Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. The firm delivered net income of $15.3 billion, EPS of $5.57, and an 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. 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.

Credit costs were 27 $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.

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.

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 continued 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. 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. Revenue of $22.7 billion was up 14% year-on-year on strong performance across 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, we'll have to see how the quarter develops.

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 and Wealth Management, AWM reported net income of $1.8 billion with 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.

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.

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.

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. 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. Let's open the line for Q&A.

Hey, good morning. I guess maybe one question.

Just there's been a lot of discussion around all things AI over the last couple of months. Maybe if there are two things that you can address specifically.

One, when we think about the disruption risk through 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. Also the challenge of implementing agentic AI inside the 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?

I'll start, and you want to jump in? Yeah.

Okay. On the disruption point, a couple 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 weeks, very, very early days and it remains kind of a targeted pilot type thing. 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.

Look, more to come on that in the future, early days, interesting so far. I think the bigger picture here is around there've been a couple of releases of personal agents this quarter, which have clearly gotten a bunch of attention in the market and saw a little bit of a response in bank stocks around those releases.

I guess the way we think about that from our perspective is that, on the one hand, it's nothing new, but that doesn't mean that we're complacent about it. 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. Obviously we deal today and have dealt with through 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.

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. 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.

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.

I would just add, internally, we use agents to do good things here, and we're going to continue to do that. We'll use it for customers, but our focus has always been do a great job for customers.

We're not against agents or for agents or something like that. They're tools.

You use them for your customers. There is a defensive side, which is you've got to make sure our customers aren't hurt by it.

That is of concern, but think of that as an AI agentic concern, which is heightened because you don't want rogue agents and there could be thousands of them. We've always been literally on the side of the client.

If people are using them, they should understand the risk. There's a liability transfer, they should understand the liability transfer.

If data is being misused, they should understand it's being misused. We have to make sure we protect our customer in the right kind of way.

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 inside the company, cuz that's just too risky for clients and for JPMorgan.

That's good color. Just separately, I think as we assess the risk of interest rates maybe 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?

Look, we always prepare for all types of 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. Of course, things like that could happen.

I would never take that off the table. They could happen for good reason, which is a lot of demand for capital, a lot of productivity, and things are fine.

They could happen for bad reason, sticky inflation around the world. It can happen not because of what's in the United States, but because of what happens overseas.

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. Think of that as cautious preparation.

Got it. Thank you.

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.

Sure, John. No problem.

If you start with what we've given you as the NII ex-Markets guide for fourth quarter, which is 25.5, and you annualize that, you get something like 102. We're essentially guiding to $5 billion of growth from that to the 107.

That $5 billion, probably about a quarter of that, I would say, is related to the yield curve. 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.

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.

The rest of it, I would actually describe pretty straightforwardly as just the continuation of the balance sheet growth and mix trends that you've seen this year. 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.

Then card loans, which obviously can be a big driver of NII, continued at calm levels. Actually a pretty straightforward story, I would say, on that one.

I gave you the

caveats, but I gave you the caveats in the prepared remarks.

I would add on one thing. I think there's more uncertainty around that number than normal because of all the things going on around the world.

Obviously, it also relates to what we do, which we can change at any point in time.

That's helpful. Thank you.

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?

Yeah. 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 is not that sensitive to the budget cycle.

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.

While we have some preliminary views, we're kind of not done with that. 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. We see the consensus right now for 2027 expenses being around $114 billion, and our current preliminary read isn't too far from that.

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, etc., etc., etc. A lot of moving parts.

For now, the consensus doesn't seem too far off.

Got it. Thank you.

Thanks, John.

Yes. Thank you.

Good morning. My first question just is on capital management.

We were fielding a lot of inbound questions from investors in terms of the billion-dollar buyback versus the normal cadence of around $7 billion. I know that there's no normal cadence and I know that buyback is the last priority.

Perhaps take us through how 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.

Yeah. I think we've told you all that we have probably $30 billion or something of excess capital roughly, just estimating what all these endgames are, which we don't know, but that's plenty.

