2020-12-08 James Dimon.Goldman Sachs U.S. Financial Services Virtual Conference
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
So I'm delighted to introduce our next panelist, who's Jamie Dimon. Jamie needs no introduction. He's now in his 14th year as CEO and Chairman of JPMorgan. Since the merger with Bank One, JPMorgan's total returns have outperformed the market on -- by more than 100%. He's distributed more than \$200 billion of capital back to shareholders, and he's clearly created one of the world's greatest financial services franchises.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
我非常高兴介绍下一位讨论嘉宾——杰米·戴蒙。杰米无需多做介绍，他担任摩根大通首席执行官兼董事长已进入第14个年头。自与 Bank One 合并以来，摩根大通的总回报率已超越大盘逾100%。他已向股东回馈超过2,000亿美元的资本，并且无疑打造了全球最杰出的金融服务企业之一。
Jamie, I think the first time you spoke at this conference was when you were the CEO of Bank One in December 2000, so exactly 20 years ago, and we really do appreciate you coming back so regularly over the years.
杰米，我记得你第一次在本次会议上发言是在2000年12月，当时你还是 Bank One 的首席执行官，正好是20年前。我们非常感谢你这些年来持续回到会议现场。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
So Jamie, I thought I would just start off with a question about the macro environment, and I know there's a lot of different moving pieces here. There's a lot of uncertainty. But what's your take on the current state of the economy? How does corporate and consumer confidence appear to be shaping up? And what are your expectations for 2021?
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
那么，杰米，我想先从宏观环境提一个问题。我知道这里有很多动态因素，也有很多不确定性。你如何看待当前的经济状况？企业和消费者信心正在形成怎样的格局？你对2021年的预期是什么？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
Richard, welcome. Happy to be here, and congratulations on all the great work that you do.
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
理查德，感谢邀请。很高兴来到这里，也祝贺你所做的出色工作。
So look, it's -- there's no mystery. We had the worst downturn we've ever seen in 2 months. And if you use a single point, 4% to 15% unemployment. The biggest upturn we've ever seen in 3 months aided by a tremendous amount of the U.S. and kind of global fiscal and monetary stimulus, and now it's a little murkier. But -- murkier but better. So unemployment has been better, though participation was a little worse. Confidence, it's really bifurcated.
所以，事情很明显。我们在两个月内经历了史上最严重的经济下滑——失业率从4%飙升到15%。随后，在美国以及全球大规模财政和货币刺激的推动下，我们又在三个月内迎来了史上最大的复苏。现在情况有些更复杂，但总体比之前要好。失业率有所改善，尽管劳动参与率略有下降。信心层面则呈现明显的两极分化。
The companies are doing well. they have high confidence. The companies that are not doing well have lower confidence. Consumer confidence has been okay, but the reason they might get a little bit worse now at the lower end because they've run out of the extra money. Partner consumers they have, they're same as the way up, but the other ones don't really need it. So it's all over the place.
经营状况良好的公司信心很高，表现不佳的公司信心就低。消费者信心整体尚可，但低收入群体的信心可能正有所恶化，因为他们手中的额外资金已经花光。高收入消费者依旧如上行阶段般稳健，而那些并不依赖额外补贴的人则无此顾虑。总体而言，情况参差不齐。
We're still in the middle of COVID, how bad the winch is going to be, and thank God there's a vaccine. So -- and it's just going to be a little spotty for a while. I just think it's unavoidable.
我们仍处在新冠疫情之中，不确定冬季会有多严重，所幸已有疫苗。因此，未来一段时间情况仍将呈现零星波动，我认为这在所难免。
Hopefully, and then I look at really look at the bookends, one book end is the base case the Fed has. Well, unemployment is now below 7. By end of next year, it's below 6 or 5.5 and continue to improve. That's a great case. I give that a 50% chance. And then of course, there's always the case that we'll have some kind of double dip and return to something worse.
希望如此。我会看两个极端情景之一：一个是美联储的基准情景——失业率目前已低于7%，到明年年底将降到6%甚至5.5%以下，并继续改善。这是个很好的情形，我认为其概率为50%。当然，另一种情形是出现某种“双底衰退”，经济重回更糟境地。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So I think since you last spoke, we obviously had an election. We obviously now seem to have a successful vaccine that gets rolled out. But can you talk a little bit around how important another round of fiscal stimulus is to your outlook, whether you think infrastructure spending is something that could happen, could that be meaningful, but also perhaps you could touch on regulation and whether you think you -- we will see any significant changes to the regulatory backdrop under a new administration?
自上次发言以来，我们显然经历了一场大选，如今又似乎拥有一款成功且正在推广的疫苗。请您谈谈另一轮财政刺激对您经济展望的重要性；您是否认为基建支出有可能推出并且意义重大？同时也请谈谈监管层面，在新一届政府下，监管环境是否会出现重大变化？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
Yes. So on the first one, we absolutely need another stimulus package, and it should focus on those who need the help, the long-term unemployed, some of the new unemployed. And you can debate the \$200, \$300 or \$400 extra but something and then literally the small businesses.
首先，我们确实需要另一轮刺激方案，重点应放在真正需要帮助的人群——长期失业者以及部分新近失业者。至于每周多发200、300还是400美元可以讨论，但必须发放；同时也要直接扶持小企业。
There's a whole bunch of other people, too. I feel terrible for the airlines and stuff like that, but those 2 really need help, and the damage will be far less if we help them. Kind of think of it as bridging them to May, June of next year with the vaccines out, and hopefully, the economy recover well. And so we support that.
当然还有其他受困群体。我为航空业等行业感到难过，但前述两类对象确实最需要帮助；若我们给予扶持，损失将大大减轻。可以把这视为帮他们撑到明年五月、六月，届时疫苗普及、经济有望复苏。因此我们支持这项措施。
Now I think the regulator -- I think the government did a very good job getting out the money in these programs. Of course, there are always negatives when you roll them out. But who would have thought that our government can get programs out like PPP in literally 3 weeks.
我认为监管方——确切说政府——在资金发放方面做得相当出色。推行过程中难免有负面声音，但谁能想到政府能在短短三周内把薪资保护计划这样的大项目落地？
And so -- and then the regulations, obviously, we have a new administration coming. I think they put professional people already in the job. Janet Yellen, I don't really know, \[ Michael Deezy ] but a whole bunch of others, and I hope that they focus on growing the economy in a healthy way.
