JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

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

Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. The firm delivered net income of $15.3 billion, EPS of $5.57 and an ROTCE of 20%. These results included $658 million of net investment securities losses and corporate. Revenue of $50.9 billion was up 8% year-on-year. Excluding the net investment securities losses, revenue was up 9% year-on-year, largely driven by markets revenue, higher deposit balances and higher asset management fees and AWM and CCB. Expenses of $27.3 billion were up 12% year-on-year, largely driven by higher volume and revenue-related expenses as well as -- and wage inflation. And credit costs were $2.7 billion with net charge-offs of $2.2 billion and a net reserve build of $539 million. In terms of the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with a standardized CET1 ratio of 13.9%, down 30 basis points versus the prior quarter as net income was more than offset by OCI losses, higher RWA and capital distributions. You'll note that we've updated the categories on the RWA walk to make it a bit more useful. This quarter's standardized RWA increase of about $52 billion is predominantly driven by an increase in lending across banking, markets and AWM as well as the impact of higher energy prices and increased market volatility. Now moving to our businesses. CCB reported net income of $5.7 billion. Revenue of $21.2 billion was up 9% year-on-year, predominantly driven by higher balances in yield in card, asset management fees, deposit balances and auto lease income. A few points to highlight debit and credit spend grew 10% year-on-year with continued momentum across lending categories, including gas and travel supported by consumer demand. Deposit growth of 4% year-on-year was stronger this quarter as we continue to grow our customer base across consumer and business banking, and we retained our #1 position in retail deposit share based on FTSE data. And by investment assets gross $1.4 trillion, up 15% year-on-year, driven by market performance and strong flows. Next, the CIB reported net income of $8.2 billion. Revenue of $22.7 billion was up 14% year-on-year on strong performance across the businesses. IB fees were up 14% year-on-year, reflecting strong performance across products, notably in advisory. While our outlook remains constructive, supported by ongoing client engagement, evolving market conditions have recently slowed activity a bit, so we'll have to see how the quarter develops. Markets fixed income was down 4% year-on-year, with lower revenues in commodities, rates and credit, largely offset by higher client flows in currencies in emerging markets. Equities was up 49% year-on-year with continued outperformance across the franchise, notably in prime and derivatives. Turning to Asset & Wealth Management. AWM reported net income of $1.8 billion with a pretax margin of 36%. Revenue of $6.9 billion was up 14% year-on-year, predominantly driven by growth in management fees on higher average market levels, strong net inflows as well as higher loan balances. Long-term net inflows were $51 billion, largely driven by continued strength in fixed income. AUM of $5.2 trillion was up 13% year-on-year, and client assets of $7.9 trillion were up 15% year-on-year, driven by continued net inflows and higher market levels. Finally, Corporate reported a net loss of $455 million, which included the net investment securities loss, as mentioned earlier, on revenue of $93 million. Turning to the outlook. I'm going to update the full year guidance by giving you the fourth quarter, implied full year numbers are on the page. We expect fourth quarter NII ex Markets be approximately $25.5 billion and fourth quarter total NII to be about $28 billion. And as we've done for a couple of years, you'll note we gave you a central case for 2027 NII ex Markets of approximately $107 billion, which will refine for the next quarter. It's important to remember that this central case is based on a series of assumptions that are obviously highly uncertain even under the best of ourcumstances. On expense, we expect the fourth quarter to be about $27.5 billion, with the implied full year increase, reflecting higher volume and revenue-related expense driven by continued elevated activity levels. Finally, we continue to expect the card net charge-off rate to be approximately 3.2%. With that, we're now happy to take your questions. So let's open the line for Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Ebrahim Poonawala with Bank of America.