The capital hierarchy has always been the same. After you pay your dividend, which hopefully be steady, we really like investing in organic growth.

That is the highest and best use of capital for shareholders. Obviously buybacks comes after that, particularly when stock prices are up.

The positive news is the main reason the buyback is down, and it's got nothing to do with AOCL 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.

Redeploying that capital at very good terms over time is far better than buying stock at a 6% or whatever the earnings yield would be if you bought it today. That's simple.

That's good. That's good for shareholders.

Now, I'll give you one example, and I think there're many more, but the security resilience initiative we told you all we'd deploy $1.5 trillion over 10 years and we haven't I don't think we've disclosed the number, but the first year is probably over $200 already. We'll disclose that and do some work on it, but my guess it'll be considerably more than that.

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 that's good news in the long run.

We can't tell you what it means for the next six months, but that's why we're doing it. We hope to deploy it very well for our shareholders.

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. There's been a lot of organic growth in the RWA and some of the investments that Jamie eludes to.

During that period we've also done a bunch of buybacks. 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 in the environment seems pretty clear that it makes sense to keep dry powder.

I want to brag on the Investment Bank a little bit. They've hired a tremendous amount of very talented people in SRI.

We're lucky to have Todd Combs here investing some of the capital. They've had a lot of ideas.

It's so not just meetings with us, why they've helped fund some interesting types of things. 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 whether it's chip building or we had a big announcement in Philadelphia. 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, and so it's been 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 or $20 billion of financing in one country. A lot more to come in.

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 at good returns.

As a follow-up here, that all sounds very positive for activity levels going forward in a very broad way. Jamie, I know that you did some media over the past few weeks and talked about the pipeline.

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 quote, Wall Street and Main Street.

First, Erika, before I do that, it's not the bond volatility, the markets, the fears, is not going to change what we do. We serve clients through thick and thin.

We know that I call some of the economic winds it's the weather. That's not exact what you refer to.

The pipeline is fine, but I've pointed out many times before, the pipeline is like an accordion, it can open and 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 but I was in Europe recently, and their pipeline there is actually quite healthy and even more so in IPOs than we would have thought. We just don't know, and but serving the clients and doing a good job is the most important thing, and the pipelines, we always forecast the pipeline, which are called

the probability.

We know one thing for sure, it'll be wrong.

The probability adjusted. Just to emphasize, 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. 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.

We did see a little bit of that slow down in the second half of September basically. We'll see how that plays out into the fourth quarter.

The big picture, I think, is pretty clear.

Thank you.

Oh, 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. Where are you pulling back?

Where are you seeing structures or peers maybe doing something you may not want to do? Thank you.

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.

You've heard us talk about that before, and other people, a little too much pick, a little too weak covenants, a little too much priming good assets, a little too much pushing on it. We just don't feel we have to chase that kind of stuff anymore.

Okay. Great.

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.

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?

Thanks.

Obviously, if you keep real rates very, very high for a long time, at some level, that's designed to slow down economic activity to fight inflation. It's hard to imagine that that wouldn't have an impact on the consumer.

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. I think that the conditional expectation of consumer credit health as a function of higher rates is a fairly nuanced question.

Fundamentally, the picture is pretty simple. The consumer is currently very healthy, primarily because of a healthy labor market.

If the central bank needs things to cool off and that involves a aggressive, extended rate cycle, almost by definition, that's going to involve higher unemployment, which will produce weaker consumer credit results.

Thanks a lot.

Thanks. Hi.

Good morning. On the consumer side, nice to see the 4% year-over-year CCB deposit growth.

Just wondering, aside from agentic, just what are you seeing in terms of either rate-seeking behavior, it's the deposit margin's been up for the last few quarters, which is also good to see. 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?

Thanks.

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.

That, continues to be our our basic expectation. 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. In the normal course, you will obviously have higher higher rate paid from the high-beta products, from CDs and premium deposits.

All else equal, you would probably expect some amount of additional internal migration out of checking and savings into, CDs for simplicity, resulting in higher weighted-average rate paid. Maybe you see a little bit of additional outflow pressure, which results in therefore slightly weaker deposit growth.

