The Q1 earnings season for US stocks kicks off! Major Wall Street banks take the lead
摩根大通2026Q1業績直播
Key Takeaways (AI-Generated)
Financial Performance
- Net income of $16.5 billion with EPS of $5.94 and ROTC of 23%
- Revenue of $50.5 billion, up 10% year-over-year, driven by higher markets revenue
- Expenses of $26.9 billion, up 14% year-over-year due to higher compensation costs
- Standardized CET1 ratio of 14.3%, down 30 basis points from prior quarter
Business Highlights
- CCB reported net income of $5 billion with revenue up 7% to $19.6 billion
- CIB reported net income of $9 billion with revenue up 19% to $23.4 billion
- Investment banking fees up 28% year-over-year driven by strong M&A performance
- AWM reported net income of $1.8 billion with 35% pre-tax margin
Financial Guidance
- Full year 2026 NII ex-markets expected to be about $95 billion
- Total NII expected to be approximately $103 billion with markets NII decreasing
- Adjusted expense outlook continues to be about $105 billion
- Card net charge-off rate expected to be approximately 3.4%
Opportunities
- Market expansion through global banking and commercial banking overseas growth
- AI deployment for connected commerce, travel offers, and fraud reduction services
- Large infrastructure capital needs including remilitarization and data centers projects
- Enhanced client relationships and business adjacencies through AI implementation
Risks
- Basel III endgame proposals could increase capital requirements by approximately $20 billion
- Cyber risk identified as largest operational risk with AI creating additional vulnerabilities
- Higher-for-longer rates and potential credit cycle impacts on leveraged companies
- Deposit competition from AI-enabled cash management and higher-yielding alternatives
Full Transcript (AI-Generated)
Operator
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to JP Morgan Chase's First Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. This call is being recorded. Your line will be muted for the duration of the call. We will now go live to the presentation. The presentation is available on JP Morgan Chase's website. Please refer to the disclaimer in the back of the concerning forward-looking statements. Please stand by.
At this time, I would like to turn the call over to JP Morgan Chase's Chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon and Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy Barnum. Mr. Barnum, please go ahead.
Jeremy Barnum
Thank you very much and good morning, everyone. This quarter the firm reported net income of 16 1/2 billion and EPS of $5.94, with an ROTC of 23%. Revenue of 50 1/2 billion was up 10% year on year, primarily driven by higher markets revenue, higher asset management and investment banking fees and higher Nii driven by the impact of balance sheet growth predominantly offset by the impact of lower rates.
Expenses of 26.9 billion were up 14% year on year, largely driven by higher compensation, including higher revenue related compensation and growth and for office employees, as well as higher brokerage expense and distribution fees. The increase also reflects the absence of an FDIC special accrual release in the prior year and credit cost of 2 1/2 billion with net charge offs of 2.3 billion and a net reserve build of 191,000,000.
And in terms of the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with a standardized CT1 ratio of 14.3%, down 30 basis points versus the prior quarter as net income was more than offset by capital distributions and higher RWA. This quarter's center as RWA is up 60 billion, primarily driven by the markets business reflecting higher client activity, seasonal effects and higher energy prices, which resulted in higher RWA across market risk and credit risk X lending.
Now let me spend a few minutes on the recently released Basel 3M game and G Sib RE proposals. I'll start by acknowledging that this has been a long journey and getting it done across multiple regulators and applied to the full set of U.S. banks is unquestionably a difficult task. With that said, we do have some concerns with elements of what's been put forward primarily with the G sub proposal.
On the left hand side, we show you our preliminary estimate of the impact on JP Morgan Chase next to what the Fed has disclosed that the category one and two banks. In aggregate our results are worse in each category. Estimated RWA is higher, G SIB is worse and because our C car losses are below the floor, the Fed's reduction is not going to apply to us.
The result is that under the proposed rules, our CET One capital would increase around 4%, while the Fed's estimate for large banks is about a 5% reduction. Our long standing position has been that the agency should calculate each component of the capital requirements correctly without regard to what that may mean for any specific firm or for the broader industry.
And to the extent regulators want to add conservatism, they should make that explicit rather than embedding it in methodological choices. Turning to GSIB on the right, the surcharge on the re proposed rule looks quite high when placed in the historical context, as the chart clearly illustrates.
As many of you know, we have been on the record for the better part of this last decade advocating for averaging smaller buckets, GDP scaling and RE weighting short term wholesale funding to 20%. And we were glad to see many of those concepts in the NPR. However, while we have every reason to believe that the Fed's published estimate of a 3.8% reduction in capital associated with the G sub NPR is accurate when defined narrowly, it's important to understand that under the current rule, the surcharges for almost all of the G sub banks are scheduled to increase meaningfully over the next two years simply as a result of recent growth in the system.
Despite in our view change in real world systemic risk in addition to that background increase, the proposed change in the short term wholesale funding methodology adds about $22 billion of G SIB specific capital principally to the money center banks of which we represent about 13 billion. While in the process making the methodology less risk sensitive and less consistent with the Fed's original rationale for including it.
This could have been addressed by better adjusting for growth in the system. But it wasn't enough. The net result is that we need to plan for 5.2% in 2028, a 70 basis point increase from the current 4 1/2% requirement, which when combined with the RWA increase from the Basel 3 end game NPR results in a total increase of about $20 billion of G sub capital based on our current balance sheet.
This persistent miscalibration of the US surcharge is obviously bad for international competitiveness, but more importantly domestically. This means that the cost of credit from JP Morgan Chase to US households and businesses is likely higher than it is from other domestic non G SIB banks. We recognize that we are larger and more systemically important than even large domestic peers, but in the end, the question is how much should the cost be?
It is very hard to reconcile the principles articulated in the 2015 Fed GSIB White paper with an outcome where JP Morgan Chase has $109 billion of GSIB surcharge. Obviously, the rules aren't final yet, and this is what the common process is for. As Jamie wrote in his chairman's letter, everyone wants to move on, so our comments will be very focused, but we feel strongly that the framework should be coherent and the system would therefore be better off with these outstanding points addressed.
Now moving to our businesses. CCB reported net income of 5 billion. Revenue of 19.6 billion was up 7% year on year, predominantly driven by higher Card Nii, largely on higher revolving balances and higher operating lease income and auto. A few points to highlight, notwithstanding the recent volatility in market and gas prices, based on our data, consumers and small businesses remain resilient with consumer spend growth continuing above last year's pace.
Average deposits were up 2% year on year and quarter on quarter, driven by account growth and moderating yield seeking flows. Fine investment assets were up 18% year on year driven by market performance and healthy net inflows. And in home lending, originations of 13.7 billion increased 46% year on year, predominantly driven by refi performance.