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

I'll start and you want to jump in, yes. Okay. So on the disruption point, a couple of things. There's obviously been a lot of focus on Smart Cash solution, which I think is a small piece of the overall state, but that is live now actually, as of last go weeks, very, very early days, and it remains kind of a targeted pilot type thing, but it is interesting to learn some things about what clients care about and sort of see how it works to kind of sell a product like this in the field. So -- more to come on that in the future. Early days interesting so far. I think the bigger picture here is around -- there have been a couple of releases of personal agents this quarter, which have really gotten a bunch of attention in the market, and we saw a little bit of a response in bank stocks around those releases. And I guess the way we think about that, from our perspective is that -- on the one hand, it's nothing new and -- but that doesn't mean that we're complacent about it. So if you think about what is the nature of the competition that comes from these agents, it's really the intersection of two things that we've been talking about for a long time. One is yield-seeking flows. So obviously, we deal today and have dealt with all the various lots at rate cycles with a lot of competition from field in flows. And our strategy remains focusing on primary bank share, not chasing every dollar of yield-seeking money. So that doesn't mean that competitive pressure isn't real. It just means it's not particularly new. The other piece is competition from Fintex for innovating and providing great customer experiences. We've also been talking about that for a long time and the criticality of ensuring that we have parity with them and that we're leaning in enough to make sure that we're giving people the experiences that they want through all the various channels, including digital. And so in that sense, the kind of agentic personal agents, whatever stuff, it's just the intersection of those two things, and it's not new. As I said, that doesn't mean we're complacent about it. We're spending a lot of time on it, and it's going to be interesting to see how the space develops and what we ourselves offer there at some point. But when you take a really big step back from a competitive position, I think we really like our hand in no small part because of the sort of multiple decades of investment in the branch network, the value proposition and not least, costs that our customers have in us.

I'll just add, internally, we use agents to do good things here, and we're going to continue to do that. And we do -- we'll use it for customers, but I'll probably always be do a great job for customers. And so we're not against agents or agents something like that. There are polls you're using for customers. There is a defensive side, which is you got to make sure our customers aren't worked by it. And so that is of concern, but this -- think of that as an AI agentic concern, which is heightened because you don't want rogue agents, and there could be thousands of them. And -- so we've always been literally on the side of the client that people are using them, they should understand the risk. There's a liability transfer, they should understand liability transfer. If that is being misused, it shows being misused. So we have to make sure we protect our customer in the right kind of way. So we will be -- we're building tools to do that, too. In the meantime, we're not going to allow just any agent to come outside Asia to come in inside the company because it's just too risky for clients and for JPMorgan.

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

We always prepare for all different events. And that's not the same as predicting them because we want to be a strong company, helping our clients our communities, countries around the world with the coin. So of course, things like that could happen. But we never take it off the table. It could happen for good reason, we still have demand for capital, a lot of productivity and things you're fine, we can have or a bad reason, and picking inflation around the world. It can happen not figure what's in the United States have what happens overseas. So we're not predicting it I've always thought there's a higher chance of other people. I still kind of think that, but that's not a prediction. That's just a of that as cautious preparation.

Our next question comes from John McDonald with Truist.

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

Yes. Sure, John. No problem. So if you start with what we've given you is the NII ex market guide for fourth quarter, which is 21.5% and you annualize that, you get something like [ 102 ]. So we're essentially giving you guiding to $5 billion of growth from that to the [ 107 ] million. That $5 billion, probably about 1/4 of that, I would say, is related to the yield curve. So we remain asset sensitive and probably a little bit more asset sensitive than the EAR shows just because of the lower than modeled deposit betas. So about 1/4 of that is the hikes that are currently in the forward curve. I think there's one in December and then two through the first half of the year. And the rest of it, I would actually describe pretty straightforwardly as just a continuation of the balance sheet growth and mix trends that you've seen this year. So both continued modest consumer deposit growth, continued wholesale deposit growth, probably wholesale a bit weaker than what was very strong this year, but we don't actually know. And then card loans is obviously can be a big driver of NII, continued at comp level. So actually a pretty straightforward story, I would say, as, but I gave you the caveat on the prepared remarks.

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

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

Yes. So we try to draw a little bit of the sanction between NII and expenses in the sense that despite Jamie's comments, which are obviously true that we can modify the structure of the balance sheet to change the NII, in general, undisturbed, the NII is kind of a property of the balance sheet at a given point in time and is not that sensitive to the budget cycle, and therefore, we feel like we don't have a very good excuse at this point in the year ending that we don't have an opinion about 2027. Expenses are a little different in the sense that they are still sent into budget cycle, and there are a lot of discretionary decisions to get made in there. And while we have some preliminary views, we're kind of not done with that. And you will remember, obviously, John, last year, we did point out that our preliminary return expenses suggested that the market's consensus was a bit off that seems to be quite a bit less true this year. So we see the consensus right now for 2027 expenses being around $114 billion. And our current preliminary read isn't too far from that. So kind of -- no news on that front, I would say, and let's see how the budget cycle finishes. And as Jamie points out, I think the uncertainty isn't just about the macro environment. It's also about how dynamic the investment picture is and the effects of AI, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So a lot of moving parts. But for now, the consensus doesn't seem too far off.

