。另外，Jeremy，在流動性方面，過去你曾提到，你需要看到流動性規則的變化，才能完全實現釋放超額資本的影響。隨著我們更接近監管機構提出新的流動性提案，而且如果你確實能因貼現窗口準備度而獲得更多認列，這會如何改變你管理資產負債表的方式，以及在多長的時間範圍內？

I think it's right for the regulators to look at all these things again. And it's not just the discount window, it's FHLB, the inconsistencies between resolution and recovery. It's what counts as HQLA to start with, how you do LCR. I think they should look at all that with the view that I think you can create safer banks with more deployed capital and more liquidity you can use to intermediate markets. And that should be the goal.

我認為監管機構重新檢視所有這些事情是正確的。而且不只是貼現窗口，還包括FHLB、處置（resolution）與復原（recovery）之間的不一致。也包括一開始什麼算是HQLA、以及你如何計算LCR。我認為他們應該以這樣的觀點來檢視所有這些：我認為你可以在投入更多資本、並擁有更多可用於市場中介的流動性的同時，打造更安全的銀行。這應該是目標。

But you really it's hard to answer the question because this is going to be up to them. Either way, JPMorgan will serve our clients and do a good job and take care of and do what we're supposed to do. But I think they should be doing that. So we'll see. We don't speculate what they're going to do with a lot of proposals out there, part of the international rules, but I applaud them for looking at it.

但這個問題其實很難回答，因為這將取決於他們。無論如何，摩根大通都會服務我們的客戶、把工作做好，並照顧好、做我們該做的事。但我認為他們應該這麼做。所以我們再看看。我們不會對他們在眾多提案（其中一部分屬於國際規則）中會怎麼做進行揣測，但我肯定他們願意重新檢視。

No, I think I agree with everything Jamie said, and it's really particularly complicated across a range of dimensions. I will note that at company update, we actually talked about this and in some sense, kind of gave you the answer because what we said at the time was that the problem with the situation where the system has a healthy amount of capital is relatively liquidity constrained is that just at the margin, it leads you to have your asset deployment be in much higher risk density instruments essentially.

不，我同意Jamie說的每一點，而且這在多個面向上都特別複雜。我想補充的是，在公司更新會上，我們其實談過這件事，某種程度上也給了你答案，因為我們當時說的是：當整個體系資本充足但相對受到流動性約束時，問題在於在邊際上，它會讓你的資產配置基本上轉向風險密度更高的工具。

And so a place where you're a little bit more balanced would tend to move you towards lower risk density, and it just enables you to serve broader part of the economy, including mortgages, consumer lending, but also some of the more secured C&I type structures.

因此，如果能更平衡一些，往往會讓你轉向風險密度較低的配置，並且讓你能服務更廣泛的經濟部門，包括房貸、消費者放款，也包括一些更有擔保的C&I類型結構。

If they want to reduce the size of the Fed balance sheet, they're going to have to make some changes.

如果他們想縮小聯準會的資產負債表規模，他們就必須做出一些改變。

Thank you.

謝謝。

Matt O'Connor, Deutsche Bank.

德意志銀行的Matt O'Connor。

I was hoping you could talk more about how you're growing noninterest-bearing deposits when a number of peers aren't. And then just how you're thinking about that specific bucket of deposits in a higher rate environment if you can continue to grow them?

我希望你能多談談，當不少同業做不到時，你們是如何成長無息存款的。另外，在較高利率環境下，你們如何看待這個特定的存款類別，是否能持續成長？

Yeah, I mean I think I've sort of addressed that point to some degree in connection with, I think, my answer to John's question on the 2027 NII outlook and how we're feeling about consumer deposit growth. But I guess just to reiterate a couple of points, like number one, our net new checking account growth has been exceptionally strong, 650,000 this quarter. So people are reacting. They're responding well to the marketing.

是的，我想我在某種程度上已經回應過這點，與我回答John關於2027年NII展望以及我們對消費者存款成長的看法有關。但我想重申幾點：第一，我們本季新增支票帳戶的淨成長非常強勁，達65萬戶。所以人們正在反應。他們對行銷的回應很好。

They're responding well to the brand, the value proposition to the sort of multi-decade investment in the product bundle that we offer our consumers. So I think that's really good news and has been a contributor to the kind of reassertion of consumer deposit growth.

他們對品牌、價值主張，以及我們為消費者提供的產品組合所做的數十年投資，都有很好的回應。所以我認為這是非常好的消息，也促成了消費者存款成長的再度回升。

As I noted, the question a little bit in this rate hiking cycle is going to be how those balances behave and how pricing pressure behaves and how much migration we see to higher beta products and so on. And we'll see. I think we're relatively optimistic right now, and we wouldn't expect radical changes for like small local moves. But we do think a lot about the different rate regimes and how that can affect deposit beta. I think that's part of just being prepared for everything.

