Please stand by. We are about to begin. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to JPMorgan Chase's third quarter 2019 earnings call. This call is being recorded. Your line will be muted for the duration of the call. We will now go live to the presentation. 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, Jennifer Piepszak. Ms. Piepszak, please go ahead.
Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone. I'll take you through the presentation, which, as always, is available on our website, and we ask that you please refer to the disclaimer at the back. Starting on page one, the firm reported net income of $9.1 billion and EPS of $2.68 on record revenue of $30.1 billion, with a return on tangible common equity of 18%. Underlying performance continues to be strong, with highlights including client investment assets in consumer banking up 13%, strength in our consumer lending businesses, in particular on higher origination volumes in home lending and auto, and healthy growth in sales and outstandings in card. Number one in global IB fees year to date, with over 9% wallet share and record gross IB revenues in middle market. In Asset & Wealth Management, we saw record AUM in client assets.
Overall, for the firm, total loans were flat year-on-year, which includes continued mortgage loan sales. Ex. sales loans were up 3% on healthy growth in card and AWM. Total deposits were up 5%, with strength across wholesale and retail. Credit performance remained strong across businesses. On to page two and some more detail about our third quarter results. Record revenue of $30.1 billion was up $2.2 billion or 8% year-on-year, as net interest income was up $293 million or 2% on balance sheet growth in mix, partially offset by higher deposit pay rates. Non-interest revenue was up $1.9 billion year-on-year or 14%, driven by strong performance across fixed income markets and consumer lending, which included a gain on mortgage loan sales of approximately $350 million.
Expenses of $16.4 billion were up 5% on volume and revenue related expenses, as well as continued investments, partially offset by lower FDIC charges. Credit remains favorable, with credit costs of $1.5 billion, reflecting modest net reserve builds and charge-offs in line with expectations. As we mentioned last quarter, we do not see any signs of broad-based deterioration across our portfolios, both consumer and wholesale. On to balance sheet and capital on page three. We ended the third quarter with a CET1 ratio of 12.3%, up about 10 basis points versus last quarter. The firm distributed $9.6 billion of capital to shareholders in the quarter, including $6.7 billion of net repurchases and a common dividend of $0.90 per share. On to page four for a look at our businesses, starting with Consumer & Community Banking.
CCB generated net income of $4.3 billion and an ROE of 32%, with continued deposit growth and total loans down 4% year-on-year. Revenue of $14.3 billion was up 7% year-on-year. In consumer and business banking, we saw strong deposit and investment growth year-on-year, with deposits up 3% and client investment assets up 13%, reflecting continued growth across both physical and digital channels. Revenue was up 5%, driven by higher NII on deposit growth and margin expansion, as well as higher non-interest revenue on higher transaction volumes. Even though the deposit margin is higher year-on-year, not surprisingly, it is down 13 basis points quarter-on-quarter, given the current rate environment. Home lending revenue was up 12% on higher production volumes and margins, partially offset by lower NII on lower balances, which were down 12%, reflecting loan sales.
With regards to these loan sales, it's important to note the net impact to home lending revenue is minimal, with the gain on sale being offset by a funding charge from corporate. In card merchant services and auto, revenue was up 9%, driven by higher card NII on loan growth and margin expansion, as well as the impact of higher auto lease volumes. Card loan growth was 8%, with sales up 10%, and merchant processing volume was up 11%. Expenses of $7.3 billion were up 4% year-over-year, driven by continued investments and higher auto lease depreciation, partially offset by expense efficiencies and lower FDIC charges. On credit, starting with reserves, this quarter, CCB had a net reserve build of $50 million, which included a build in card of $200 million, largely offset by releases of $100 million in home lending and $50 million in business banking.
The build in card was primarily driven by mix as the newer vintages naturally season and become a larger part of the portfolio. Net charge-offs were $1.3 billion, largely driven by card and consistent with expectations. Turning to the Corporate & Investment Bank on page five. CIB reported net income of $2.8 billion and an ROE of 13% on revenue of $9.3 billion. Investment banking revenue of $1.9 billion was up 8% year-on-year in a market that was down. It was a record third quarter for investment banking fees, driven by strong performances in debt and equity underwriting, partially offset by lower advisory. Year-to-date, we continue to rank number 1 in overall IB wallet and gain share across products and regions, benefiting from our leadership positions in the technology and healthcare sectors. In advisory, we were down 13% year-on-year, reflecting lower deal activity compared to a strong prior year.