Next, the CIB reported net income of 9 billion. Revenue of 23.4 billion was up 19% year on year, driven by higher revenues across the businesses. To give it a bit more color, IBP is rubbed 28% year on year driven by strong performance across M&A and equity underwriting, partially offset by lower debt underwriting.
Looking ahead, client engagement and pipelines remain healthy, but of course, developments in the Middle East could have an impact on deal execution and timing in markets. Fixed income was up 21% year on year with strong performance across the businesses, partially offset by lower revenue and rates. Equities was up 17% from increased client activity.
Turning to asset and wealth management, AWM reported net income of 1.8 billion with pre tax margin 35%. Revenue of 6.4 billion was up 11% year on year, predominantly driven by growth in management fees on strong net inflows and higher average market levels as well as higher brokerage activity.
Long term net inflows were 54 billion with continued strength across fixed income, equity and multi asset. AUM of 4.8 trillion was up 16% year on year and client assets of 7.1 trillion were up 18% year on year, driven by higher market levels and continued net inflows.
And before turning to the outlook, corporate reported net income of 699 million on revenue of 1.2 billion. In terms of the full year 2026 outlook, we continue to expect Nii X markets to be about 95 billion. We now expect total Nii to be approximately 103 billion as a function of markets and I decreasing to about 8 billion predominantly due to rates which we expect will be primarily offset and NIR.
The adjusted expense outlook continues to be about 105 billion and the card net charge off rate continues to be approximately 3.4%. With that, we're now happy to take your questions. So let's open the line for Q&A.
Operator
Thank you. Please stand by if you would like to ask a question. Please press *1 to be entered into the queue. We kindly request that you ask one question and only one related follow up if you would like to ask an additional question. Please press *1 to be reentered into the queue. Our first question comes from Steven Chubak with Wolfe Research. Your line is open.
Steven Chubak
Hi, good morning, Jamie and Jeremy. Thanks for taking my questions. So maybe to start on the AI cash tool, which Jamie, you commented on in your letter, there's been lots of focus on this particular at least launch. Given that this is a tool which could potentially result in some consumer deposit pressure as well as drive some impact on increased competition as well as higher deposit betas.
I was hoping you could just speak to how you see deposit competition unfolding as similar Smart Tools become more widespread.
Jamie Dimon
Yeah, so, you know, it's a great question. And obviously, there's early stages for this particular product. So you have to look at it literally segment by segment, how people manage their money, how they want to manage their money. People are pretty astute at it, particularly the higher net worth. They have tons of choices. They often have money in many different places.
And so the question for us is how can we make it easier for them to manage their money in a way they're comfortable? Most of you on this call, you have in your mind how much days in a checking account and then you write a ticket to a money market, fund deposit accounts, something like that. And that's all we're trying to do.
And you know, we provide great values to people. You know, if you're a comfort of JP Morgan and remind people you have, you know, if you have this product, you have ATM, you got branches, you got advice, you have instant payment systems like Zelle. So we look at the whole basket, how we can do a better job for the client.
And yeah, it may squeeze some margins somewhere and create more competition somewhere. You know, that's life. Jeff Bezos always says your margin is my opportunity. And I kind of agree with that. We're trying to look at the world from the point of view after what more can we do with them? And this is really early stages. And as you know, there's tons of competition out there for money.
Jeremy Barnum
Yeah, exactly. I'm seeing the only thing I was going to add to that. It's sort of understandable, just gotten attention because it has sort of AI in it and it's kind of interesting. But as Jamie says, like and as you highlighted in your question, competition for deposits has always been very intense. It continues to be intense.
And we have both external and internal competition from higher yielding alternatives and people sort of optimize that and that's part of running in the business. And as also Jamie just alluded to, this thing is like, you know, kind of not even live yet. And it's sort of targeted at a very small subset of the client base, particularly clients with investments where we think there's an opportunity to take a larger share of the investment wallet as part of this.
So I would, it's understandable the amount of interest that it's gotten, but I think the right way to think of it as sort of as an experiment right now.
Steven Chubak
You know, that's helpful context and and maybe switching gears just to the Basel 3 capital proposal, certainly helpful in terms of how you frame some of the shortcomings, some potential areas for improvement. But maybe just focusing in on the RWA inflationary impacts, Does the guidance that you've laid out contemplate any mitigating actions you might pursue?
Is there any potential mitigation that you envisage and do you have any preliminary views? Just on the magnitude of SCB relief that you could see from the removal of some of the double accounting of markets or operational risk, I recognize that piece is a little bit more opaque.
Jeremy Barnum
Yeah, I mean those are interesting questions. I think obviously we are kind of well practiced over the course of the last decade and 1/2 on understanding the rules in detail and ensuring that we're using our financial resources efficiently to support the client franchise. So and I think the hope is that the rules land in the stage where there is nothing in them, which sort of takes an otherwise good and healthy business and makes it completely non economic.
I think we've alluded to a couple of areas where you know, if you look at the presentation slide on the bottom right hand side, we talked about targeted RWA clarifications needed. There's this issue with like high yield Revo collateral and some stuff about advice lines where you know, the the proposal is a little bit unclear about what the actual impact would be.
And in some versions of the world, we think it creates irrational results. But broadly, I don't think this is a story about optimization at this point. I think this is a story about a rule set that is converging to a place and then we need to just grow the business and and you know, deploy the resources to serve our clients.
Obviously we have said a lot about GSIB on this page, you know, and I guess I don't really have what to say unless you have just a big question on GSA, but that is the one area where we think it, it's kind of a significant disincentive to a. Particular type of business, in particular some markets business.
And I guess I would just make the point that we've often made publicly that the depth and breadth of US capital markets, a key competitive national advantage and regulatory capital rules that at the margin discourage, you know, a dynamic, you know, secondary market in the United States with active participation by banks is in our view sort of not great.
So that's part of the reason that we're so focused on GSIB because it disproportionately effects that business.
Steven Chubak
Anything you could speak to just in terms of the removal of the double counting?
Jeremy Barnum
Oh, yeah, sorry, I forgot about that part of your question. Yeah. So as you know, like we're currently below the floor, right. So obviously if that is like the new normal, then if the double count is addressed by removing further things from stress testing, it wouldn't have any impact. If the double count is addressed by modifying the operational risk calculation in RWA, then it might have some impact.
And obviously it's far from guaranteed that we will be a bank that is permanently below the floor. But I suspect that issue is more relevant for institutions whose business Nexus such that they're going to tend to structurally be above the floor. It's a little bit unclear for us as things settle down whether we're going to bounce around above and below the floor or tend to be structurally above the floor. We'll see.
But I think removal of the double count is definitely something we support. It's probably not our number one priority at this point because progress has been made on that front.
Jamie Dimon
Yeah, I just also just mentioned on the market, global market shock. It's never been in the real world all these years, including during the COVID, COVID and then before the great threats, nothing like what they have. And we already have $80 billion or $90 billion of capital for the trading books. So these those numbers just they're completely out of whack with reality and operationalist capital.