如我所說，在這一輪升息循環中，問題在於這些餘額會如何表現、定價壓力會如何變化，以及我們會看到多少資金轉移到更高beta的產品等等。我們再看看。我認為我們目前相對樂觀，對於小幅、局部的變動，我們不預期會有劇烈改變。但我們確實會大量思考不同利率體制，以及它如何影響存款beta。我想這就是為各種情境做好準備的一部分。

Okay. And I guess I was thinking more specifically the noninterest-bearing deposits, which I think are more kind of in the commercial corporate side of things. So I was just trying to see if there's any color there in terms of like cash management products, things that have been a key driver.

好的。我想我更具體指的是無息存款，我認為那比較偏向商業與企業端。所以我想了解在那方面是否有更多資訊，例如現金管理產品等是否是主要驅動因素。

The cash, most of the noninterest-bearing is consumer, and that's just because we're growing the business and you have different products for different types of consumers. And I think the wholesale side, commercial is much more competitive than that.

現金方面，大多數無息存款其實來自消費者端，這只是因為我們在擴大業務，而且針對不同類型的消費者有不同產品。而我認為在批發端、商業端的競爭要激烈得多。

No, I think to be honest, the reporting is a little confusing in part because of the famous ECR product that sometimes makes it look like on the wholesale side, there are more noninterest-bearing deposits than there actually are. That's just an artifact of the rules for how we have to report. So if you want a bit more color on that, Matt, you can follow up with IR. But at a high level, I would say that wholesale deposits have been -- continue to be and in fact, at the margin are a little bit more competitive, but the way to think about that is not that the product offering allows us to grow noninterest bearing deposits.

不，老實說，這個揭露有點令人困惑，部分原因是那個著名的ECR產品，有時會讓人看起來批發端的無息存款比實際更多。那只是我們必須遵循的申報規則所造成的結果。所以如果你想要更多細節，Matt，你可以再跟投資人關係部門（IR）追問。但從高層次來看，我會說批發存款一直以來——而且事實上在邊際上——競爭更激烈；但思考方式不應該是我們的產品提供讓我們得以增加無息存款。

It's there's an overall margin that you earn on your deposits as part of the bundle of products, and that's a function of how good your service offering is. And we have quite a good track record there of winning share and winning mandates as a function of quality of our products.

而是：你在存款上所賺取的是整體利差，這是產品組合的一部分，而這取決於你的服務提供有多好。我們在這方面有相當好的紀錄，能以產品品質為基礎贏得市占、贏得委任。

Okay, understood.

好的，了解。

Thank you.

謝謝。

Thanks, Don.

謝謝，Don。

David Chiaverini, Jefferies.

Jefferies的David Chiaverini。

So JPMorgan's ROTCE target through the cycle is 17% versus the 21% today. Is there anything you're seeing either in the macro environment or competitive environment that could accelerate a path to 17%? Or is that not anywhere on the horizon?

所以摩根大通的ROTCE穿越景氣循環目標是17%，相較於目前的21%。你是否看到宏觀環境或競爭環境中有任何因素，可能加速走向17%的路徑？還是說這並不在可見的範圍內？

We've always talked about 17% being through the cycle. I think times are pretty good now with high volumes and high asset prices and fairly low credit losses and all that. So if you can earn 17% consistently for a long period of time, that's a really good return for shareholders. That's our goal. And I don't want to change every time something happens in the marketplace. And so far, so good. And hopefully, we enjoy a good environment for a while. We just don't know when it's going to stop.

我們一直都說17%是穿越景氣循環的水準。我認為現在的時期相當不錯，交易量高、資產價格高、信用損失相對低等等。所以如果你能在很長一段時間內持續賺到17%，那對股東來說是非常好的報酬。那是我們的目標。而且我不想每次市場發生什麼事就改變目標。到目前為止，一切都很好。也希望我們能在一段時間內享有良好的環境。只是我們不知道它什麼時候會結束。

And we don't want to be pointlessly negative, and I won't sort of bore you with the speech. But if you just look across the entire franchise, every single business is performing exceptionally well. The conditions have just been exceptionally favorable.

而且我們不想無謂地過度負面，我也不會用一段長篇大論來讓各位覺得乏味。但如果你放眼整個集團版圖，每一項業務的表現都非常出色。整體環境確實是格外有利。

It was every company.

是每一家公司都是如此。

Yeah, it's not just us. And so that hasn't historically been true. Historically, you've tended to see a bit more internal diversification in high rate environment, some businesses do better than others and vice versa. So the conditions that we've had recently where essentially every part of the franchise is beating records are not typical by historical standards.