至于监管，新政府即将上任，我认为他们已任命了专业人士。珍妮特·耶伦，我不太认识，迈克尔·迪兹（音）等一批人——我希望他们的重心是以健康方式促进经济增长。
And I -- but it will be true that regulators probably tougher on banks, and it's just something we're going to live with. We've lived with it before. Obviously, the banks are much sounder better, running -- they've met years of consent orders and things like that.
不过，可以肯定的是监管者对银行会更严格，这是事实，我们得适应。我们以前也适应过。显然，银行现在更加稳健，经历多年整改、同意令等要求后运营状况大为改善。
So -- and then -- unless the Republicans change, even they change, by the way, it's going to be hard to pass major legislation. So I think for -- at least for banking, you'll see regulation but probably not something in the way of legislation. And I'm hoping beyond hope that the regulators look at all the rules that were put in place, which was substantial over 10 years, and they're still putting some in place now to 10 years later and then kind of recalibrate.
因此——除非共和党立场改变，即便改变，要通过重大立法仍然困难。所以至少在银行业，你会看到更多监管，而不是立法。我最大的期望是监管机构回过头审视过去十几年陆续出台的大量规则，并在十年后进行重新校准。
They should do a victory lap over the fact that Lehman could not happen today. They've had too much equity. They have too much liquidity. They have a -- they'd be the most over equitized bank in the world at the point of failure. And I think that will be good for the bond market, not bad for the bond market to have an orderly dissolution as opposed to disillusion with Lehman. That's a victory. And the FDIC had the right to take them over.
他们完全可以为“今天不可能再出现雷曼倒闭”这一事实庆祝一番。银行资本充足，流动性充裕；在破产那一刻，它们甚至会是全球资本最充盈的银行。这对于债券市场是利好——有序清算总比雷曼式混乱更好。这算是一场胜利。联邦存款保险公司也拥有接管权。
But all these other things, G-SIFI, cash being counted in G-SIFI and LCR and SLR and treasury being kind of -- that's causing issues in the ability to intermediate in the mortgage from the time it gets tough. You saw that last year, you saw it in March, and you're going to see it again. So to me, I hope they recalibrate all those things, and we don't have so much capital liquidity tied up in a very rigid way forever.
但还有其他问题，例如全球系统重要性金融机构（G-SIFI）认定、现金计入 G-SIFI、流动性覆盖率（LCR）、补充杠杆率（SLR）以及国债的处理方式——这些都使得在市场紧张时承接抵押贷款证券等业务变得困难。去年如此，今年三月也是如此，未来还会发生。因此我希望他们重新校准这些规定，不要永远把大量资本和流动性僵硬地束缚在那里。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So Jamie, let's dig a little bit deeper into both of those points. So let's start off with how the banking industry and how JPMorgan performed this year because this really was the first real-world stress test that we've had since 2008. If you were to give yourself a scorecard in terms of how JPMorgan performed, what would it look like? If you were to give the industry a scorecard, what would it look like? And do you think the industry could have done anything better or differently over the course of 2020?
那么，杰米，让我们更深入地探讨这两个问题。首先谈谈今年银行业以及摩根大通的表现，因为这实际上是自2008年以来我们经历的首个真正意义上的压力测试。如果让你给摩根大通打分，会得到怎样的成绩单？如果让你给整个行业打分，又会是什么结果？你认为在2020年期间，银行业本可以做得更好或以不同方式应对吗？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
Yes. I think -- look, obviously, the naysayer jump in and to say, "Well, the Fed not taking all those actions as we move forward for the banks." That's, of course, true. They didn't take those actions to help the banks. They took those actions to help the economy and the average American.
是的。我想——很显然，总会有人跳出来说：“美联储采取的所有那些行动可不是为了银行。”这当然没错。他们采取这些行动不是为了帮助银行，而是为了帮助经济和普通美国人。
But in general, the banks have so much capital, so much liquidity, so much capability. They all jumped all over themselves to help PPP and help all the businesses. They put up tremendous amount of money, revolver taking down, buy \[indiscernible] done. So I think it's coming out of this looking great. But it's banking, you got to be careful. It has to be disciplined and stuff like that.
但总体而言，银行拥有充足的资本、充裕的流动性和强大的能力。它们争相投入力量，支持薪资保护计划（PPP）并帮助各类企业。它们提供了巨额资金，动用了循环信贷额度，完成了收购等操作。因此我认为银行业在这场危机中的表现非常出色。但毕竟是银行业务，仍需谨慎行事，坚持纪律等要求。
So -- and if you look at CCAR, most of the banks can easily handle the CCAR numbers with quite far worse than what actually happened. And so we may be disclosing some of that down the road, like because you should be asking, "What do you think your real results would be if you went through a CCAR scenario?" Because it would be nothing like the ones that these are.
再看CCAR，大多数银行即便面对远比实际情况更严重的CCAR情景，也能轻松应对。因此未来我们可能会披露相关数据，因为你们应该问：“如果在CCAR情景下，你们的真实结果会怎样？”那将与当前情况大相径庭。
And I understand why the Fed does their thing, but -- and then, of course, liquidity, the system just run it over. And that will be true forever. A lot of the liquidity can never be used the way it's been set up. I think that's got to be relooked at.
我理解美联储为何这么做。当然，在流动性方面，体系中已经水泄不通，并且这种状况可能长期存在。大量流动性按目前的设置永远无法动用，我认为这需要重新审视。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So let's talk about the regulatory environment because, obviously, this is the first time the regulatory environment that was largely introduced in 2010 has gone through a period of stress. Do you think that the rules broadly impacted your ability to service your clients in a meaningful way?
那么我们来谈谈监管环境，因为显而易见，这是2010年大体建立的监管框架首次经历压力期。你认为这些规则是否在总体上限制了你们为客户提供有意义服务的能力？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
Not -- no, not broadly, but I think you have to look at the macroeconomics, like how much capital is enough capital. Can the bank -- every time you start to have a -- something looks bad, you have to cut the dividend or something like that. And why are bank stocks selling so cheaply?