I can't avoid saying it is another crazy obtuse one in 1000 year thing. And then worse than that might be they they create risk weighted assets. You know, every company in the world has operational risk and they artificially create risk weighted assets which do not exist and it locks this locks up a lot of capital liquidity for eternity for no good reason.
And I understand this operational risk. I think there are real ways to measure it by the way, which I point, I point out, which is not this artificial, you know, over architected academic exercise. But you know, there's operational risk and margin loans that are late, you know, and using subprime collateral as opposed to prime collateral. And you know, how you process things.
And that's what they should really be focusing, you know, reducing actual operational risk as opposed to these calculations, which you can't change. Like if you if they all come from the mortgage business and you got out of the mortgage business, it still stays there. Like who would do something like that? And so I it's time to really look at this stuff and do it right.
Steven Chubak
Well said. Well, thanks so much for taking my questions.
Jeremy Barnum
Thanks Steven.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Erika Najarian with UBS. You may proceed.
Erika Najarian
Yes, thank you. Good morning Jeremy, My first question is for you, you modified the markets Nii outlook given the change in rates between end of February and and today. I'm wondering as we think about the ex markets, Nii number of 95 billion, you know you retain that, what are sort of the offsets to you know higher rates in the asset sensitivity, you know if we don't have cuts for the rest of the year?
Jeremy Barnum
Yeah, sure. So it's a good question because I think we have said that we're asset sensitive and rates are a little bit higher as a removal of the cuts in the back half of the year. And so you might have otherwise expected us to revise the NIAX markets up a little bit. But just to do a little mental math, the EAR that we've just disclosed is 1.8 billion.
As a result of the fact that the cuts were pretty backdated, the impact on the full year average is only about 20 basis points. So, you know, the amount of upward revision that you might have otherwise expected is really quite small when you do that math. And there were some other bits of up and down noise and some rounding effects. So that is essentially the reason the numbers aren't changed. I don't think there's too much to to read into it.
Erika Najarian
Got it perfectly clear. And my second question is for Jamie. Of course, we were all unpacking your chairman's letter from a few weeks ago. And one of the topics that you wrote about and you've spoken about at length in the past is on private credit. And I think we fully appreciate what JP Morgan's view here is.
But given all of the headlines that this topic is garnered, I guess. The question here for you and your team is, you know, if we do have a a recession and higher defaults and higher severity and cumulative losses in leveraged lending, what is the ultimate loss back to the banks? Because as we understand, the banks are fairly well protected in terms of structure.
And while you address this in your letter, for those that maybe hadn't had time to read it and that are listening to this call, do you think that if we do have a default cycle in private credit that it will be systemic?
Jamie Dimon
I mean, I was quite clear. I don't think so. And I gave them big numbers. Private credit leverage lending is like 1.7 trillion, high yield bonds, something like 1.7 trillion, banks, syndicated leveraged loans like 1.7 trillion, investment grade debts, 13 trillion, mortgage debts like 13 trillion. And there's a lot of other stuff out there.
And I pointed out that, yeah, I think there's been some weakening and underwriting and not just by private credit elsewhere. And there will be a credit cycle one day. And I think when there's a credit cycle, losses will be worse than people expect relative to the scenario. I don't think it's systemic. It almost can't be systemic at that size relative to anything else.
But you know, when recessions happen and values go down and people refine higher rates, they'll be stress and strain the system. And, you know, are people prepared for that? I can't speak for the banks, but these are most of these things are, you know, are they're on top of you have very large losses in private credit before at least it looks like banks can get hit or something like that.
So it doesn't mean you won't feel some stress and strain and you might have to do something about it, but not particularly worried about it. I would. I'd be more worried about when there's a credit cycle. How's that going to filter through the whole system? That to me is a bigger issue.
But I also pointed out corporations in general, the debt's not too high, consumers in general, that's not too high. Most of the excess debt is in, you know, government debt at this point. And so there are positives and negatives. You look at what's going to happen if there's a cycle. And of course, we always worry about what happens in their cycle. And like I said, I think it'll be worse than people expect.
And you can go look at what happens in other cycles to, you know, various credit and industries, etcetera. The other the other thing which almost always happens is that there's a industry which surprises people. If you go back to the year 2000, people were surprised. There was utilities and telecom, you know, grandma stocks that got hit.
Things changed and going to O eight, it was media companies and newspapers, Warren Buffett stocks. Things changed this time, you know, you have all the two years more about software, which we'll see. You know, might be software might not, but something always happens that people don't expect your credit.
Erika Najarian
Thank you both.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from John McDonald with Truist Securities. Your line is open.
John McDonald
Hi, good morning. I wanted to ask you a question about reserves. Can you talk about scenario weighting and how you're evolving views on the macro risks out there factor into your reserve setting process and how that played out this quarter?
Jeremy Barnum
Yeah, John, good question. Because I think at a high level, if you look at the allowance, it's like quite small and you might wonder like what's going on there given, you know, everything that's happening in the Middle East, especially given our historical sense about wanting to be conservative and concerns about the geopolitical dynamic.
So a couple things in there. One, as you know, we start the reserve the allowance calculation process with a sort of model based approach that's based on economic forecasts. And so and actually just to make it easier to track, let me start with a little bit the punchline, which is we actually did not change the wage this quarter.
And so with that said, on sort of unchanged wage flowing through, the economic outlook actually lowered the weighted average unemployment rate and the allowance build up from 5.8 to 5.6. So that created some tailwinds across the numbers primarily in consumer but also a little bit wholesale and we also had a little bit of a lease consumer in home lending.
I think it was about 150 million, which was an HP or maybe 110 or something, but anyway which was an HPI upward revision. So kind of unrelated to everything else under the covers, there are some builds in wholesale as a function of loan growth and also some idiosyncratic downgrades here and there. Nothing dramatic, but you know in the place that you would expect to see allowance build, you are seeing some.
But at a high level, we did sort of have a very conscious debate about this as a company like should we add downside skew to the weights this quarter given everything that's going on. And our conclusion was that the existing kind of conservative bias in the allowance was sufficient and we would. Just wait and see to see how things developed and to the extent that things you know, hopefully they don't.
But if we get some of the downside case outcomes with higher energy prices that wind up having an impact on the core global economic outlook, then that would actually flow naturally through the process. And so we'll we can see kind of how that plays out.
John McDonald
OK, Thanks, Jeremy. And then separately, was wondering about any changes to your outlook for loan and deposit growth. Your balance sheet growth was very strong this quarter, a lot of it seeming to be in the markets business. So just like you for more color on you know the drivers of growth this quarter and how it affects your outlook for loan and deposit growth this year.