Our next question comes from Erika Najarian with UBS.

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

Yes. So I think we've told you all that we have probably $30 billion or something of excess capital roughly just estimating what all the end games are, which we don't know, but that's plenty. But the capital hire has always been the same. After you pay a dividend, which hopefully be steady, we like -- we really like investing in organic growth, that is the highest and best use of capital for our shareholders. And obviously, buyback comes after that, particularly when stock prices are up. So the positive news is the main reason the buyback is down, and it's got another to do with AOCI or guessing about the environment or maybe Basel III. We believe now, which is different than we told you in the past that we can redeploy that capital at very good returns over time. And redeploying that capital at very good terms over time is far better than buying stock at a 6% or whatever the earnings yield would be if you reported today, and that's simple. I mean that's good. That's good for shows. And I'll give you one example, and I think there are many more, but the security resiliency initiative, we told you all we deployed $1.5 trillion over 10 years. And we haven't -- I don't think we disclosed the number, but the first year is probably over [ 200 ] already. and we'll disclose that and do some work on it. But I guess, it will be considerably more than that. And the world needs capital, the World needs advice, the world become more complex assets under management around the world are bigger. And so we think there's good news in the long run. And we can't tell you what it means for the next 6 months, but that's why we're doing it. We hope to deploy it very well for our shareholders.

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

I want to -- on the investment bank a little bit. But they've hired a tremendous amount of very talented people in SRI and we're lucky to have Todd Combs here, investing some of the capital. They've had a lot of ideas, so not just meeting at this point. They've helped fund some interesting types of things. We have more ideas. They're doing a really great policy around it, too, which is what can you do to accelerate security resilience in the United States around its shipbuilding or -- and we had a big announcement in Philadelphia. So I just -- I'm proud of them. We've had a bunch of people who retired to raise their hand. They're coming back more for patients than anything else. And so it's been just a great effort for the company. And as we pointed out, is global and the global response has also been exceptional. We have something across my desk, which is alone over $10 billion or $20 billion in financing in one country. So a lot more to come. I would put in the same category of American Dream initiative the innovation economy initiative, the commercial banking initiative around the world, these things are working. We think we're doing the right kind of good business at good returns.

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

Before I do that, the bond volatility, the market, the fear is not going to change what we do. We serve clients with ticketing, we know that colon of the economic wins. It's the weather, that's not exactly referred to. The pipeline is fine. But I point out many times before, the pipeline is like an accordion. They can open close pretty quick. You've seen in the United States has been, as Jeremy said, it were delayed probably, we don't really know when we'll see. And I was in Europe recently, and the pipeline there is actually quite healthy and even more so in IPOs than we would have thought. So we just don't know and certainly the clients are doing a good job for the most important thing pipeline. We always forecast the pipeline as you call it, the probability the profit -- and we know one thing for sure. It will be wrong.

It's more to emphasize like when Jamie and I talk about not knowing, I think we mean we don't obviously know exactly what investment banking fee revenue is going to be in the fourth quarter. I think that we do know that the overall environment is robust and supportive and there's a lot of business that wants to get done and needs to get done. And as you point out, Erika, not surprisingly, given the rate sell-off, you're going to have the market take a little bit of a breadth and a pause to make sure buyers and sellers can meet on valuation terms. And so we did see a little bit of that slowdown in the second half of September, basically. And we'll see how that plays out into December. But -- I mean, sorry, into the fourth quarter. But the big picture I think, is pretty clear.

Our next question comes from Chris McGratty with KBW.