总体来说并没有，但我认为必须从宏观层面看，比如多少资本才算足够。难道每当情况看起来不妙就必须削减股息吗？为什么银行股会如此低估？
The banking -- and you should do this, Richard. The banking system as a size relative to the global economy gains smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller. And remember, the market sets capital requirements, not just the bank and not the regulator. So you've had 80% of the mortgage go outside of banking. Tremendous amount of private credit is going outside of banking. And you can go down one after another, things that are leaving banking because they get more favorable treatment outside. And the regulator \[indiscernible] out what they want because eventually they're going to regulate the banking system out of business.
银行体系——理查德，你应该研究一下——相对于全球经济的规模正变得越来越小。别忘了，资本要求由市场决定，而不仅仅是银行或监管机构。如今80%的按揭贷款已流出银行体系，大量私人信贷也在银行体系之外。还有许多业务因在外部享有更优惠待遇而离开银行业。若监管者不加以权衡，最终可能把银行业监管到无以为继。
So -- but it didn't stop us in the crisis from making loans. It didn't stop us in the crisis intermediating. I do think that some of the things like temporary measures don't really work because you got to think about what when it goes away what position you're in. And it does -- but the thing it did stop a bit of, and you saw it in March and you may see it again, is the ability of banks to intermediate because they hit a whole bunch of walls, which you've studied. And therefore, they have to stop doing it because of SLR or it could be in bank's LCR, it could be -- because certain things don't get counted the same way.
不过，这并未阻止我们在危机期间继续放贷，也未阻止我们发挥中介作用。我确实认为诸如临时性措施之类的做法效果有限，因为措施一旦消失，你所处的位置就变得关键。这些措施的确在某种程度上限制了银行的中介能力——你在三月看到了这种情况，未来也可能再现——银行碰到了许多壁垒，例如SLR或LCR等规定，导致某些资产的计量方式不同，因而不得不停下来。
And of course, who -- if the banks can't intermediate, who intermediates? The Fed. Is that what they want? If they are the permanent -- step in when something goes wrong to come intermediate, and that's what happened in March with the repo market.
当然，如果银行无法充当中介，谁来中介？美联储。这是他们想要的吗？如果他们需要永久性地在市场出问题时介入，这就是三月份回购市场事件中发生的情况。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So let's segue a little bit and talk about your strategic priorities. And look, I feel your strategic priorities have been remarkably consistent now over a 5-year period in terms of growing your footprint, deepening customer relationships, conducting business much, much more efficiently. As you digest this year, do you think your strategic priorities change in any way? Or do you feel the need to accelerate any of your strategic priorities as a result of what we've gone through?
接下来我们稍作转换，谈谈贵行的战略重点。我认为在过去五年里，你们的战略重点始终如一：扩大版图、深化客户关系、提高业务效率。回顾今年，你认为这些战略重点会在某种程度上改变吗？或者说，你是否觉得有必要加速推进某些战略重点？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
They don't change in any way because we want to serve customers with a great product. We have very great pricing, and we still think branches are important. And obviously, technology is huge to get -- to build the technology for straight-through processing, lower error rates, AI, cheaper production cost. And that's all the same.
它们不会发生任何改变，因为我们依旧要以优质产品服务客户。我们的定价非常有竞争力，我们仍认为网点重要。当然，技术至关重要——要打造端到端直通处理、降低错误率、应用AI、降低生产成本，这些都没有变。
But literally, the technology world has accelerated. And AI is real, the whole cloud stack is real, and you got to really move quickly. And recently, you saw Google, and they're entering the banking business kind of as a marketplace. Look, that's a real competitor. That's a -- I mean we knew it's going to happen. And you're going to see, I think, others do that same thing. So yes, if you want to compete with that, you've got to get better, faster, quicker. And if you have any complacency about that, you're a little crazy.
但科技世界的确在加速。AI是真实存在的，完整的云技术栈也已成熟，你必须快速行动。最近你看到Google以一种平台模式进入银行业，那是真正的竞争对手——我们早知道会发生。我认为还会有其他公司效仿。因此，如果想与之竞争，就必须更好、更快、更敏捷；若对此自满，那就有点疯狂。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So let's talk just briefly around...
我们简要谈一下……
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
And I've also mentioned there are some great competitors out there not in the banking system. PayPal is worth more than most other banks. Stripe is worth more than most banks. Square has done an unbelievable job of Square cash. So you've had a huge amount of value in what you and I would have called the financial system, which has moved out of the banking system.
我还提到过，银行体系之外有一些出色的竞争者。PayPal的市值超过大多数银行，Stripe也超过多数银行，Square的Square Cash做得不可思议。因此，你我曾称之为金融体系的大量价值，已经移至银行体系之外。
And so -- and when you look what those companies done, they've done a really good job. But it doesn't mean some of the bank didn't do a good job. But I look at some of those things very often to say, "We could have done that, too," and we didn't.
这些公司确实表现出色，但并不意味着一些银行做得不好。我常常在看这些案例时想：“这些我们本来也可以做到，可我们没有。”
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So we'll come back to that, I think, because I think it's an important point. But before we do that, can we talk a little bit around financial targets and how your thought process around those has evolved? So prior to this pandemic, you had an ROTC target of greater than 17%. You had an efficiency ratio target of less than 55% over the medium term. Do you think that those are still appropriate targets for JPMorgan? And do you think you can hit those targets given your view of the operating environment over the medium term? Let's call it 3...
我们稍后会再谈这个问题，因为它很重要。但在此之前，我们聊一下财务目标及其演变思路。在疫情爆发前，你们的ROTC目标是超过17%，中期效率比目标低于55%。你认为这些目标对摩根大通仍然合适吗？鉴于你对中期经营环境的看法，你认为能够实现这些目标吗？我们暂定3年……
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
Well, they're not -- the ROTC is not appropriate next year, I mean just too low. And we believe that the consumer deposit with more is currently represented, so we're not going to try to make up for that, but that's obviously too low.