Jeremy Barnum
Sure. So I would say that this quarter's growth yes you said primarily markets, primarily low density stuff, it's not contributing a lot to RWA security financing, nefarious source and a lot of that seasonal. So there is a sort of background trend of growth in the size of the markets business and then the size of the markets balance sheet. But I don't think that anything happened this quarter that was sort of particularly off trend in that respect.
In terms of the firm wide overall outlook, I think arguably the single most significant number is the what we said about card loan growth expectations, a company update which is that we said we expected 6% or maybe a little bit more and that hasn't really changed. That's still kind of our core expectation in the rest of the franchise. It's really pretty modest growth overall.
We actually have some headwinds and on lending as a result of some First Republic portfolio roll off and stuff like that. But you know, to a significant degree, some of that's going to get driven by acquisition financing that we hold on balance for a while that some of that's a little bit of a driver this quarter as well.
And of course, you know, if things deteriorate, which we very much hope they don't and that tends to produce lower loan demand. So we'll see what happens there, but we're going to be there for our clients for whatever they need. And then the final building block of this is markets, which as you know has been actually interestingly enough the primary driver of wholesale loan growth recently.
But there it's going to be very opportunistic. You know, a lot of it is the kind of the data center lending type stuff and related things where we're going to participate with the charms make sense, but we're going to be very willing to walk away if we don't like it. And so that's going to be more a matter of just seeing what the opportunity set looks like and how we feel about the risks.
John McDonald
OK, thank you.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Manan Gosalia from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Manan Gosalia
Hi, good morning, Jamie. Jeremy, you have one of the best views in on the US consumer. You mentioned that the economy is resilient, the consumer is healthy. Could you give us some more color on what you're seeing there? How resilient is consumer spend and credit if energy prices remain high? And are there any signs of cracks that you're seeing at all?
Jeremy Barnum
So you know, it's a good question, it's the right question. It's a question we get a lot and I sort of struggled to say something new and interesting every quarter. There really is not anything new or interesting to say this quarter. We've looked at it through every angle, you know, early roll rates, delinquency rates, cash buffer spend, discretionary spend, non discretionary spend, It all looks consistent with prior trends and you know, fundamentally healthy.
So let me add maybe just a little bit of nuance in the context of energy prices and what's going on this quarter. So I think, you know, gas or energy cost is something like 3% of the typical consumers expense expenditure, at least in our in our portfolio. So it's not nothing, but it's not overwhelming.
We've looked to see if there's kind of evidence in there of people, you know, trading decreasing other discretionary spending to adjust for higher gas prices, but it's just kind of not enough yet to be visible. I would caution though, I think it it remains fundamentally the case that the biggest single reason that the consumer credit performance is healthy is that the labor market is strong.
And you know, if you got, you know, bad outcomes in the Middle East, much higher energy prices or other problems that sort of do eventually crack what has been I think from many people's perspective, I think and surprisingly resilient American economy and a very resilient U.S. consumer. And that winds up having knock on effects on the labor market, then you will you will see that come through clearly.
But right now, in the end, the story remains, remains the same, which is resilient consumer that's doing. Despite higher gas prices. And I would just say that we're really getting too fine-tuned here, but it's being helped right now by higher tax refunds too.
Manan Gosalia
Yeah, Thanks Alex, that, that's really helpful. Thank you. And then separate follow up, just on the trading business, you know 1 is, are you seeing any signs of bad volatility here or are things you know with things in, in in March still pretty good? And then if you, if we look at trading assets that were up pretty significantly quarter on quarter, was there anything specific in the environment that drove that? Was that business as usual or is this some of the deployment, the ongoing deployment of excess capital Jeremy that you've been talking about?
Jeremy Barnum
OK. So sorry, I think there are several embedded questions in your following questions. So let me try to do this efficiently. So in short, no, we haven't really seen any so-called bad volatility. I'm sure there are pockets of that in some markets. But broadly at a high level, I think what we mean by that is the types of extremely gappy discontinuous markets with low liquidity that keep clients on the sidelines.
And as I say, I'm sure there have been pockets of that in certain sub segment segments of certain asset classes. But in general that is not has not been a characteristic of this quarter, which is I think part of the reason that the performance has been very good on trading assets. As I said a second ago, I think that was mostly Pau growth, mostly seasonal low risk density and you know, not particularly a function of capital deployment one way or the other.
I think to the extent that that plays out, that'll be a longer term phenomenon. And just to refer you back to my comments and company update, I think to really get that right, you need both, you know, to free up capital, but also to free up liquidity to allow banks to deploy against the broadest possible set of opportunities is for the real economy, not just kind of high risk density opportunities that require less liquidity per unit of capital.
Manan Gosalia
I appreciate that. Thanks for taking my questions.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Mike Mayo with Wells Fargo Securities. Your line is open.
Mike Mayo
Hi Jamie and your CEO letter as mentioned, you talked about private credit and you mentioned 1.7 trillion private credit market and which didn't really exist 2 decades ago as you know. How much of that 1.7 trillion would you say is a substitution effect from banks to private credit? And how much of that might be types of credit you never would have originated in the 1st place?
And with the regulatory changes and what's happening in the market, do you think you can recapture some of that share? And more generally, what are you doing with regard to the collateral? There's their new headlines in the past quarter that you're becoming more conservative with that. And lastly, what kind of spreads are you getting other spreads improving on this or staying the same?
Jamie Dimon
Yeah. So, you know, those are all really good questions. So the trillion said that actually was there before. There's always this and no, banks did it in some ways was arbitrage because banks were, you know, really discouraged from doing leveraged lending over a certain amount of over a certain amount of leverage. And then of course, you know, the competitive world finds new ways to do things which we're not against, you know how they do it.
There's a little bit of raise arbitrage and all these various things. But I do think, I mean it's really hard to say that half of it probably was arbitrage that you know, banks will can pick up some of that. You know, banks also look at relationships differently. You know, when a bank does a loan and middle market leveraged, Lenny, that's what this is.
We've been doing this for a long period of time, but we look at the relationship through extensively, not just the loan, but the rest of the relationship payments, custody, you know, asset management type of services, etcetera. So maybe some will come back. I'm not particularly concerned about it. And the spreads, you know, you can just track how spreads move around and every bank does it differently and every bank, you know, charges differently and stuff like that.
But you know, depending how concerned they are, they going to raise this present with the charging for private credit. Private credit spreads themselves and what they charge their clients have gone up and down. And you've actually seen loans go back and forth every now and then from the private credit mark from the bank syndicated loan market. So we'll see.
And we always had what we call marking rights, you know, to look at the underlying collateral. And that's just a right that protects you and gives you certain rights, things like that. You know, obviously, if you ever see credit getting worse and it's gotten not terribly worse, the actual credit, which a lot of these private equity private credit guys have pointed out, the actual credit hasn't gotten that much worse.