We continued to gain wallet share driven by our strategic investments. In debt underwriting, we were up 17% year-on-year in a market that was down. Here, we benefited from our participation in some large transactions and increased activity in investment-grade bonds. In equity underwriting, we were up 22% year-on-year, significantly outperforming the market, driven by our strong performance in IPOs and convertibles. For both the quarter and on a year-to-date basis, we ranked number one in wallet share for overall ECM and IPOs. We expect fourth quarter IB fees to be down both sequentially and year-on-year, driven by strong performances in the third quarter and prior year. The pipeline remains healthy as strategic dialogue with clients is constructive, equity markets remain receptive to new issuance, and the lower rate environment has made debt issuance more attractive. Moving to markets. Total revenue was $5.1 billion, up 14% year-on-year.
Fixed income markets were up 25%, a good result, which also benefited from a comparison to a somewhat quiet quarter in the prior year. This quarter was characterized by strong client activity across the board with outperformance in agency mortgage trading and improved flows in rates and commodities. Equity markets were down 5% against a very strong third quarter last year. Equity derivatives performance was challenged by lower client activity and unfavorable market conditions. Prime remained strong and cash outperformed relative to the prior year. Treasury services and security services revenues were $1.1 billion and $1 billion, down 7% and 2% year-on-year respectively. The rate environment remains a relative headwind, primarily from the funding basis compression we've been talking about, which is largely firm-wide neutral, and to a lesser extent, client-specific repricing in treasury services. Importantly, the organic growth in fees and balances continues to be strong.
Expenses of $5.3 billion were up 3% compared to the prior year, with investments and higher revenue-related expenses partially offset by lower litigation and FDIC charges. Finally, credit costs were $92 million, driven largely by reserve builds on select emerging market client downgrades. Now moving on to Commercial Banking on page six. Commercial Banking reported net income of $937 million and an ROE of 16%. Revenue of $2.2 billion was down 3% year-on-year, with lower NII driven by lower deposit margins, partially offset by higher non-interest revenue due to strong investment banking performance. Gross investment banking revenues were $700 million, up 20% year-on-year on increased M&A and equity underwriting activity. We saw revenues increase for both large deals and flow business, with a record quarter in middle market. Expenses of $881 million were up 3% year-on-year as investments in the business were largely offset by lower FDIC charges.
Deposit balances were up 3% year-on-year on strong client flows. Loan balances were flat year-on-year across both C&I and CRE. In C&I, while we are seeing pockets of growth in select industries like financial institutions, technology, and energy, there does continue to be significant runoff in our tax-exempt portfolio. In CRE, although there was higher origination activity in commercial term lending, it was largely offset by declines in real estate banking as we remain selective given where we are in the cycle. Credit costs were $67 million, with a net charge-off rate of nine basis points. On to Asset & Wealth Management on page seven. Asset & Wealth Management reported net income of $668 million, with pre-tax margin of 25% and ROE of 24%.
Revenue of $3.6 billion for the quarter was flat year-on-year as the impact of higher average market levels as well as deposit and loan growth were offset by deposit margin compression. Expenses of $2.6 billion were up 1% year-on-year on continued investment in technology and advisors, partially offset by lower distribution and legal fees. Credit costs were $44 million, driven by net charge-offs as well as reserve builds on loan growth. For the quarter, we saw net long-term inflows of $40 billion, driven by fixed income and net liquidity inflows of $24 billion. AUM of $2.2 trillion and overall client assets of $3.1 trillion, both records, were up 8% and 7% respectively, driven by cumulative net inflows into long-term and liquidity products, as well as higher market levels. Deposits were up 4% year-on-year, driven by growth in interest-bearing products.
We had record loan balances up 7%, with strength in both wholesale and mortgage lending. On to Corporate on page eight. Corporate reported net income of $393 million. Revenue was $692 million, up $795 million year-on-year, primarily due to higher net interest income driven by higher balances and balance sheet mix, as well as the funding offset from the mortgage loan sales that I mentioned earlier, all of which was partially offset by lower rates. This quarter also included small net gains on certain legacy private equity investments, compared to approximately $200 million of net losses in the prior year. Expenses of $281 million were up $253 million year-on-year, primarily due to higher investments in technology and a prior year net legal benefit. Turning to page nine in the outlook. Our full-year outlook remains in line with previous guidance.