实际上不是——明年ROTC目标并不合适，因为它太低了。我们认为当前消费者存款水平并未完全体现出来，我们不会刻意填补，但显然这个水平太低。
But if you go back to a normalized environment, yes, we think it's kind of reasonable, but I think it's very good. I mean if I can get 15% a year for the rest of my life and grow my business, that's pretty good for shareholders. So I think it's a little ambitious, but it's possibly achievable.
但如果回到正常环境，我们认为该目标合理，甚至相当不错。若我此后每年都能获得15%的回报并实现业务增长，这对股东而言已非常可观。所以目标略显雄心勃勃，但仍有可能实现。
I mean a lot -- some of those businesses have very low capital deployed, so we're very critical of ourselves. We look at certain things, there's no capital deployed. And other things where there's capital deployed, you got a way to measure that. And obviously, the mix is going to matter.
要知道，其中某些业务投入的资本极低，我们也对自己要求苛刻。我们会审视：某些领域根本没投入资本；在另一些投入资本的领域，你必须有衡量方式。显然，业务组合至关重要。
The same thing with efficiency. And the thing that's most important to me, efficiency. I don't -- we don't aim for an efficiency target because when we sit around in the management meetings here, they can all hit their efficiency target. But I want to hit -- I want to run an efficient business while investing for the future. So we spend more time in the while investing for the future part. So we're always doing both, improving costs over here but seeking out the things we need to grow to get better over here. And that -- there may be more of that. So...
效率也是如此。对我而言，效率是最重要的。我不会、我们不会设定一个效率比目标，因为在管理层会议上，大家都能达到效率目标。但我想要的是——在投资未来的同时运营高效业务。因此我们把更多精力放在“投资未来”这一部分。我们始终兼顾两方面：一边降低成本，一边寻找业务增长和提升所需的要素。未来可能会有更多类似做法。所以……
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So I think that one of the hallmarks of JPMorgan's success has been that you have taken, I think, market share in pretty much every single business that you operate in over the last 3, 4 years. In a world which is digitizing even faster post the pandemic, is it reasonable to expect that some of those market share gains should accelerate as customer behaviors continue to evolve?
我认为，摩根大通成功的一个显著标志是，在过去三四年里，你们几乎在所有业务中都提升了市场份额。在疫情后数字化进一步加速的世界里，随着客户行为不断演变，是否有理由预期这些市场份额的增长会进一步提速？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
I -- first of all, just so we all understand how we do it. At the aggregate level, yes, we've gained share. But if you actually look sometimes by country, by state, by branch, by product, by -- we haven't. So we actually go much later down -- lower down. There are a lot of places we didn't, so we think there's opportunity to continue to grow share.
首先，让大家了解我们的做法。从整体层面看，我们确实提升了份额。但如果按国家、州、网点、产品等更细分的维度来看，并非处处如此。我们深入到这些层面后发现，还有很多地方尚未取得进展，因此我们认为仍有机会继续扩大份额。
But it's -- we're more at the point now, which -- trench warfare. I mean you've got -- everyone's out there. Everyone's -- there's a lot of very good people in digital, and I've mentioned some who are not banks. There are some of the banks who are very good. It's trench warfare. Again, your company, Goldman Sachs, and investment banking, we've got all these new entrants in consumer banking. So I just don't think it would be easy just because you have a good position today that you can grow share. You got to fight for that share, and it's like -- it's an ongoing battle with lots of competitors out there, and there are some invisible ones.
不过，现在更像是壕沟战。市场上的对手层出不穷，数字领域有许多非常优秀的玩家，其中一些并非银行；也有一些银行表现出色。这就是壕沟战。例如贵行高盛在投行业务方面，以及零售银行领域涌现的大量新进入者。我不认为仅凭今天的良好地位就能轻松扩大份额，你必须为之拼搏。这是一场持续进行的战斗，竞争者众多，其中还有一些隐形对手。
And then also, think of the ones out there that they're playing in a piece of it today. Think of some of the directed self-investment cheap apps. They want -- they're going to go into banking one day. So everyone is coming through. And I mentioned Google, that's not going to stop -- some of the other big ones from doing almost the same thing. So no, I think the competition is going to be very tough, and we hope to be able to eke out continued gains.
此外，还要考虑那些目前仅涉足局部领域的公司，比如一些面向散户投资者的低成本自助投资应用。它们未来某天也会进入银行业。各路玩家纷纷涌入。我提到的谷歌不会阻止其他巨头采取几乎相同的行动。因此，竞争将异常激烈，我们只能努力争取持续微幅增长。
券商是时入金融行业成本最低的领域。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So the revenue outlook for the industry is challenging, obviously, given low rate structures, given lower economic growth. What are your expectations in the near term for areas that you've got some visibility, whether that's net interest income or fees?
鉴于低利率环境和较低的经济增速，行业的收入前景显然颇具挑战。在您可以观察到的领域——无论是净利息收入还是手续费收入——您对近期表现有何预期？
And I guess linked to that, if interest rates remain low for a long period of time, do you think the industry is going to go back and revisit some of the pricing structures, especially around consumer products, and start rethinking the balance between fees and spread income on those products?
再进一步说，如果利率在较长时间内保持低位，您是否认为行业会重新审视某些定价结构，尤其是面向消费者产品的定价，并重新考虑这些产品的费用收入与利差收入之间的平衡？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
So for NII, the way we basically do it is we just forecast it right now using the implied curve. I think we told you all, it would be \$54 billion in 2021. It's still \$54 billion. That hasn't changed. And there are probably some ins and outs in that, but that's the same.
关于净利息收入，我们目前采用隐含收益率曲线来进行预测。我记得我们曾向各位说明，2021年的净利息收入预计为540亿美元，这个数字现在仍然是540亿美元，没有变化。期间或许会有些增减因素，但总体保持一致。
We're a little -- with NIR, we're a little bit different. Like on markets, we don't assume market is going to be good all the time. So we go back to like a more traditional, and we don't want to run the company like it's always going to be a bull market in markets or investment banking. So when we look at it, we kind of budget more of a normal like it was 2020.
至于非利息收入，我们的处理方式略有不同。例如在市场业务方面，我们并不假设市场始终表现强劲；我们会回到更传统的假设，不会按市场或投行业务永远处于牛市来经营公司。因此在制定预算时，我们倾向于按类似2020年的正常水平来计入。
And what was your last question again about?