There are pockets where it has. And, you know, and credit spreads themselves haven't gotten much worse in general. But there are pockets where it has, so we'll be watching it closely. We think, you know, we're OK on all of that. Remains to be seen. I think the big point to me, Mike, is I don't think it's systemic, but I do think was a credit cycle.
And I'm not referring to private credit here because of underlying and leverage and picks and competition. And we've had a cycle for a long time. A lot of people are late to this game. I just don't expect every player is going to be the same. I think some will be. It won't be a bell curve. It'll be different than that and people may be surprised that some of the players aren't particularly good at it and that business will probably come back to banks.
Mike Mayo
And then separately, Jeremy, you mentioned no change in the core Nii despite being asset sensitive. And in terms of the deposit growth, you had some really amazing deposit growth and then kind of hit a air pocket for a little while in this quarter. Consumer deposits were up 2%. I guess taxes probably helped that out. Is this the start to getting back on that higher deposit growth path or not yet?
Jeremy Barnum
Well, I think air pocket is a little bit strong word, but fair enough. I recognize the dynamic that you're describing and I think it's a little bit too early to sort of say like, yeah, like we're back with like super robust consumer deposit growth partially because of your point actually about tax, because I think you're right, that probably is contributing a little bit right now.
But you know, at a high level, we talked about a company update on consumer deposit growth expectations being low to mid single digits. And I think that is still the belief and I think we'll be a little bit more confident in that I as as you say once we get through tax season. So I maybe we'll know a little bit more next quarter.
But I will say that you know through the lens of like net new checking accounts where I think we we said in the EPR that we we did over 450,000 this quarter. So that driver of sort of long term consumer deposit franchise growth is in place. And it just becomes a question of at the margin how you'll seeking flows develop and what that does to kind of balances per account as we talked about a company update.
So the right question, something we're watching a little bit early, but you know unchanged expectations and some signs as you point out that that the trend might be improving slightly. And then just to complete the picture on the wholesale side, as you'll recall last year was an exceptionally strong year for wholesale deposit growth.
So our expectations for this year were a little bit more modest. Actually the year starting out pretty well, some of the typical year end seasonal increases that we tend to see roll off have not quite rolled off to the extent that we would have expected. So you know, I'd still think the core view is for significantly less robust growth than last year, but from a core franchise perspective things feel pretty good there.
Mike Mayo
Right, Thank you.
Operator
Thank you. Next we will go to the line of Gerard Cassidy with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Gerard Cassidy
Hi Jeremy. Hi, Jamie. Jeremy, obviously the first quarter of the expense levels were a little elevated relative to the full year guide. You know if you annualize it out of course. Can you give us some color that you know how you're going to bring down the following 3/4 to be able to hit the year end guide that you gave us at about 105 billion?
Jeremy Barnum
Yeah. So I would somewhat discourage you from like annualizing quarterly expense run rates because there's a lot of seasonality in the volume and revenue related component of that as a function of the seasonality of the markets revenue in particular. But I think and and I think, you know, in reality, as you all know, Gerard, that's kind of like not how we manage the company.
Meaning, I don't think you meant that you meant this obviously, but the implication of your question is that like, oh, the numbers are a bit high in the first quarter. Let's like run around and find some expenses to cut in order to meet our guidance. And that's kind of like not how we do things like we just manage the expenses holistically every day of the week.
But at a high level, I think you're actually getting at something important, which is that when you consider the exceptionally strong performance of the markets and banking business this quarter, you actually might have otherwise expected us to revise up the full year expense guidance because realistically, I think no one could have.
It's implausible to imagine that we would have budgeted the level of performance that we saw this quarter in markets. Banking and that almost done, almost done so is expected to be quite good. And anyway I hope every quarter is this good and then our expense target would be love to spend more money because we did so well.
OK. But I still want to make my point which is that Gerard, I would discourage you from drawing the conclusion that for the purposes of the whole year we are going to see the amount of implied internal offset between volume and revenue related and other expenses that is implied in the failure to revise the guidance this quarter. It's just a little early in the year. So let's see how things play out in the next quarter or so.
Certainly volumes and if every quarter was as good as this quarter, we will spend more than one O 5 for a very good reason.
Gerard Cassidy
Yeah, no question about that. One O 5 is not a promise, it's a outcome of business results which it which you've said in the past, Jamie, good expense growth. I, I we all completely understand. As a follow up question on digital assets, stable coin on the continuum that we're on for, you know, adopting these types of new technologies.
Can you guys give us an update where you see this moving in terms of deposit impact possibly, but more importantly, payments? Obviously, you're a very large payments company and how are you guys assessing it? Thank you.
Jeremy Barnum
Sure. I mean there's like so much to say on the stablecoin front. Obviously there's a lot of like legislative and regulatory stuff going on. I think Gerard, your question is a little bit more about sort of long term impact on the payments ecosystem. So I guess through that lens, I would actually start with the wholesale business and talk about all of the innovation that we've done in sort of modernizing payments through connects us and the way that some of that is starting to play out and, and giving a lot of our customers kind of exciting new features like programmable money and different hours and the the, the, the associated, you know, tokenized deposits and all that type of stuff.
So we're super excited to embrace this type of innovation and be part of it. You know, and the question a little bit is how does that relate to to our existing franchise and in the context of wholesale payments, I think it's just part of an overall product offering. I think sometimes people think that you're going to have some stable coin thing that's going to like radically disrupt the existing wholesale payments paradigm.
And I think that's not quite the right way to look at it only because wholesale payments is already an incredibly efficient, extremely low margin business with very sophisticated clients. And so it's not as if you know a little bit to Jamie's earlier comment, it's not like there's one of these like your margin is my opportunity type situation.
And wholesale payments, it's already a very modern, very technologically sophisticated, pretty low margin business where we're constantly delivering innovation, including with some of these sort of new technologies. On the consumer side, you know, people talk about like what is the consumer use case for stablecoin? And you know, one version of it, it's like digital cash.
And there's all the obvious like KYC implications of that. And I think maybe that's where, you know, you get a little bit into the legislative and regulatory front where, you know, there's some new developments on that whole thing associated with this notion of like, you know, to what extent is the payment of rewards or proxy for interest.
And that sort of turns it into instead of stable going being an interesting form of innovation, it's just regulatory arbitrage so that you can run a bank without being subject to the important regulatory protections, both potentially and for consumers in terms of KYC and stuff like that. So we're eager to compete, we're eager to innovate. We're innovating all over the place.
We definitely support the certainty that comes from this legislation. But as we get closer, this is some form of finalization there. It's very important that the same product be regulated, same risk be regulated in the same way. And it doesn't become the case that, you know, you just create a giant arbitrage back door for the prohibition on the payment of interest for stable points. So we'll see how that that plays out.