We expect net interest income to come in slightly below $57.5 billion based on the latest implies and adjusted expense to be approximately $65.5 billion. To wrap up, the U.S. economy is on solid footing, and while global growth is slowing, the U.S. consumer remains healthy. Despite continued macro uncertainty and headwinds from the rate environment, this quarter showcases the diversification and scale of our business model. We remain well-positioned to outperform in any environment and will continue to strategically invest in our businesses. With that, operator, please open the line for Q&A.
If you would like to ask a question, please press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad. We kindly request that you ask one question and only one related follow-up. If you would like to ask additional questions, please press star one to be reentered into the queue. Our first question is from Glenn Schorr of Evercore.
Hi. Thanks very much.
Hi, Glenn.
Curious your take on everything that went on in the repo markets during the quarter, and I would love it if you could put it in the context of maybe the fourth quarter of last year. If I remember correctly, you stepped in in the fourth quarter, saw higher rates, threw money at it, made some more money, and it calmed the markets down. I'm curious what's different this quarter that did not happen? Curious if you think we need changes in the structure of the market to function better on a go-forward basis?
If I remember correctly, you got to look at the concept of we have a checking account at the Fed with a certain amount of cash in it. Last year, we had more cash than we needed for regulatory requirements. Repo rates went up. We went from the checking account, which was paying IOR into repo. Obviously makes sense. You make more money. Now the cash in the account, which is still huge, it's $120 billion in the morning, and it goes down to $60 billion during the course of the day and back to $120 billion at the end of the day. That cash, we believe, is required under resolution and recovery and liquidity stress testing. Therefore, we could not redeploy it into repo market, which we'd have been happy to do.
I think it's up to the regulators to decide if they want to recalibrate the kind of liquidity they expect us to keep in that account. Again, I look at this as technical. A lot of reasons why those balances dropped to where they were. I think a lot of banks were in the same position, by the way. I think the real issue that you think about is, what does that mean if we ever have bad markets? That kind of hitting a red line in the Fed checking account, you're also going to hit a red line in LCR, like HQLA, which cannot be redeployed either. To me, that would be the issue when the time comes. It's not about JPMorgan. JPMorgan will be fine in any event.
It's about how the regulators want to manage the system and who they want to intermediate when the time comes.
It's worth noting, Glenn, that the overall impact to JPMorgan from the events in mid-September was not material one way or another to our third quarter results.
Yeah, I feel bad for whoever borrowed at 10%. Could I just ask a quickie on NII? I heard you on the full year 2019 commentary. I don't think that's surprising, maybe even a little bit better. Have you done much repositioning on the balance sheet as we look forward in 2020, which is looking like an obviously lower rate backdrop? I want to ask you what your thoughts are on 2020 NII, I'd rather hear the soft color because I know you're not going to give it to us.
I'll try. In terms of balance sheet positioning, as you know, we have a negatively convex balance sheet. We manage it in both directions. Some moves in interest rates are hedgeable, and some are not. In a quarter like we just had with the rally that we had, you would expect us to buy duration, and we did. In terms of 2020, the way I think you can think about it is we've given you full year 2019, which implies a fourth quarter of just under $14 billion. Frankly, that's not a bad place to start. There will be some puts and takes. Obviously, you would have to get the full run rate of the October cut because, of course, this is all based on the implies. There's one more cut next year.
An offset to that, at least a partial offset to that, would be balance sheet growth and mix. We'll give you more color at Investor Day as we always do, and we'll be in a better position then. The fourth quarter of 2019 in terms of run rate is not a bad place to start.
Our next question is from Betsy Graseck of Morgan Stanley.
Hi, good morning.
Hi.
A couple questions. One on your G-SIB bucket. I know as of the end of June, it showed that you had bumped up into the next G-SIB bucket, and I wanted to understand how you're thinking about managing that as we go into year-end, and is there a plan to get back down, and how would you affect that?
Sure. As it relates to GSIB, we fully intend to be in the 3.5% bucket for year-end. As you know, most aspects of GSIB are on a spot basis. We will manage it like we do any scarce resource and fully intend to be in the 3.5% bucket for year-end.