您刚才的最后一个问题是什么来着？
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
Whether or not the industry is going to revisit pricing structures in a low rate environment.
问题是，在低利率环境下，行业是否会重新审视定价结构。
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
I think it's very hard to do. And if you look at the consumer business, I mean if you just take one side, take the wholesale business. For the most part, people in wholesale businesses price for the drink. Like so many tickets, so many trades, so many dollars, so many -- for the most part, this is an exaggeration, but in the consumer business, you price and you give a lot of services.
我认为这非常难做。举个例子，如果专注于批发业务，大多数批发业务是按件收费的：多少张票据、多少笔交易、多少美元等等——这么说有些夸张，但在零售业务中，你在定价的同时还要提供大量服务。
You may remember people say banks haven't done anything new for years. It's just not true. Banks added bill paying, debit cards and mobile and ATM to take deposits and checks and all these things. So I don't really know. I think you have to find a way to serve that customer to earn a fair return. And yes, you might start to charge more fees, but you had to do something before. It was like prime. They rated prime from what it was 9 9 to 1 29. People didn't mind because they got free streaming.
你可能听过有人说银行多年没有创新，但事实并非如此。银行新增了账单支付、借记卡、移动端服务、ATM 办理存取款与支票等多种功能。所以该怎么做我也无法给出定论；关键是要找到既能服务客户又能获得合理回报的方法。是的，你或许会开始收取更多费用，但在此之前必须提供额外价值。就像优质会员服务的价格从9.99涨到12.99美元，人们并不介意，因为他们获得了免费流媒体服务。
So I can -- if I just try to compete, get my revenue by charging it, I think I'll lose clients. If I can do something better for them, I think I can keep the client and maybe get paid in one way or another for stuff like that. But it's hard, and you look at around the world, you haven't really seen it.
因此，如果我仅靠加收费来竞争、获取收入，恐怕会失去客户；若能为客户提供更好的服务，就有可能留住他们，并以某种方式获得回报。但这确实困难，你看看全球范围，也并不多见。
I think if you go into negative rates, you definitely see people resetting how they want to do business, what they want to do, which will change how big the bank is, a whole bunch of different stuff. But I mean we're not going to be sitting there running negative losses in all these accounts even at the margin. That we won't do.
如果进入负利率，企业必然会重新调整业务模式和目标，这将影响银行规模等诸多方面。但我们不会任由所有这些账户即便在边际上也出现负收益，这绝非我们的做法。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
So let's talk a little bit about the markets businesses. I mean they did very, very well this year, not just for you, but for the industry. I mean we think FICC and equity revenues could be up as much as 50% this year. This is actually the first year, though, that those revenue pools have grown in a long time. Do you think this marks the reversal of a trend? Or do you think that some of this increase in fee pools is going to stick? Or do you think it's just reflective of the extraordinary environment that we saw in the first 9 months of the year?
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
接下来我们谈谈市场业务。今年的表现非常出色，不仅是你们，整个行业亦然。我们估计今年 FICC 和股票收入可能增长高达 50%。然而，这其实是这些收入池多年首次增长。您认为这标志着趋势的逆转吗？还是说费收入的部分增长将会持续？亦或这仅仅反映了年初九个月非同寻常的市场环境？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
It's reflective of the extraordinary environment. I think if you look at FICC -- I can't remember the exact numbers, it came down probably 40% over a long period of time. So I do kind of feel it at the bottom, and then you're going to have normal organic growth. And that normal organic growth driven by more assets and management, more need to trade and just the fundamentals with always a little bit of decreasing margin. There's always been the spreads you get. It's always been a bit less every year, but volumes can make up for that.
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
这主要反映了极端环境。如果看 FICC，我记不得确切数字，但长期来看其收入大概下降了 40%。我感觉这里已触底，此后将进入正常的有机增长阶段。这种有机增长由资产管理规模扩大、交易需求增加等基本面驱动，尽管利差每年都会略有收窄，但成交量可以弥补这一点。
And when the value of the stocks and bonds, the worlds go up, that's more things that people buy and sell and stuff like that. So I do think we hit the bottom, and we're growing. I think the huge number you saw this time were because of the extraordinary environment. It wasn't because of return to some kind of normal.
当股票和债券等资产价值上涨时，可买卖的东西就更多。因此我认为我们已触底并开始增长。此次出现的亮眼数字源于非常态环境，而非回归某种正常水平。
So in our own mindset, we're looking at next year as being -- not going to 2020 but a little more like 2019. But we -- that's not a prediction, by the way. We just don't know. Therefore, I'd rather just put a lower number in.
在我们自己的规划中，明年更像是 2019 年，而非 2020 年。但这并非预测，因为我们无法确定。因此我们宁愿把目标设得更低一点。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Sure. So maybe we can talk a bit about operating leverage. So you've done a really good job, again, in terms of improving the efficiency of the franchise as you have grown. And it's very clear that, that has not come at the cost of investing in the long-term value of the franchise. As the revenue environment gets more challenging, as credit costs could remain higher for a period of time, how are you thinking about the balance in terms of driving operating leverage versus investing in the franchise over the medium term? And are there investments at the margin that you think you will deprioritize?
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
好的，咱们谈谈运营杠杆。随着业务增长，你们再次显著提升了整体效率，而且显然并未以牺牲长期价值为代价。在收入环境趋于严峻、信贷成本可能在一段时间内维持高位的情况下，你如何平衡中期提升运营杠杆与对特许经营进行投资？对于那些边际投资，你是否会降低优先级？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
Yes. No, so the way I look at it is, I mean, at one point, when your margins are good and your returns are good, to think you can increase that forever is probably a huge competitive mistake, and so we don't necessarily try to do it.
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
是，也不是。我想说的是，当利润率和回报率良好时，若认为可以无止境地继续提高，那可能是巨大的竞争误判，因此我们并不一定要那样做。
Now a lot of our investments are adding very high returns to the margin. But of course, you're losing somewhere else. There's always compression somewhere. There's -- so no, I don't expect to have operating leverage, meaning that somehow our margins are going to go up. I think that's just a fool's errand thinking that you can just keep on doing that.