Gerard Cassidy
Gentlemen, as always, thank you.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from David Chevarini with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
David Chevarini
Hi, thanks actually with Jefferies, but thanks for taking the question. So wanted to follow up on. Welcome to a call. Thank you. Thank you so much. Wanted to follow up on the consumer deposits. So interest bearing deposit costs were down nicely in the quarter. Could you talk about the opportunity going? Going forward in light of the changes in the forward curve,
Jeremy Barnum
OK, that's an interesting formulation. I sort of don't actually know the number you're quoting, but I suspect it's just a function of the rate curve at the touch that came through last year. Go ahead. I would just keep it simple. The margin would be about what it is today, give or take a couple of basis points up or down. There are a lot of factors in there like what kind of accounts you're opening, tax refunds and all that. So, but roughly the same for now.
Yeah. I mean, I was going to pivot to the broader question, I guess, which you talk about in terms of opportunity. And I think that, you know, there's the, as Jamie says, there's the just the yield curve flowing through the high beta portions of the deposit franchise. And then there's the low beta portion of the franchise where I wouldn't say there's quote UN quote a lot of opportunity to price down because I think as is well known, the price there is already quite low.
But it's in the context of an overall service just bundle where you know a lot of clients with relatively low balances are getting a lot of value in the package. So I guess I would leave it there.
David Chevarini
Thanks for that. And then shifting over to a follow up on on private credit. So there's still a lot of attention on this and the banks, I think the banks are well protected, but can you remind us of the structure of these loans in terms of typical advance rates and embedded credit enhancement that protects your position?
Jamie Dimon
I think you're asking for too much of this information. They are seeing their loans on top of leveraged loans. So you're senior to the actual loans themselves and they're each one is different, you know the loan to value, the trigger, the loan to value and all the things like that. So, but you can probably figure those that are if you look at the disclosures on the BDCS etcetera,
Jeremy Barnum
Yeah, I do think it's, it's reasonable to to remind I guess the market of some things that we've said before about this space, right. So yes, they're you know, each client, each relationship is a slightly different structure. But at a high level, as Jamie points out as a senior position, the portfolios are well diversified. There are a number of protections that we have, conservative advance rates, good underwriting, sector concentration caps, cash flow trapping mechanisms, etcetera, etcetera.
So as we often say that we do is riskless, but this is a space that we're quite comfortable with as a function of very close scrutiny on the way that we do the business and ensuring that the underwriting is high quality and that we've got a bunch of structural protection. And the BDC's have statutory rules that they can't exceed in terms of loan to loans at the parent, which is sometimes one and sometimes a little bit more than that.
David Chevarini
Very helpful. Thank you.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Ibrahim Punuwala with Bank of America. Your line is open.
Ibrahim Punuwala
Hey, good morning. I guess just one question on AI, one on the risk side, one on the opportunity side. On the risks, maybe Jamie or Jeremy, if you can just give us a sense of it's very hard for investors and for us from the outside to handicap cyber risk. We saw the headlines last week around L&M enabled cyber risks being discussed in DC.
Like is this a different level of risks? And how would you characterize the preparedness of the banking system to handle this if something were to happen and we see headlines? I'm just wondering what would be the implications of that as we think about just systemic risks, etcetera.
Jamie Dimon
So cyber, you know, we've been talking about cyber risk for a long time. In fact, I think I said the chairman's letter is our largest risk. So I think J every, every industry is different. So in context, I think JP Moore is very well protected. We spend a lot of money, we've got top experts, we're in constant contact with the government, we're constant updating things.
And I put and, but AI has made it worse. It's made it harder. Of course, we read about Mythos, which we're testing now and looking at it does create, you know, additional vulnerabilities and maybe down the road, you know, better ways to strengthen yourself too. The cyber risk isn't isolated to banks. You know, it's like you can look at almost any industry and also banks, of course, are attached to exchanges and all these other things that create other layers of risk, which, you know, we work with a lot of people to protect themselves.
So it isn't a complex 1. It's a full time job and we're doing it all the time. And while we're trying to get the benefits AI, we also are very cognizant of the risks of cyber. I think the government's aware of it too. And remember, you have cyber criminals, you have cyber states, you have cyber everywhere. And that's that's why you have to be quite careful.
So I say the banks in total are rather well protected. That doesn't mean everything that banks rely on is that well protected.
Jeremy Barnum
Yeah. And I think there's one just minor extension of what Jamie said that it's worth pointing out, which is, you know, obviously we've been, he's specifically been talking about the importance of being prepared for cyber risk for many, many, many years. But I think even more recently, even before this sort of latest set of headlines around the latest on traffic models, there's been a clear understanding that AI and generative AI in particular, brings both risks and opportunities from the cyber risk management perspective.
So it's not like this is the first time that anyone's thought about the way in which these more recent generative AI tools can both make it easier to find vulnerabilities, but then also potentially be deployed by bad actors and attack mode. So obviously now you've got an even higher level of attention as a result of the apparently much greater capabilities of the latest models. But that is still happening on a continuum that we've been engaged with for really quite a long time.
Jamie Dimon
And then that's everyone that bone. I think it's also important to look at a lot of this hygiene, you know, is your new software being tested before it goes in place and you ask them to do certain things to protect the company. How do you protect your data? How do you protect your networks, your routers, your hardware, changing your pass codes? I mean, a lot of it's just doing all those things, right?
You know who may have to reduce the risk and and you've seen a lot of banks there, they haven't had of some of those risks like ransomware and things like that, at least not that I know.
Ibrahim Punuwala
Yeah. And on the no that is helpful. Thank you. Because I think it's something that investors struggle with on the opportunity side. I think what it feels like the productivity boost, which for us translates into what the long term efficiency ratio could be, could be meaningful from AI deployment just given the speed at which the technology is evolving.
Maybe talk to that. And also, does it create new business opportunities where maybe it's extending the perimeter of JP Morgan's business into new things that were harder to do and are now easier to sort of put together and and grow as a business given AI driven technologies?
Jamie Dimon
So the on the first question, I think it's a bad idea to think you can deploy AI and improve your efficiency ratio because in the competitive world, I'm going to do it, everyone else is going to do it and the benefits will be passed on to the marketplace. It's not like you're entitled to have your ROV go to 50% and that'll stay there because you do it better than everybody else.
You make it a head start, you want a head start, but I just don't, I think that's just not a rational thing that somehow that will be the ultimate outcome. But the second question, absolutely it creates opportunities because you know, if you look at and you'll just take our consumer business, it's true in all businesses, but just take the consumer business with the data you have.
And now we call it, you know, connected commerce, we can do travel and offers and all of these various things that people want. So you can use your relationship with the client, the data you have to make the client happier. We do a lot to reduce risk and fraud and scam by using AI. We do a lot better job on prospecting. We offer AI services to clients, et cetera.