Does that impact just your market position in general? Is there anything that you would be looking to doing to get there that might reduce your positioning in some of the businesses that you're involved in, for example, things like derivatives, et cetera? Or is it going to be something that we're not going to see in the revenues because it's too small to matter to you?
You're not going to see.
Yeah. What we need to do across the various GSIB buckets will not be obvious in our fourth quarter results. Like I said, we will be managing and fully intend to be in the 3.5% bucket. It's more than just leverage.
Our next question is from Erika Najarian of Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Yes. Good morning. My first question is a follow-up to Glenn's question. As we think about the cross current of resolution planning, LCR, and liquidity stress testing, could you help us, what is the level of excess deployable cash at JPMorgan?
I said we have $120 billion in our checking account at the Fed, and it goes down to 60, and then back to 120 during the average day. We believe the requirement under CCAR and Resolution Recovery is that we need enough in that account such that if there's extreme stress during the course of the day, it doesn't go below zero. You go back to before the crisis, you go below zero all the time during the day. The question is, how far is that as a red line with the intent of regulators between CCAR resolution to lock up that much of reserves in account at the Fed, and that'll be up to regulators to decide. For right now, we have to meet those rules, and we don't want to violate anything we've told them we're going to do.
Got it. As my follow-up, Jen, you said something about the offset to the two Fed cuts that are in the forward curve would be balance sheet growth and mix. Could you give us a little bit more color on how you're expecting those dynamics to play out, particularly given slightly lower core loan growth this quarter and 22% increase in investment securities balances?
Sure. I'll come back to investment securities balances. In terms of balance sheet growth in 2020, you can think of that largely in deposits. Just as one example, obviously, the rate environment and the economy will matter a whole lot. Just in a declining rate environment, the higher yielding alternatives for consumers are less attractive. We do expect to continue to grow the franchise and we could see healthy growth in the deposit base. That's what I was referring to. In terms of investment securities, when you look at the increase this quarter, there's a few things going on. As I said earlier, we did buy duration, but importantly, what you see in investment securities are also cash deployment strategies, as well as actions we took on the back of the mortgage loan sales.
There's a few things going on in investment securities this quarter.
In some cases, securities had a higher return on standardized capital than certain mortgage loans did.
Our next question is from Mike Mayo of Wells Fargo.
Hi. You, I guess, lowered your guidance for NII, but also lowered your guidance for expenses. How much of that lower expense guidance is due to the deployment of technology? Or just more generally, at every Investor Day, you tell us you're going to spend, what, $12 billion on technology, and we don't really have a lot of insight into the traction that those technology investments are getting. What's working technology-wise, what's not working, and how much of that can contribute to your improved expense guidance?
Okay, sure. I'll start, and see if you want to add.
Go ahead, sorry.
I would say, Mike, the NII guidance is not lower. At the second quarter, we said $57.5 billion plus or minus. At the time, the implies had three rate cuts, July, September, and December, and we said if there were two or more, that it would be $57.5 minus, and if less than that, perhaps $57.5 plus. We are kind of right where we said we would be. We're a little bit higher than what we said earlier in September at Barclays, and that's because we got a little bit of a tailwind on the 10-year and some balance growth and one less cut in December. I would say NII guidance broadly in line. On expenses and technology, there's a few things you can think about.
First of all, broadly speaking on expenses, I would say we remain committed to what we said at Investor Day in terms of the cost curve flattening from here. Importantly, you have to look at the underlying story, which I know is what you're getting at, which is there are volume or revenue-related expenses, and we're always looking for productivity there. They will be what they will be, and they will come with top-line growth. In terms of investments, we will continue with the discipline we always have around business cases and net present value and payback periods, but we will also always invest in the things we think we need to even if they're table stakes. Then there's productivity, which is your point. So we continue to realize productivity in our investments, and we continue to think we have opportunity ahead.
We haven't laid that out in terms of quantifying it, but some of the things you can think about are robotics replacing repetitive processes. You can think about machine learning or AI in fraud. Machine learning assisting us in decision-making processes. Our call centers are always getting more productive. As Gordon said at Investor Day, our cost to serve in the consumer businesses are down 15%. Digital capabilities that we're rolling out to our customers in terms of self-service is not only better for them, but more efficient for us. We have realized significant productivity to date not only in our technology investments, but other investments, and think we still have room to run.