我们许多投资确实能在边际上带来高回报，但同时也会在其他地方出现压缩，总有部分利润被侵蚀。因此我并不期待运营杠杆持续提升——即利润率不断上升——那是一种不切实际的想法。
And on the investment side, we're different. So our -- I'll say now our cost next year are more likely to be a little north of $67 billion. I think a lot of the [indiscernible] have $66 billion because we are finding things that we want to invest in, and we try to have real rigor on is it a real investment, we'll have a real return. And sometimes it's just a skunk works. We're just trying something, [indiscernible] something, and you're all going to see us do that, too. Some work, and some don't work. Some we'd tell you about, some we don't. But I think it's important that a company like JPMorgan is always trying to think a little bit out of the box a little bit creatively.
在投资方面，我们有所不同。我可以说，我们明年的支出更可能略高于 670 亿美元。很多分析师估的是 660 亿美元，因为我们发现了一些值得投资的领域，并会严格评估是否真正能带来回报。有时这只是“地下试验”：我们尝试一些新东西，有些会成功，有些不会；有些会向你们披露，有些则不会。但像摩根大通这样的公司必须始终保持跳出框架、保持创造性思维。
I also think you should be taking acquisitions, too. Organic growth is hard, and it's part of acquisitions, believe it or not, in terms of getting people to add sales force, add branches, add products, do a better job connecting our products together. That doesn't mean we should be looking for things we can acquire at the adjacencies.
我还认为应该适度进行收购。纯粹依靠有机增长很难，而收购也是增长的一部分——通过收购可以增加销售团队、网点和产品，并更好地整合我们的产品组合。当然，这并不意味着我们会随意在相邻领域进行收购，但会认真评估。
And so we're going to do a little bit of both. I would love to spend more money. I mean we're not like -- I never look at saying it's going to be $66 billion. In fact, even though we have a budget, when we sit around these tables and go through plans of stuff, if you could say why, this -- we could put a lot more money to work at these kind of returns, I would do it.
因此我们会两手并进。我乐于投入更多资金。我从不把 660 亿美元视为绝对上限。事实上，即使有预算，当我们坐在会议桌前审议计划时，只要能说明理由、预期有可观回报，我就会愿意投入更多资金。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
Have you learned anything this year, specifically around having 90%-plus of your employees working from home from an efficiency standpoint? Do you think there are things that you'll be doing different?
从效率角度看，今年您是否有任何收获，尤其是让超过90%的员工居家办公这件事？您认为未来在这方面会有什么不同的做法吗？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
Yes. It was amazing that all the banks can go do it, right? And so work from home is a real thing. You can track -- in some jobs, you can track the productivity, and some of you can't. It's amazing we have to manage the company and get them the dollar communications kits and you can do trading and accounting and customer service. So that's the lesson.
是的。所有银行都能做到这一点令人惊讶，对吧？居家办公确实可行。在某些岗位中，你可以跟踪生产力，但也有岗位无法跟踪。令人惊讶的是，我们得设法管理公司、为员工提供通信设备套件，他们就可以进行交易、会计和客户服务。这就是经验教训。
The speed with which certain things took place, that's a lesson, and the efficiency of Zoom to do certain things. But on the other hand, Zoom doesn't work for -- all banks are based in apprenticeship model, where you learn by sitting next to people and going to trip with them or seeing mistakes being made. Very well being a lot of collaboration in the room to go through straight processing, it's hard to manage. You miss all the creative combustion that takes place from having a meeting by having immediate follow-up.
某些事情发生的速度本身就是一课，以及使用 Zoom 处理某些事务的效率也是一课。但另一方面，Zoom 对于银行并非万能——银行基本上采取学徒制模式，你坐在同事旁边、跟他们外出洽谈或目睹错误发生来学习。在同一个房间里进行大量协作以实现直通处理，这很难管理。你会错过面对面会议带来并能即时跟进的创造性火花。
So I did took a trip to California, and I know that 100 people outside all say venture capital, private equity, tech companies, et cetera. And you just -- you're constantly learning, and you're not going to learn that way by sitting at home. So yes, we've learned. There'll be more -- probably be some permanent work from home or rotating work from home. That'll change when we look at real estate a little bit, but it's not going to change the world, and we still need the collaboration with people working in a room together.
我去了一趟加州，见了一百来位风险投资、私募股权、科技公司的外部人士。你会不断学习，而宅在家里学不到这些。所以，我们确实学到东西了。未来可能会出现更多——可能是一些永久性的居家办公或轮流居家办公。当我们重新评估办公地产时情况会有所变化，但这不足以改变世界，我们仍需要人们在同一个房间里的协作。
And some of our folks sent me a note, they're staying in China, their people are 90% back to work and without masks, and they like it. And that 90% of domestic travel, both business and personal, is back up to 90%. So basically, China was -- they can go back to regular way, they went back to a regular way. And they've learned also that you can work from home. So yes, there are a lot of lessons, but I just don't think they're earth shattering.
我们的一些同事给我发消息，说他们在中国，当地员工已有90%回到办公室且不戴口罩，他们很喜欢这种状态。国内商务与个人出行也恢复到90%。基本上，中国可以回到常态就立即回归了常态。他们也认识到居家办公是可行的。所以，是的，我们得到许多启示，但我认为这些并非颠覆性变化。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
So let's talk a little bit about credit, and I guess a couple of questions here. The first is underwriting standards. Did you feel the need to change your underwriting standards over the course of 2020? And as a result of what you've learned over the course of this year, are you thinking about risk/reward or even risk management broadly differently going forward? And any areas of where you operate?
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
我们来谈谈信贷问题，我有几个相关问题。首先是承销标准。2020年期间，你们觉得有必要调整自己的承销标准吗？经过这一年的经验教训，未来在风险收益或更广义的风险管理方面，你们会有新的思考吗？以及在你们经营的任何领域内是否会有所变化？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
Yes. Look, we're pretty disciplined in all types of credit exposure, stuff like that. And you have to separate a little bit. Taking care of clients is a little bit different than extending new credit. So we go -- we take care of clients like you wouldn't believe in the wholesale side and on all sides. But then -- but for new credit on the wholesale side of certain industries, of course, you got to take in consideration of the future prospects of that industry.