So it will enhance a lot of things you can do directly and it will create more adjacencies in my opinion, if you can use it quickly and wisely.
Ibrahim Punuwala
Got it. Thank you both.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Matt O'Connor with Deutsche Bank. Your line is open.
Matt O'Connor
Hi, I want to start with a big picture question on trading. It's been amazingly strong this quarter or the last few years really, no matter whether markets are good or bad. We've had shocks and, you know, commodities this quarter, rates, credit, equities. And it's not just, you know, you and others kind of managing well, but it does seem like the client base is also managing it very well.
And I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on that, on why it's been so consistently strong across a variety of environments.
Jamie Dimon
Yeah. So, you know, just to put in the big picture, which our folks do an excellent job, you know, and if you meet with them, you'd be very impressed with their knowledge, their brain power. And, you know, and we buy and sell, you know, almost $4 trillion a day. And you make a little bit each time you buy and sell. And then you have to manage the exposure to the risk.
So they do a great job in that. Every now and then you're on the wrong side of something, a credit or commodity or rate rate side of something like that. And, and you see that. But to me, that's, that's kind of the cost of doing business. That's like a retailer having inventory that they can't sell.
The real question is, do you serve your clients every day, you know, with great products and great services and great execution? You know, and the answer is yes. And that's where the real business is. And what you see today is much more volume and volatility, which generally helps because it makes breads a little bit wider. All things being equal, there will be times where you're going to be sitting here and say that volatility killed us if you were on the wrong side of something.
But in. In general, you're serving huge investors around the world who have $350 trillion, you know, with so much products and services that that's the business of trading. And I remind people it's not that different. You know, when you go to Home Depot, they have inventory, they put it in, they put it out, they mark it up, they mark it down. They don't call it trading, but there's that element of risk management there.
So, but you know, fabulous people, you know, doing a great job for clients, you know, very conscious of risk they take sometimes they, we take a risk that we, you know, we, we were wrong and we're OK with that. We never panic over that. We don't, you've never seen us say, my God, we were on the wrong side of this trade. No, because we're there serving clients.
And very often you're the wrong side of the trade because the client wants to sell and you're not really dying to buy, but you do it anyway to serve a client. And so it's a business. It's a very good business,
Jeremy Barnum
yeah. And I just one minor extension of that that I think supports the larger point is the thing we've said a couple Times Now, which is, yeah, the revenues have been great and the performance is very good. We're deploying a ton of capital in this business actually and a lot more over the last few years. And I think the returns that we're getting are good there.
They're actually below the 17% of the company as a whole. That's fine and we're serving clients and it's much better than alternative uses of capital. But I think the important to understand is that it's not as if you're getting giant amounts of revenue growth with the same capital base in ways that you might think are unsustainable. Part of what's going on here is that we're deploying more capital and getting healthy returns.
Matt O'Connor
Helpful. And then I guess a good segue into kind of a broader Capital Management question. Obviously a lot of comments on the RE proposals and but as you think about kind of Capital Management going forward, any updated thoughts on and you still have a big buffer obviously on today's required levels three years from now or two years from now generate a ton of capital.
You know, obviously very solid buybacks this quarter you grew organically as you mentioned, but just any updated thoughts on how to think about cap allocation going forward? Thank you.
Jamie Dimon
Yeah, so we obviously have a lot of excess capital which today we measure around 40 billion. Obviously I can change depending on ultimate rules and regulations and we prefer to deploy the capital serving clients and the way we you see us serving clients, we have more bankers, innovation economy, more global banking and doing commercial banking overseas, opening countries, opening payment systems, opening branches. That is ultimately what deploys capital all the time building the client base.
It doesn't happen overnight. The outcome isn't deploy capital. I mean the goal isn't deploy capital build, you know, wonderful businesses that use capital, intelligent overtime developing, you know, with a client, mainly with a client focus on it. And I think when I look at the the world today, if you look at the world that is so big and so complex and the capital needs, you know, when you look at the small, you know, we're going to be, we're one of the biggest small business bankers out there.
But look at the capital needs of countries today, you know, the remilitarization of the world, the infrastructure that people need. I think there'd be huge capital needs of companies, but huge mergers. I mean, some of these companies, when I look at themselves, we're not big enough to serve them anymore. And so we think there will be more opportunity to serve, you know, large clients in the ways that they need it over time.
And that could be M&A, it could be countries, it could be built, you know, helping them build the infrastructure they need. So, and that'll happen over time. We're not in a rush. You know, our preferred way of using capital is not buying back stock today. We're doing it, you know, fair market value and all that, but rather buy back stock. We think it's a real discount and the ongoing shareholder gets the benefits buying it cheap.
Matt O'Connor
OK, thank you very much.
Jamie Dimon
In fact, I wanted to move that little thing that says cash returned to investors, which is dividends, The stock buyback, I don't particularly like that because I think it puts you in an artificial position thinking that's always a good thing when it's not.
Matt O'Connor
OK, we'll add that to the list. Next question.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Glenn Schorr with Evercore ISI. Your line is open.
Glenn Schorr
Hi, thanks very much. That last comment leads into my question. I'll just merge my question and follow together because it's easier. So those things that you just mentioned Jamie on the big capital needs, some of those are very long duration. I'm curious on how you, how much you think of that plays into a long duration private markets balance sheet or can can big public banks finance that?
And so you mentioned in your letter the market might be a little too relaxed about higher for longer rates and I'm curious how you see that playing into all these direct lending double B and single B credits that needs to get refinanced. And while we're at it, the follow up is. You size your private credit exposure. So sorry to smush that all together, but I'll end it on that.
Jeremy Barnum
So Jamie, sorry, if you don't mind. Let me just answer Glenn's second question first because I think it would be useful for the market to have the the size number out there. So I'll do that quickly. And then and then if you want to take the first part of the question. So Glenn, let me just frame this in context because I think the question of private market exposure or the definition of that, it means, as you know, a lot of different things love different people.
So let me just quickly run through. So you'll remember last quarter we did a walk in the context of NBFI from the 3:30 in the call report to the 160 that we consider core NBFI exposure, which we defined in that context. I won't go through that again. So inside of that 160, there's about 50 that we would call private credit and it's essentially the portion of that 160 of NBFI which involves leveraged loan investors.
So that's some of the stuff that we've been talking about almost all in terms of back leverage and BC lending that has all these characteristics in terms of underwriting, diversification, cash flow trapping, etcetera, which is why, you know we're broadly comfortable with it. So I just thought it would be worth sizing that in that context.
There are obviously other pieces of that like direct lending or subscription lines that are variously in or out of various different measures and that you could consider like in a broader definition. But it's our sense is that the thing that people are interested in is this kind of like leverage, loan back leverage type stuff. And that's about 50 billion for us. So with that, I'll hand it back to Jamie.