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

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

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

I mean, obviously, if you keep real rates very, very high for a long time, at some level, that's designed to slow down economic activity to fight inflation. And it's hard to imagine that, that wouldn't have an impact on the consumer. So far, what we see in the current data and what's been true, I would say, for the last few years, the consumer has been quite resilient in the face of a number of headwinds that under different circumstances you might have expected would present a challenge. But I think the conditional expectation of consumer credit help as a function of higher rates is a fairly nuanced question. But fundamentally, the picture is pretty simple, like the consumer is currently very healthy, primarily because of a healthy labor market. But if the Central Bank needs things to cool off and that involves a aggressive extended rate cycle almost by definition, that's going to involve higher unemployment, which will produce weaker consumer credit results.

Our next question comes from Ken Usdin with Autonomous Research.

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

Sure. Yes, it's an important question. It's a good question. I think the simple answer is no significant change to our core expectations here. I think we've seen kind of the reassertion of consumer deposit growth over the last couple of quarters as the yield-seeking flows have faded and that continues to be our basic expectation. So that's the big picture. I do think that since that outlook was shaped, we have seen a somewhat higher rate environment, and that does raise the question of what will be the impact of that on consumer deposits. So in the normal course, you will obviously have higher rate paid from the high beta products from CDs and premium deposits. And all else equal, you would probably expect some amount of additional internal migration out of checking and savings into CDs for simplicity, resulting in a higher weighted average rate paid and maybe you see a little bit of additional outflow pressure, which results in, therefore, slightly weaker deposit growth. So that's all totally speculative. And it's very much a function of which side of the argument you land on in terms of some people believe, well, all the cash sorting that's going to happen has already happened and therefore, these things are relatively insensitive to slightly higher rates. I don't personally believe that. I think it's probably a little bit more on a continuum than that. And therefore, I would expect a little bit of additional pressure. But in the end, it's a matter of degree no one really knows. And the good news, I would say, is that the for franchise performance is exceptionally strong, driven in no small part by the net new checking account acquisition, which I think we had like [ 650 ] this quarter or something. So it's really been very, very strong and it's proof of kind of the value proposition and the engagement that we're seeing through our marketing efforts and the power of the brand. So -- from a long-term perspective, that's the most important thing and the impact of rates in the near term, we'll just be what it does.

Excellent. One follow-up on the markets business. Obviously, we're seeing quite a bifurcation of just continued strength in equities. And as you mentioned earlier, just some tougher comps, I guess, and the impact of higher rates on FICC. Any change to just client demand for balance sheet usage? Is it kind of insatiable as it seems to be in the equities business, just the state of things in the markets business in terms of activity and kind of your willingness to we'll provide balance sheet, but more so the demand side, too?

Yes. So -- at a high level, I think the simple answer is no real change. So I like your time -- Yes. I like your inflation the Street, yes, exactly. I like your insatiable demand for capital point. That feels about right. I haven't heard anything to the contrary frankly, recently. But to Jamie's point about tightening up credit, that's a little bit of an overall point about just making sure we're really scrubbing everything -- and in this moment where AI is such an overwhelming theme. It's producing so much innovation and so many different pockets of capital being topped all kinds of different mechanisms, we just need to be really, really on top of things to make sure that nothing slips through.

Our next question comes from Mike Mayo with Wells Fargo Securities.

Can you say the degree that AI helps out JPMorgan? I saw you were ranked highly in a recent AI and bank pole. But I squint and I look at the earnings release, I'm trying to find the benefits, and I'm not sure if I can. I think you can update these numbers. You spend, what, $2 billion in AI and you have like $2 billion of benefits or maybe that scale if you could update that? And then also address the risk that AI agents will take deposits out of JPMorgan. And as far as that answer, maybe you can talk about that value proposition and the trust and the way you protect customers' privacy and the value they place on that.