I would just add-
All right.
Purchase process new systems, the API store for the CIB. The stuff we built to hook into Aladdin to our custody business. You can go business by business and see the extensive amount of stuff we're rolling out. It's pretty good.
All right. Let me have one follow-up then. How many call center personnel do you have, or how many data centers do you have, and how does that compare to the peak?
We're building brand-new data centers as we speak. I forgot the total number, but it's quite a few. The new ones will be better, more efficient, and more expandable and safer, more secure, all that kind of stuff. We have to build that infrastructure to have the best in the world. We're not going to ever scrimp on something like that. Maybe at Investor Day, we can go a little bit more into how we try to manage the technology budget.
Yes, I'd like to. On call centers, Mike Mayo, we don't necessarily think about it just in terms of the number of people. We think about the productivity of the people. The number of calls that they're able to take, because you may have more people because of more volume, that's good, healthy volume with top-line growth. We're always making sure that the people in our call centers and the overall productivity of the call center is increasing.
Yeah. With all the cyber stuff you read about, our fraud in card and consumers come down, not gone up because of some of these deployed technologies in call centers. I won't take you through all of them because then we're telling the bad guys our secrets, but there are a lot of ways to stop some of the bad guys now.
Our next question is from Saul Martinez of UBS.
Hi. Thank you. Good morning. Start off with sort of a broader question on just the macro outlook. I think, Jen, you mentioned that you feel the economy, the U.S. economy is on sound footing. The consumer's obviously strong, but we are seeing some softening in the economic data. What are you hearing from clients? What are they telling you about whether they're concerned or whether there's an increasing concern on policy, macro uncertainties, and how you're thinking about that going forward?
Sure. On client sentiment, I think it's fair to say that perhaps the marginal investment is being impacted by trade fatigue in terms of the uncertainty. Broadly speaking, while it's slower growth, it's still growth. As I said, the U.S. consumer is incredibly strong. Consumer spending is strong. Sentiment is strong for the consumer. Credit is good. It is true that if you look at the ISM surveys, both manufacturing and non-manufacturing, they were recently disappointing. I would say, no doubt, cautionary signs, but credit remains very good, and there's still very healthy business activity.
Okay, great. That's helpful. On NII, just going back to NII, specifically in the CCB, if you adjust for the $350, actually grew sequentially, which was a pretty strong result. I know guidance is at the consolidated level, but how do we think about the glide path in that business going forward and some of the puts and takes? Deposit pricing came in a little bit at the consolidated level. I suspect some of that's commercial. How do we think about that business and the NII trajectory? Is it possible that you can continue to grow that?
There's no doubt that the business will be impacted by rate headwinds if the implies play out. We're not immune to that. As I said earlier, there is at least a partial offset to that in growth, and so we still feel very good about the underlying growth that we're seeing there. Then just in terms of reprice, obviously, there's very little movement on the back of the Fed ease given there was very little movement on the way up. In fact, quarter-over-quarter, we saw rates paid in the consumer businesses tick up a little bit on slight migration that we continue to see into interest-bearing. We love the platform. The branch expansion is going very, very well, and so we feel great about the continued growth there, but we won't be immune to rate headwinds.
Our next question is from Gerard Cassidy of RBC.
Good morning. Can you guys give us some additional color on the investment banking backlog that you may have at the end of the third quarter? Second, if you take a look at the success that you had in investment banking grabbing more wallet share, is it coming here in North America or in Asia? Can you give us some color there as well?
Sure. On the IB pipeline, I would say it's healthy, although we do expect to be down in the fourth quarter, both sequentially and year-on-year on very strong performances in the third quarter as well as the fourth quarter of last year. Overall, it feels healthy. I would say geographically, largely it's on strength in the U.S.
Following up in the Markets business, again, you had good numbers. How important is the technology spending that you've been doing in Markets leading to grabbing more wallet share in both equity and FICC?
I think it's critical. If you walk on the trading floor today, the deployment of technology in automated trading algorithms and swaps and FX and equities, it's making its way into corporate bonds. I think it's critical you keep up with the technology in a very competitive business where market share matters.