Jamie Dimon
Yeah, so the way the way I look at, so banks aren't going to warehouse very long data stuff in their balance sheet. But you know, when you have investment grade or even large non investment grade, you know, private markets and public markets are going to come together as we people have to make markets in those things, do research in those things.
I think it's going to be harder for private credit to do, not all of them, you know, but to do large investment grade stuff. So they've done it, you know, but like I said, they have to compete with us on that and we're willing to do it too. We always take the cost to do they want to do a large direct lending investment grade deal. We will present that side by side with a bank syndicated loan or something different.
But I do think you're going to see a lot of creative capital, a lot of creative financing, a lot of institutions out there need long dated assets. Think of you know, pension plans and you know, Social Security plans, all these various things like that. So our job is to intermediate, they come with ideas to, you know, to turn it over, you know, sometimes put in the balance sheet, the stuff in the balance should be short of dated, but it's all opportunity.
And I think that the requirements of the world are going up fairly dramatically in the infrastructure, infrastructure writ large, almost everything's infrastructure today, you know, utilities and roads and bridges and data centers and GPU's and and so it all, it's all there. But we're going to do a great job serving clients and and so we're not worried about that.
But I do think you'll see in certain categories private markets and public markets come a lot closer and how they look at values and trading and secondary markets, etcetera.
Glenn Schorr
Does that conclude your question, Glenn? Yeah, the higher for longer part and if that has an impact on all some of that single BWB paper that's coming due for refinancing.
Jamie Dimon
Yeah, no, you know, Glen, that's like a basic risk management where, you know, when you look at the world, you got to look at, you know, what's going to happen in a recession. And I'm not talking about, I'm not forecasting anything. I'm simply saying for JP Morgan, we have to be prepared for a recession and that, you know, you have stagflation.
You know, you see people mention that we have to be prepared for stagflation. You know, obviously if you have stagflation and higher rates for longer and credit price gap out, that will put a lot of stress and strain on leveraged companies as they refinance, you know, and those get fixed. Sometimes people put in more capital credit, sometimes reduce their CapEx plans.
You know, it doesn't, it's not an immediate disaster overnight, but it would put a lot more stress and strain in people. And I'd pointed out that if there's a credit cycle, I do expect it'll be worse than people think relative to the scenario. It's not a disaster. We're used to credit cycles. We'll be big boys about it, you know, But as the prices go down, credit spreads are going down, people may get a little nervous about some of those things.
We don't think it's systemic. You know, that's more I would put in the category of traditional recessionary behavior.
Glenn Schorr
All right, thanks for all that. Appreciate it.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Jim Mitchell with Seaport Global Securities. Your line is open.
Jim Mitchell
Good morning. Just maybe a quick question on investment banking. It seems like activity held up pretty well in March, but just want to get your thoughts on that. Has there been any pushing out of any pause and activity levels and pushing out of the pipeline? Just any thoughts on the pipeline? How you're looking in the near to intermediate term? Thanks.
Jeremy Barnum
Sure. Yeah, I mean, I think it's true that activity held up well. The other thing that I think is worth noting is that, you know, some of the robust result this quarter is the result of actually accelerated timing on M and a deal closure and some of that was as a result of faster than expected regulatory approval. So that's obviously all to the good. But I, I think it's sort of unrelated one way or the other to like overall sentiment.
On the question of overall sentiment on the pipeline, I would describe it as resilient, maybe surprisingly resilient given everything that's going on. But I also think, you know, the timelines in the Middle East are kind of quite short. There are deadlines or negotiations. I think it's reasonable for people to kind of proceed with their plans in the hope or maybe expectation that we've got relatively quick resolutions.
But if things start getting derailed, I would be surprised if you didn't see some impact on sentiment and on deal decision making. But for right now it seems quite resilient.
Jim Mitchell
OK. And just a follow up on the balance sheet growth in in markets, it has been strong, I think up over 20% year over year. Were you saying when you think about the the impact of the G sub surcharge on JP Morgan specifically, does that start to impinge your ability to to grow that as much as you want? How how is that factoring into your capital decision in the markets business?
Jeremy Barnum
I think the first answer is yes. And that's a big part of the reason that we spent the time that we spent today talking about the problems with the surcharge. You know it, it disproportionately accrues the markets business, it disproportionately accrues to the relatively low risk density type of stuff that the market that the client base really needs and wants these days.
And that's why we think it's important that regulators think very carefully about what they're actually trying to achieve here.
Jamie Dimon
And one other thing, we will obviously use our brain power to do something I don't like doing, which is trying to find a lot of ways to serve our clients properly and reduce the G SIP charge, which is usually called arbitrage. So I'm not sure the outcome is great for the system, but we will find ways to do it.
Jim Mitchell
OK, great. Thanks.
Operator
Thank you. Our last question comes from Kung Pong Ma with China Securities. Your line is open.
Kung Pong Ma
Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for taking my time. This is Kung Pong of China Securities. I have a quick follow up on Private credit. I, I totally agree with Jamie that there is no systematic risk at this moment as long as we assume the every type of capital expenditures continue with good yield outlook.
So it comes down to the company specific questions like how does JP Morgan ensure it's a capability of, of selecting the, the, the, the, you know, top tier projects. How, how you know, how do you ensure you stay, stay with those, those good guys and stay away from those that guys? Thank you.
Jamie Dimon
Yeah. So we, we are quite disciplined and credit, you know, there's certain things we turn down. We don't like the covenants, the underwriting or the ability to move assets out of the secured, you know, company or something like that. And we're perfectly willing to have our balance sheet go down. You know, if in fact, we think credit is getting strategy, you will see us not make loans.
Actually, we don't want to. We're just not willing to meet those terms. And so that's how we do it. We underwrite, you know, when it comes to most clients, including private credit, we underwrite the company, the loans, the covenants, the, the, all those various things. And you know, credit's a discipline.
You know, like I said, loans or all of them are an outcome of doing good business sometimes. If the loan book drops 10% next year, we would be completely fine if we thought the loans that we were walking away from were irresponsible.
Kung Pong Ma
Does that conclude your question? Thank you. Thank you, Jamie.
Operator
Great. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thanks. Thanks everybody. Thank you all for participating in today's conference. You may disconnect at this time and have a great rest of your day you.
Details at JPMorgan IR
Tips: The content presented above were generated by AI language model with publicly available information and auto-generated subtitles from third-party. The above material does not represent the position of Futu and shall not constitute any investment advice. Futu makes no express or implied warranties or representations regarding the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of the information shown in the above content.
Risk Disclaimer: The above content only represents the author's view. It does not represent any position or investment advice of Futu. Futu makes no representation or warranty.Read more
Comments (22)
to post a comment
22
4