Yes. So Mike, let me just tie you of a couple of things. So first of all, on the AI expense, you're right. I think we did say that in some media setting at some point. I think it's not exactly right, and I think we corrected it later. I think the -- at the time, and I think it is a little sale at this point, the AI expense number was significantly less than that. I want to say something like [ $700 billion ] annually or something like that. But more importantly, like there's a lot of counting effects there, right? If you sort of price out the amount of time we're all spending thinking about it, you should probably get a higher number, too. So it's, at this point, like not really something that you can ring fence. It's pretty well diffused inside the whole institution, and it's obviously like a very, very high priority. On the question of benefits, you're right, we have quantified that in the past. I'm really trying to move away from that. I think that old quantification was accurate and correct as far as it went, but it included a lot of what you might call regenerative AI, machine learning type stuff that's particularly significant in consumer fraud prevention and so on. And that -- while that's relevant, I think when you and others ask about AI in the current moment, you're really asking about the impact of generative and agentic AI on productivity, on the expense line across a range of places, especially software engineering, but also other places. And maybe you're asking about new exciting revenue opportunities at the margin. And so that, I think, is the more relevant focus right now. And I'm just very reluctant to spend a lot of energy quantifying it because it winds up wasting a lot of people's time inside the institution when we actually need to get them to focus on doing things. So on that point, and in terms of the visibility of the benefits, I think you're right to point out that the benefits aren't observable in our current quarterly earnings. And I think that's probably not that surprising because as much -- as important and dramatic and exciting as this theme is, it takes a long time to really do things that are visible at an institution of our size. I can tell you that just anecdotally for me personally, the types of use cases and benefits that I'm starting to see even in my own technology organization that supports finance are increasingly exciting. We've done some experiments of some minor legacy tools that needed to be rewritten and then trying to see if we could essentially one shop the rewrite in like a couple of weeks and it didn't work perfectly, but you're starting to see some really exciting opportunities for acceleration and productivity change. So how long it's going to take for that to show up, we'll see. And obviously, some of those benefits are going to be offset with token costs, which is a whole other conversation. But we're excited. There's a lot going on. And I guess your other question was the genetic question and the trust question. I think I addressed some of that earlier already. But at a high level, as Jamie pointed out, the True North here is protecting the client, so -- and the company, obviously, but narrowly focusing on agents giving customers access to money movement on their accounts. I think right now, some of the services that offer them do it through credential sharing and we have a long record of being against that way of doing things, screen streaming, et cetera, it's not secure. And so to the extent that we're able to block those, we are blocking them to protect customers and protect ourselves. And it's important that customers understand that if they give up their credentials, the agent and the agent does something that they don't want, that's going to be on that. And that's sort of not an ideal state of things. We are working on being able to do this correctly. So that's a piece of the puzzle. And in the big picture, trust is clearly an asset, and we spent decades building it. And as I said previously, we like our hand in that respect. But we need to be clear that -- the fact that we're trusted is not an excuse for complacency or a reason to provide mediocre customer experiences. So we really need to do both at the same time.

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

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

And there are tools coming that model routing, which in into the best quickest, cheapest you don't need the most expensive thing in query you have and very often people just use them when they're comfortable with. So -- and that's all coming to have that cost under control.

Our next question comes from Gerard Cassidy with RBC.

Can you guys share with us the deposit beta outlook, obviously, interest rates are starting to go up. The Fed fund futures are suggesting more rate increases over the next 3 to 6 months. And with your growth in your consumer deposit base since the last tightening cycle in '22, '23, how are you guys thinking about what you might see this time around? And also, obviously, we're starting from a much higher interest rate level than we did in '22. So could that mean deposit betas may not be as high this time around for you folks?

So it's a very good question, Gerard, actually, and I think it is an important thing for people to be thinking about because this particular rate cycle, this latest right cycle is arguably even more unprecedented than the last one, like we just don't have a lot of historical data about how people behave when you see rate hikes from the launch point that we've seen in the cycle. So it's been an unusual 10-plus years, I would say, and I think it's quite important for people to realize, especially people who are doing this by training models on historical data, that the historical data set is just not that rich. So it's very important to be kind of thinking out of the box. In that context, though, I think locally, our beta story is pretty easy actually in the sense that you can almost think about the franchise as pretty barbelled between a bunch of very high beta deposits like most of wholesale as well as CDs and premium deposit and consumer and then a stack of very low beta deposits. And the question is probably less the pricing of any given product, although that's always going to respond to competition and to market conditions, and more the sort of migration behaviors across products in the cycle. And I don't think we have -- like our local expectations are that it's going to behave roughly the way it has been behaving. But I do think it's right to note that this is a different cycle, and therefore, we have to be thinking about all scenarios as we always do.

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