Our next question is from Eric Compton of Morningstar.
Great. Thanks for taking my question. I just want to step back and real big picture here.
Net interest income, you're already starting to see some pressure there. I think the general commentary in the industry is the banks are just under pressure seemingly almost everywhere. Yet you guys are still hitting returns on tangible of 18%. Just stepping back, you still have a couple billion to play with before you even start getting to that 17% long-term goal level. What worries you about potentially pushing you under that 17% level? It just seems like even with all the pressures in the industry, you're still even exceeding it. Other than one-time credit events, really, I guess stepping back, what worries you about pushing the bank to that or even below that from your perspective?
I think you're overdoing the pressures in the banking industry, okay? We've had growth in the U.S. for the better part of 10 years. I'd say that the credit is extraordinarily good. If you look at consumer credit, commercial credit, wholesale, it's extraordinarily good. It can only get worse if you have a cycle. Our 17%, we always try to point out that's through the cycle. We're at the over-earning part of the cycle in credit today. At one point, we'll be at the under-earning part on credit. Of course, when you have a recession, it affects volumes and all these other things. That 17% is through the cycle and time today, not that bad.
Our next question is from Marty Mosby of Vining Sparks.
Thanks. Good morning. I wanted to ask you two kind of different venues of questions. First is, if you look at the balance sheet, security yields came down pretty significantly this quarter. Just wondered how much you had in premium amortization that was embedded in that. As you look at the interest-bearing deposit cost, we didn't get much traction on the first cut, but did you get a little bit more traction on lowering those rates as you went going into the fourth quarter?
Okay, sure. First on security yields. That did play a role, Marty, but more importantly, the impact on securities yields came from mix and just lower rates overall. Predominantly mix and lower rates, to a lesser extent, your point on prepays as well as a little bit of day count. On betas, broadly speaking, we say betas are symmetric. If you look at the retail side, as I said before, very little movement on a Fed ease. We did see rates paid even tick up a little bit there quarter-on-quarter. Wholesale, there's obviously more opportunity to reprice, but we do that client by client, and we're not going to lose valuable client relationships over a few ticks of beta. What we saw there, as you might expect in CIB, rates paid down quarter-over-quarter.
We also saw rates paid down in both AWM and the Commercial Bank, but a little bit less so.
Would you see retail improving next quarter? Jamie, I wanted to talk to you about liquidity. Two things. One, we saw the repo market, and as you looked at Volcker and the Liquidity Coverage Ratios, you've kind of taken the big banks out of participating in being able to solve for some of those liquidity issues. The Fed has kind of put a ring fence around just putting that all on their shoulders versus letting JPMorgan or Goldman Sachs or Bank of America jump in and help in those processes. When you sold the loans this quarter, those mortgage loans, and replaced them with securities, was that related to liquidity or just the decisioning process on that? Thanks.
The loan decision is because we are at standardized capital now, which I think, by the way, risk-weighted. I think the advance is far more important, and we should probably report more on that because that's at 13%. When we're constrained by standardized, there are points in time of putting mortgages on your balance sheet just gives you a very low return. Of course, you have a portfolio decision. You can sell it or put it on your balance sheet. If you sell it, you're going to probably reinvest in securities. It's a pure economic calculation of what gives you a better return. That's why I think you need some fixes in the mortgage market about securitizations. I think we pointed out if you had real good securitizations, you'd have a healthier mortgage market. You can keep some of them on your balance sheet.
You can sell some of the risk, you wouldn't have to sell these mortgages per se. I do think the liquidity. We focus a little bit on liquidity at the Fed account. We have $450 billion of cash, T-bills, repo, deposit at the Fed. They all live under certain constraints. You want banks to have proper liquidity. I should also point out that those things go into multiple G-SIB calculations, multiple other calculations. You try to calibrate across all those things and optimize across all those things. I do think you're correct. The banks are at the point now where they will not be able to redeploy a big chunk of that $500 billion that we have in other markets when the time comes. It's not Volcker per se. Volcker is a slightly different thing.
Marty, I think you asked about fourth quarter. We do think we'll continue to see deposit margin compression there on the retail side. We have come off the peaks in terms of CD pricing, you still have slight migration there into interest-bearing products.
Our next question is from Ken Usdin of Jefferies.