對，不只是我們。而且從歷史上看，情況並非一直如此。歷史上，在高利率環境下，你往往會看到更多內部的分散效應：有些業務表現較好，其他則相對較弱，反之亦然。所以，近期這種幾乎集團各個板塊都在刷新紀錄的狀況，以歷史標準來看並不典型。

Makes sense. Thanks for that. And then shifting to credit quality. You addressed the consumer side. Could you talk about the corporate credit health? It looks like you built some reserves on the wholesale side. Curious on your comments there.

了解。謝謝你的說明。接著轉到信用品質。你剛才談到了消費者端。能否談談企業端的信用健康狀況？看起來你們在批發端提列了一些準備金。想聽聽你對此的看法。

Sure. Yeah, the wholesale build is actually just from new activity. So it's not downgrades or change in the outlook or anything like that. So I would say that the corporate credit outlook is currently pretty stable. But obviously, there are issues out there, and we'll have to see how those flow through the performance of our borrowers, energy prices, fuel inputs, higher rates.

當然可以。是的，批發端準備金的增加其實只是來自新增業務活動。所以並不是因為降評或展望改變之類的因素。因此我會說，目前企業信用展望相當穩定。但顯然外部仍有一些問題，我們也得觀察這些因素如何傳導到借款人的表現上，例如能源價格、燃料投入成本、利率上升等。

These are all things that will create challenges in different pockets of the economy in the C&I space as well as the CRE space for that matter. So we'll see. But so far, I mean, it's very early, obviously. But in general, we think corporate balance sheets are in quite good shape. And so there's been resilience, but there are a lot of pressures building up. So we'll have to see what happens.

這些因素都會在經濟的不同角落帶來挑戰，無論是在工商貸款（C&I）領域，或就此而言在商用不動產（CRE）領域也是如此。所以我們再觀察看看。不過到目前為止，當然還非常早。但整體而言，我們認為企業資產負債表的狀況相當良好。因此展現出一定韌性，但也有許多壓力正在累積。所以我們得看看接下來會如何發展。

Great.

很好。

Thank you.

謝謝。

Kunpeng Ma, China Securities.

馬坤鵬，中國證券。

I have a question on the revenue of the market business because we've seen some volatilities in the market revenue across quarters. So I don't know whether we have a meaningful estimate of the -- through the quarter market business revenue. And also if you can provide us with some of your thoughts on the key business momentum supporting such kind of estimates, that will be very helpful.

我想問一下市場業務的收入，因為我們看到市場業務收入在各季度之間有一些波動。所以我不確定我們是否能對——本季度迄今的市場業務收入做出一個有意義的估計。另外，如果你能分享一些支撐這類估計的關鍵業務動能看法，將會非常有幫助。

Yes. So I had trouble exactly following your question, but I think you're asking me for a fourth quarter outlook for the markets revenue. And so as you know, we don't actually guide to that. It's obviously very, very hard to predict and essentially a function of outside and forces. But just a reminder that you do tend to see significant seasonal decline between the third and the fourth quarter.

好的。我在理解你的問題時有點跟不上，但我想你是在問我第四季市場業務收入的展望。如你所知，我們其實不對此提供指引。這顯然非常、非常難以預測，基本上取決於外部因素與力量。不過提醒一下，你通常會看到第三季到第四季之間有顯著的季節性下滑。

And also a reminder that in recent years, we've had some slightly unusual seasonal patterns between the third and the fourth quarter. So our base case assumptions right now, all else being equal, are normal seasonal declines between the third and fourth quarter and make sure that you interpret normal with the right amount of historical context and all the usual caveats apply. We've seen a lot of volatility. There's a lot going on and anything can happen.

也再提醒一下，近幾年第三季與第四季之間出現過一些略為不尋常的季節性型態。因此我們目前的基準情境假設是：在其他條件不變下，第三季到第四季會出現正常的季節性下滑；並請你在解讀「正常」時，帶入適當的歷史脈絡，同時所有常見的但書都適用。我們看到很多波動。事情很多，任何情況都有可能發生。

I think the fourth quarter will have not the same seasonal decline first --

我認為第四季不會出現同樣的季節性下滑，首先——

Interesting.

有意思。

It's too much going on in the world.

世界上正在發生的事情太多了。

Thank you. Thank you so much.

謝謝。非常感謝。

Thanks very much.

非常感謝。

That's all the time we have for questions today.

今天的提問時間就到這裡。

Thank you very much.

非常感謝。

Thank you very much. See you all next quarter.

非常感謝。我們下個季度見。

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

感謝各位參與今天的電話會議。您現在可以斷線，祝您今天剩餘時間愉快。