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 was 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, and therefore, I would expect a little bit of additional pressure. In the end, it's a matter of degree.

No one really knows, and the good news, I would say, is that at the core franchise performance is exceptionally strong, driven, no small part by the net new checking, account acquisition, which I think we had like 650 this quarter or something. It's really been very, very strong, and it's proof of kind of the value proposition and the engagement that we're seeing for our marketing efforts and and the power of the brand.

From a long-term perspective, that's the most important thing. The impact of rates in the near term will will just be what it is.

Excellent. Thanks, Jeremy.

One follow-up on the Markets business. Obviously, we're seeing quite a bifurcation of just the continued strength in equities.

As you mentioned earlier, just there's some tougher comps, I guess, and the impact of higher rates on FICC. Any change to just client demand for balance sheet usage?

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.

Thanks.

At a high level, I think the simple answer is no real change, I like your

It's high.

I like your insatiable

Across the street.

Exactly. I like your insatiable demand for capital point.

That feels about right. I haven't heard anything to the contrary frankly recently.

To Jamie's point about tightening up credit, that's a little bit of a 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 in 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.

Hi, can you say the degree that AI helps out JPMorgan? I saw you were ranked highly in a recent AI and bank poll.

I squint and I look at the earnings release and 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's stale if you could update that. 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.

Mike, let me just tidy up a couple things. On the AI expense, you're right.

I think we did say that in some media setting up at some point. I think it's not exactly right, and I think we corrected it later.

I think 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 annually or something like that.

More importantly, 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, [laughter] you probably get a higher number, too.

It's at this point, not really something you can ring-fence. It's pretty well diffused inside the whole institution, and it's obviously a very, very high priority.

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.

That, well, 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 agentive 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. That I think is the more relevant focus right now.

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. 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.

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.

We've done some experiments with some minor legacy tools that needed to be rewritten and trying to see if we could essentially one-shot the rewrite in like a couple weeks and it didn't work perfectly, but you're starting to see some really exciting opportunities for acceleration and productivity change. 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.

We're excited. There's a lot going on.

I guess your other question was the agentic question and the trust question. I think I addressed some of that earlier already.

At a high level, as Jamie pointed out, the True North here is protecting the client,

And the company.

The company, obviously. Narrowly focusing on agents giving customers access to money movement in their accounts, I think right now, some of the services that offer that do it through credential sharing.

We have a long record of being against that way of doing things, screen scraping, etc. It's not secure.

To the extent that we're able to block those, we are blocking them to protect customers and protect ourselves. 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.

That's sort of not an ideal state of things. We are working on being able to do this correctly, so that's a piece of the puzzle.

In the big picture, trust is clearly an asset, and we've spent decades building it. As I said previously, we like our hand in that respect.

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. We really need to do both at the same time.

All right, and a short follow-up on the token cost. Do you get a benefit from scale with the token cost, say, versus a small bank?

Are you also transitioning more toward kind of open-model AI systems that can cost a lot less?

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.

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 would run on our own data centers. 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.

There're tools coming that call model routing, which send it to the best, quickest, cheapest. When you don't need the most expensive thing for every query you have, and very often people just use the one they're comfortable with.

That's all coming to have those costs under control.

Great. All right, thank you.

Thanks, Mike.

Hi, Jeremy. Hi, Jamie.

Can you guys share with us the deposit beta outlook? Obviously, interest rates are starting to go up, the Fed funds futures are suggesting more rate increases over the next 3 to 6 months.

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? Also, obviously, we're starting from a much higher interest rate level than we did in '22.

Could that mean deposit betas may not be as high this time around for you folks?

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 this cycle.

It's been an unusual 10-plus years, I would say, 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 datasets just aren't that rich. 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 deposits in consumer, and then a stack of very low-beta deposits. 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.

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.

Very good. Then pivoting over to a different question.

The IMF came out very recently this month with their Global Stability Report, and they've talked about how the hedge fund industry has grown dramatically and now, in their eyes, a systemic risk. Leveraged finance, in particular, was highlighted as another high risk.