Hey, thanks. Good morning. Jen, you had mentioned earlier just the point about that next year's earning asset growth will be led largely through deposits. With all this mixing into your last point there about where the deposit margin pressure comes in, do you expect the constitution of deposit growth to change at all, whether it comes from the consumer business, wholesale, or the wealth management complex? Thanks.
Sure. Look, I think it's difficult to know. I think in a declining rate environment, as I said, I think the higher yielding alternatives are obviously less attractive for consumers. We do still see good organic growth in wholesale as well in both Treasury Services and Security Services. I think it's difficult to know. The macro environment will be a big determinant.
Got it. Understood. The second question, the card revenue margin you mentioned, it's kind of flattened out. I'm just wondering, can you just walk us through the NII versus fee components there? Is it partially because of that obvious NII challenge? Is there also any changes with regards to just the underlying card fee activity? Thanks.
Yeah. There it's really just timing. There's just seasonality there. At Investor Day, we said that the card revenue rate would be 1,150 ±. The fourth quarter is a seasonal high quarter for us, we do still expect to hit that 1,150 ± for the full year guidance. Just seasonality.
That NII there doesn't have the same compression that does in deposits.
Yes. Very different dynamic there.
Our next question is from Matthew O'Connor of Deutsche Bank.
Good morning. I just want to follow up on, you talked about fourth quarter net interest income just under $14 billion. That's not a bad place to start for next year. You highlight balance sheet growth and mix and kind of some puts and takes. It's probably not as bad as I think some would have thought. Think about that $14 billion-ish as potential run rate plus or minus. I'm just trying to better understand, what's the rate assumption that you have, and how much of a swing factor is the duration change that you did in the third quarter help in that?
We're doing that based on the latest implies, and it's obviously early days. We're working through our budget process as we speak. It's based on the latest implies, which have a cut in October and a cut in April, and 10-year, call it 170 plus or minus. Relative to where we might have been just a couple of months ago, even weeks ago, it might have been a different outlook. I think it's important to take it with the health warning that it's on the latest implies because that is, of course, what we know.
It's assuming some balance sheet growth.
It's assuming some balance sheet growth.
As opposed to all things being equal.
That's right.
That would be worse.
That's right. It would be worse. The balance sheet growth is a partial offset to a larger impact from just rates.
Right.
What is the rate sensitivity at this point, and how is that split between the short and long end? Thank you.
There, I would just say, you can look at the earnings at risk that we'll have in the queue. I think that's probably the best way to think about it because that is not an NII sensitivity but is an interest rate sensitivity. That'll be out in a few weeks.
Our next question is from Mike Mayo of Wells Fargo.
Thanks for allowing my follow-up question. Jamie, this is the first earnings call we've had since the Business Roundtable came out with its new statement that it's not about shareholder driven capitalism, it's about stakeholder driven capitalism. I was hanging out at The New Yorker Festival over the weekend, and your name came up and at least one author said he spoke to you. The real question is, what is the political and regulatory risk to JPMorgan's earnings as we look out over a year? You're having the presidential debates. Over the weekend, people talked about a wealth tax, a transaction tax, a change in corporate tax, personal tax, basically flattening the pyramid. Seems like a lot of people point their fingers at the banks, including JPMorgan. My question to you is, what are you doing at-
Pointing fingers at the banks about what?
As being part of the cause. Part of the cause of inequality in America. Banks should be doing more to help out the situation. Again, this is just one example. The way I saw this at the New Yorker Festival, this was kind of the intellectual underpinnings of a lot of the policies that are being introduced today. You're seeing that in the politicians' statements about a wealth tax, changes to the bank business model, too much deregulation. It's just an environment. Here we are 10 years after the financial crisis, where what I would summarize it as very anti-bank. I know JPMorgan's had proposals to help move the company and the country ahead.
How do you, as head of the Business Roundtable, help the industry and corporate America manage these concerns about income inequality and these other topics that come up in the presidential debates? I know it's a big question. Hey, you're in that role with the Business Roundtable.