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
是的。我们在各类信用敞口方面都非常自律。不过需要稍作区分：照顾现有客户与发放新贷并不完全相同。我们在批发业务等各方面会竭尽所能支持客户。但若要向某些行业提供新的批发贷款，我们当然必须考虑该行业的未来前景。
And the consumer side, basically a little bit of tightening in credit card and mortgage. And if we tighten 100 points, we've probably untightened 50 to 75 points already because, obviously, unemployment is way down. The government took action and stuff like that. That was just prudent risk management. I don't think any of that changed how we look at it.
在零售端，我们对信用卡和抵押贷款略作收紧。如果说我们曾经收紧了100个基点，那么目前大概已经放宽了50到75个基点，因为显而易见，失业率大幅下降，政府也采取了行动。这只是审慎的风险管理，并未改变我们对风险的整体看法。
This recession, I think it's important to point out that if you look at job losses in most recessions across all income classes, in this one, it was predominantly at the low end. So we -- if you today, you see safeties balances are way up, okay, and the people that could afford homes are buying a lot of homes and mortgage prices way down, and you see the activity that creates. But for the bottom quartile, the extra cash that came in because of the unemployment checks, that's gone. They're now at the point where they may have to start kind their spending. So when it comes to credit and underwriting also are hard, who we think needs help, they're going to need help. And so we look at it a little bit differently. And as you know, we try to go out of our way to support our communities in bad times.
在这次衰退中，有一点值得注意：如果说以往衰退期间各收入阶层都有人失业，这一次主要集中在低收入群体。如今，你会看到储蓄余额大幅上升，有能力购房的人在大量买房，抵押贷款利率大幅下降，由此带动相关活动。但对处于底部四分位的群体而言，来自失业救济的额外现金已经耗尽，他们可能不得不开始削减开支。因此在信贷和承销方面，我们认为有需要帮助的人就必须得到帮助，我们的评估方式也有所不同。正如你所知，我们在困难时期总是尽力支持社区。
I would tell people, we would rather lose money in some of these communities and help through bad times than save the money from losses but have them hate us for the rest of their lives. And so when you're a bank, you got to be very clear about how you treat industries. We stuck with the oil industry when oil went down to, if you remember correctly, like negative 20 or 30 shockingly, but we stayed with them. Those clients are hugely appreciative, and we probably lost a little bit more money than we should have, but that's life.
我常对人说，我们宁愿在一些社区亏点钱、帮他们度过难关，也不愿因避免损失而让他们终生厌恶我们。作为一家银行，必须清楚自己如何对待各行业。当油价跌到震惊市场的负二三十美元时，我们依然支持石油行业。这些客户对此非常感激，我们可能因此多亏了一些钱，但这就是现实。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So maybe you can just talk about the reserve level. So the reserve, I think, peaked at around 3.3%. In the context of what you've seen so far this quarter, do you still think that's around the right level? And then the reserve was set at the end of the third quarter before the vaccine, I guess, was effectively confirmed as being effective. How does that feed through in terms of how you think about the appropriate reserve requirements?
我们先谈谈拨备水平。我记得拨备率最高时大约是3.3%。结合本季度至今的情况，您是否仍认为这一水平合适？另外，当时的拨备是在第三季度末设定的，那时疫苗的有效性才刚刚得到确认。对此，您如何评估适当的拨备需求？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
I mean you do know that was crazy, right? So let me give you the big numbers, okay? We put our reserves of \$34 billion. If you said, what would they believe -- and this is based upon probabilities outcomes, it's not based upon what you believe. If you said do a forecast, that would be a different number. But the \$34 billion -- if you said take the Fed's central case and given that 100% probability, our reserves would probably be \$20 billion to \$24 billion. So we're way overreserved for that.
说真的，那简直是疯狂的数字，对吧？让我跟你报几个大数字。我们的拨备是340亿美元。这个数字是基于概率分布，而不是基于主观判断。如果你做一份单点预测，数字会不一样。假设美联储的基准情景概率为100%，那我们的拨备大概只需要200亿到240亿美元，所以我们实际上大幅超额拨备。
If you said take the Fed's severely adverse case, like the case of the CCAR case, where unemployment's 12% or whatever the number is, we need \$50 billion. Now by the way, we can easily handle going from \$34 billion to \$50 billion. So to me, that's not a big deal, but that's all about how you set those probabilities. And in those probabilities, you look at effective unemployment, what the government going to do, how's the COVID, but it shows you the ridiculousness of what we're guessing.
如果按照美联储的“极端不利情景”，也就是 CCAR 里的情景，失业率达到12%之类的水平，那我们需要500亿美元拨备。顺便说一句，从340亿增到500亿我们也完全承受得起。因此关键在于你如何设定那些概率权重。在权重里你要考虑有效失业率、政府措施、疫情走向等等，这也说明我们现在的猜测本身就带有很大不确定性。
So I just look at -- we -- charge-offs look great. They're not really going up at all. We do expect to go up next year, but -- and then we said that, and we're going to fully disclose in a totally transparent way to the shareholder how we said it, why we said it, but it's ink on paper. My guess at those probabilities is no different than yours. And you now, when you do your models, have to look at probabilities too and guess what we're going to guess. And so -- but it is no question that things are better than people thought 3 months ago and 6 months ago. So whatever your base case is, it's now better.
现在来看，冲销情况很好，几乎没有上升。当然我们预计明年会有所上升。我们也已经说过，会以完全透明的方式向股东披露拨备的设定方法和原因，但归根结底这只是写在纸上的估算。我对概率的判断与你差不多。你在做模型时同样要考虑概率，并且猜测我们的假设。可以肯定的是，现在的情况比三个月前、六个月前预想的要好。所以无论你的基准情景是什么，现在都应该向好调整。
Do I expect people to take down reserves because of that? They might. People might look at it's a little premature. We're still about to go into the COVID winter, and so people want to be comfortable, and most banks don't want to be in a position where they swing those reserves up and down every quarter like just in a way you can understand. So we expect charges to go up. But if you -- if the base case happens, you're going to be taking reserves down next year, too. And then the net, we don't really know yet.