Obviously, that's 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?

We just say we worry about a lot of stuff, not what the IMF thinks about it. [laughter]

Got it.

They're not wrong, because there is a lot of leverage in some of this stuff. So,

Yeah. It's not wrong, but it's also a little bit obvious, and I would also say it's not really new, right?

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. 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.

There's risk, obviously. That's the business is knowing it and managing it and preparing for the unknown.

I would say that hedge fund leverage as a contributor of risk to the system is very much in the category of known unknowns. Doesn't mean it's riskless, but we kind of know what it is.

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

Very good. Thank you.

Hi. One quickie 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.

Yeah. No, I understand the question, Glenn.

You can argue that it's sort of downstream of the narrative that the SVB run was a sort of social media phenomenon. We were never big buyers of that idea.

I think the better way to understand that situation was as 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. 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 8 hours, but the core ingredients there were the same. I think everyone's pretty eager to tell a sort of fast deposit run story in this new technology-enabled world.

I'm just a little bit less persuaded that you really have cliff effects there. Sure, therefore, 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.

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. You're probably not supposed to be hoping that your deposits are stable because the money is difficult to move, yes, is what I would say.

I think that's fair. I appreciate that.

We have $1.5 trillion in cash and marketable securities. Not worried about JPMorgan liquidity.

If you take a big step back, banking services is necessary, credit cards and debit cards and the movement of money and insured deposits and near needed 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, you would over time, you'd do something different, subscription and of course, you're getting investment accounts combined with checking accounts. Over time, it will adjust.

We want to do a great job for our clients. It costs a lot of money to run these banking systems, most of it's a fixed cost.

I'm not worried about over time. In the short run, of course, you've got to figure out how you want to handle that kind of stuff.

I do think you raise an issue which is different, which is should regulators be thinking about what you're going to do with some of these things? Of course they should.

Now 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'd try to be prepared for that.

Gotcha. 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. 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?

Can the market digest what the compute patterns suggest for the spend?

It's a really good question, right? Because 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 requirements for capital from the financial system.

I guess a couple things. One, clearly, single-issuer concentration is a thing that's going to get managed.

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

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. There is a lot of capital out there waiting to be deployed, some of it'll be from the banking system, some of it'll be from elsewhere.

I think at the system level, I don't know, some people are talking about crowding-out effects, so that'll be interesting to see. Anyway, I think for us, we need to focus on our institutional risk appetite and institutional exposure.

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.

You really need to be running stresses that test your resilience to a meaningful change in the overall theme across the entire enterprise. 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.

That's great. Thanks so much, Jeremy.

Thanks, Glenn.

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 pull back in demand there?

I don't think that when we talk about the insatiable demand for capital, we're talking about our core middle-markets clients. I think there, the theme for some time now has been people worried about other people while doing fine themselves.

[laughter] The theme is always like, "Oh," we run these surveys and they're always like, "Oh, I'm worried about this, I'm worried about that." It's like, "How are you doing?"

"Oh, I'm doing great." It's kind of an interesting dynamic there.

No question that higher rates, I think input costs, inflation, the diesel narrative, these things are tough for middle-market clients, and so we see them trying to manage that to the best of their ability. I think it does create a little bit of caution in that space.

I think balance sheets are strong. People have been through a lot over the last few years, and so they're well prepared.

I don't think insatiable demand for capital applies to that subset of client base.

Got it. Then, separately, Jeremy, on the liquidity side, in the past you've noted that you need to see changes in 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? It's how it's done.

Now 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, recovery, it's what counts as HQLA to start with, how you do LCR.

I think they should look at all of that because with the view that I think you can create safer banks with more deployed capital and more liquidity that you can use to intermediate markets. That should be the goal, but it's hard to answer the question cuz this is going to be up to them.

Either way, Jamie will serve our clients and do a good job, take care of, do what we're supposed to do, but I think they should be doing that, we'll see. We don't have to speculate what they're going to do.

There are a lot of proposals out there. Part of this is international rules, but I applaud them for looking at it.