The Business Roundtable didn't get rid of shareholder value. Basically said shareholder value and customers and employees and communities, which essentially has been how many of these banks have been running for years. I think part of the statement was a lot of the world looked at shareholder value, and they hear rapacious profit seeking, whereas most CEOs are thinking pretty long term, building people, taking care of their employees, their customers. We can highlight all the great things we do for our employees. Huge training, health, wellness, retirement, sharing the wealth inside the company. We do all of that. Most of these companies do that. A lot of these larger companies, they're great community citizens when it comes to trying to participate and help and stuff like that.
As a JPMorgan matter, we're going to grow our businesses and serve our clients as best we can whatever the environment is. That environment changes politically, it changes economically, it changes geopolitically. We're going to just navigate to do the best we can, serving our clients best we can. I do think that we try, and I'm speaking for a lot of companies too, try to do a tremendous amount to help the communities because there have been people left behind. The inner city schools are not failing because of banks. Okay. Infrastructure's not failing because of banks. I think we can help build infrastructure, help train people, get work skills, get involved with education systems, like all the kind of stuff that a lot of us all do in Detroit.
We should lift up society, and I think it's good for us to lift up the society. When society does better, everyone does better. If you don't believe me, look at Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, North Korea, et cetera, that doing well is a good thing for society, and you can share the wealth a little bit. I'm not going to respond to specific political statements out there, but we'll do our part to be a great community citizen and serve our shareholders at the same time.
All right. Well, thanks for that response. I put words in your mouth, doing well for the communities and employees and all the other stakeholders is good for the shareholders long term.
Yes. Mike, I could actually give examples in the crisis about the amount of people that we financed at prices way below the market. Were we doing that because we're profit-seeking? No. That included states, cities, hospitals, businesses, consumers, et cetera. So you weren't being repaid, but our attitude was, "No, we're going to help our clients get through this tough time." It wasn't about our profitability. Our profitability dropped dramatically, and we were fine. I think that was long-term thinking. We never got sued over that. Same for how we do employees. We're constantly investing in employees and branches and jobs and training. That stuff will benefit three years out, five years out, 10 years out, 20 years out.
All right. Thank you.
Yeah.
Our next question is from Brian Kleinhanzl of KBW.
Great. Thanks. A quick question on equity trading. I know you gave an update on where you thought the revenues would come in in mid-September, and it looks like it came in worse than what you were looking for. Is there a way to kind of break out what was the impact of potential marks on investments versus true equity trading revenues?
Sure. In equity derivatives, it was a combination of weaker client activity and some losses on inventory, but it wasn't meaningful. Those losses were certainly not meaningful in the grand scheme of things, but they were part of the equity derivative story.
There wasn't any other additional investments in there that had marks on them impacting the numbers?
No.
Okay. Separately on CECL, I know you've been doing parallel runs as all banks have been. Are you at the point now where you can kind of give what the pro forma provision would be for CECL? Do you plan on doing that prior to the adoption date?
As we said at Investor Day, the range is $4 billion-$6 billion. We've done a ton of work, as you say, and a lot of modeling. The range is still between $4 billion and $6 billion, and we'll be able to be more precise, obviously, as we prepare for the January 1 implementation.
Our next question is from Betsy Graseck of Morgan Stanley.
Hi. Thanks. One follow-up on the equity. I know DB books were in the market, and I believe that you were a winner of some of that. Is that in these numbers in 3Q or that comes in 4Q?
That was some prime balance that I think you're referring to, and I don't know the answer to that.
It was not meaningful.
Not meaningful, yeah.
Wherever it is.
Okay. All right. Separately, there's been some news obviously on discount brokers cutting commissions to zero. I know you have You Invest and that's a recent launch, but how do you think about how that impacts your business model? Is it just something that you would consider is specific to You Invest, or do you think that's something that would have a bigger impact and potentially more optionality for your clients across your wealth spectrum?
The majority of our customers in You Invest already trade for free, and so we're pleased to see the market moving toward us. As we think about You Invest, it is one component of our broader investment strategy. As I said, we're really proud of this quarter's results with client investment assets being up 13%. It was an important product launch for us in terms of meeting an unmet need with our existing customers. We're pleased to see the market moving toward us.
Yeah. We're strengthening You Invest. We still are improving the product over time. We haven't done a tremendous amount of marketing. We kind of want to get it all right, both You Invest and You Invest Portfolios. Then we'll figure out all the exact specific pricing around it.
We have no further questions at this time.
Great.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for participating in today's call. You may now disconnect.