Yeah. Now, I think I agree with everything Jamie said, and it's really particularly complicated across a range of dimensions.

I will note that at Investor Day, 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, but it's 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. 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 a broader part of the economy, including mortgages, consumer lending, but also some of the more secured C&I-type structures.

By the way,

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

Yeah.

Got it. Thank you.

Good morning. I was hoping you could talk more about how you're growing non-interest-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?

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. I guess just to reiterate a couple of the points, number one, our net new checking account growth has been exceptionally strong, 650,000 this quarter.

People are reacting, they're responding well to the marketing, they're responding well to the brand, to the value proposition, to the sort of multidecade investment in the product bundle that we offer our consumers. I think that's really good news and has been a contributor to the kind of reassertion of consumer deposit growth.

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. We'll see.

I think we're relatively optimistic right now, and we wouldn't expect radical changes for small local moves, but we do think a lot about the different rate regimes and how that can affect positive beta. I think that's part of just being prepared for everything.

Okay. I guess I was thinking more specifically the non-interest-bearing deposits, which I think are more kind of in the commercial, corporate side of things.

I was just trying to see if there's any color there in terms of cash management products, things that have been a key driver.

The most non-interest-bearing is consumer. That's just cuz we're growing the business, and you have different products for different types of consumers.

I think the wholesale side, commercial, that's much more competitive than that.

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 non-interest bearing deposits than there actually are. That's just an artifact of the rules for how we have to report.

If you want a bit more color on that, Matt, you can follow up with IR. 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.

The way to think about that is not that the product offering allows us to grow non-interest-bearing deposits, 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. We have quite a good track record there of winning share and winning mandates as a function of all of our products.

Understood. Thank you.

Thanks, Matt.

Hi. Thanks for taking the question.

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?

All right.

We've always targeted 17% being through the cycle, and times are pretty good now with high volume, high asset prices, and fairly low credit losses and all that. If you could earn 17% consistently for a long period of time, that's a really good return for shareholders.

That's our goal. I don't want to change every time something happens in the marketplace.

Go on. Far, good.

Hopefully, we'll enjoy this good environment for a while. We just don't know when it's going to stop.

We don't want to be pointlessly negative, and I won't sort of bore you with the speech. If you just look across the entire franchise, every single business is performing exceptionally well.

The conditions have just been exceptionally favorable.

For every company.

It's not just us. That hasn't historically been true.

Historically, you've tended to see a bit more internal diversification. In high-rate environments, some businesses do better than others, and vice versa.

The conditions that we've had recently, where essentially every part of the franchise is beating records are not typical by historical standards.

Makes sense. Thanks for that.

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.

Sure. Yeah.

The wholesale build is actually just from new activity, it's not downgrades or change in the outlook or anything like that. I would say that the corporate credit outlook is currently pretty stable.

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, 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.

We'll see. Far, it's early obviously, but in general, we think corporate balance sheets are in quite good shape, and so there's been resilience.

There are a lot of pressures building up, we'll have to see what happens.

Great, thank you.

Hi, good morning. Good morning, Jamie and Jeremy.

This is Kunpeng Ma from China Securities. I have a question on the revenue of the market business, especially we've seen some volatilities in the market revenue across quarters.

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 momentums supporting such kind of estimate, that will be very helpful. Thank you.

I had trouble exactly following your question, but I think you're asking me for a fourth-quarter outlook for the Markets revenue. As we don't actually guide to that.

It's obviously very, very hard to predict and essentially a function of outside-in forces. Just a reminder that you do tend to see significant seasonal decline between the third and the fourth quarter, and also a reminder that in recent years, we've had some slightly unusual seasonal patterns between the third and the fourth quarter.

Our base case assumptions right now, all else being equal, are normal seasonal declines between the third and fourth quarter. Make sure that you interpret normal with the right amount of historical context.

All the usual caveats apply. We've seen a lot of volatility.

There's a lot going on and anything can happen.

I think the fourth quarter will have not the same seasonal decline personally. [laughter] There's too much going on in the world.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thanks very much.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Thanks very much. See you all next quarter.