我是否预期各家银行因此下调拨备？可能会，但有人会觉得现在调整为时过早。毕竟我们即将进入疫情“冬季”，大家希望保持充足缓冲，大多数银行也不想在拨备上季度大幅波动。我们预计明年的冲销会上升；如果基准情景兑现，明年也会相应释放一些拨备。至于最终净影响，现在下结论还为时尚早。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Okay. So let's talk a bit about capital. So even assuming that you need all the reserves that you have, you're in an excess capital position. You're 100 basis points above the range that you set out at least at the start of the year. When the Fed lifts some of the moratoriums on distributions, buybacks in particular, how are you going to think through the attractiveness of increasing the dividend versus buying back stock? How are you thinking about that, just given the sharp rebound in your share price in particular?
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
好的，我们来谈谈资本问题。即便假设你们确实需要现有全部拨备，你们仍然处于资本过剩状态，至少比年初设定的区间高出100个基点。一旦美联储解除对资本分配，尤其是回购的部分限制，你们将如何权衡提高股息与回购股票的吸引力？特别考虑到你们股价的大幅反弹，你们对此有何打算？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
So the first thing we'd like to do is invest our money. That's number one. And then have a steady dividend, which is not too high because I think that is a -- matter of fact, it's on \[indiscernible] batteries, it's a little bit of yolk on the neck of banks.
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
首先，我们想做的是把资金投入到业务中，这是最重要的。随后保持稳定但不过高的股息，因为实事求是地说，过高的股息对银行来说有点像是沉重的负担。
But being forced to buy back stock is also a bad thing. So if I thought that our stock was cheap and there's no way we can use the capital, I might make the dividend too high for a while and let -- we can grow into it to use up the excess capital. We have tons of excess capital. You see banks now paying the dividend. That capital numbers, they're going up and up and up and up. I just gave you the worst case on reserves. It would be a drop in the bucket.
被迫回购股票同样不是什么好事。如果我认为我们的股价被低估、而又找不到其他资本用途，我可能会在一段时间内把股息提高，让公司逐渐消化掉多余资本。我们现在手握大量剩余资本。你看到银行都在发股息，资本水平节节攀升。我刚才提到的最坏情形下的拨备缺口，对我们而言只是九牛一毛。
Now if that happened, and then I tell the regulators don't make banks cut the dividend now because it doesn't make any difference this quarter and next quarter. If the bad case happens, by the way, my Board will consider cutting the dividend. I'm not contradicting myself because if the bad case happens, it could be worse. So you're just trying to prepare yourselves for -- at that point, you prepare yourself more for Armageddon or something like that and the dividends.
如果真的出现那种情况，我会告诉监管者别让银行此刻削减股息，因为这一两个季度削不削意义不大。当然，如果最坏情形兑现，董事会会考虑减息；这并不矛盾——届时情况可能更严峻。也就是说，我们只是做好准备，以防最坏的“世界末日”情景和由此带来的股息调整。
But right now, the dividend is very sound, and I would love to buy back stock. But again, just every time we get a chance to buy back the stock, it's always at the higher price because we're not allowed to buy it at the lower price, which I'm not sure is good for the industry. And so I think people have to be a little cautious about that.
不过目前我们的股息非常稳健，我也乐于回购股票。但问题是，每当我们获准回购时，股价往往已经更高，因为不允许我们在低位回购——我不确定这对行业是否有利。所以大家对此需要保持谨慎。
经济变差的时候不允许银行消减资本金。
And also the absolute level of capital is extraordinarily high. I mean I think G-SIFI is so flawed in how it looks at things. And like CCAR, I've already pointed out, our earnings, we would make money every quarter probably even in the CCAR scenario, not -- and we would never dip down like that. It's just not even remotely possible.
此外，资本的绝对水平已极高。我认为G-SIFI的衡量方式存在缺陷。再比如CCAR，我已指出，即便在CCAR情景下，我们每个季度大概率仍能赚钱，不会出现那样的资本骤降——根本不可能。
And even with our own people. I feel like we have a Stockholm Syndrome. I said the other day, "Well, in '08, well, we never lost money or the Fed." No, no, the Fed -- remember, \[indiscernible] failed in '08, okay, the Fed really didn't do anything. We bailed out \[indiscernible]. WaMu in September, we bailed out WaMu. Fannie failed, Freddie failed, broker-dealers failed, Lehman failed, the Fed didn't really step in until later, and we still have didn't have a loss in those quarters.
就连我们自己人有时也像患上“斯德哥尔摩综合征”。我前几天说：“在2008年，我们可没亏钱，也不是靠美联储。”别忘了，2008年有机构倒下，美联储并未立即出手。我们救助了某些机构。9月时我们接管了WaMu。房利美、房地美、几家券商、雷曼相继倒闭，美联储后来才介入，那几个季度我们依旧没有亏损。
I mean so people have got to be a little rational. Now it's far better because you won't have a Lehman, a disorderly failure of a major financial company. It will be an orderly failure, and they have a lot more capital liquidity. And they should be allowed to fail. I had a conversation with one of the Fed governors. He said we cannot allow any bank to fail because if even -- if Lehman failed, there would be a disaster, and you kill it, the bonds go.
因此大家需要保持理性。现在情况要好得多，不会再出现雷曼那种无序破产；如果大型金融机构出事，也会是有序倒闭，并且拥有更多资本和流动性。金融机构理应被允许失败。我曾与一位美联储理事交流，他说不能让任何银行倒闭，因为一旦雷曼倒了就会灾难连连，债券也跟着完蛋。
I said, "No, that's not true." Lehman failed, didn't take that any of the banks. The derivative contract didn't hurt anybody from Lehman and the \$80 billion Lehman debt. Lehman was basically just fell apart. So it wasn't an orderly. They didn't run as a business. The \$80 billion of Lehman debt, they originally collected \$0.30 to the dollar, haven't collected \$0.30 to dollar. My view is had it been orderly, it'd have been 100 cents to the dollar.
我说：“不对。”雷曼破产并没有拖垮其他银行；其衍生品合同也没伤到他人，800亿美元债务也是如此。雷曼基本是一夜崩盘，完全无序，也没有继续经营。那800亿美元债券最初只兑付了30美分。若是有序清算，本可以全额兑付。
Under the new regime, that -- they would have like \$120 billion or \$150 billion billable debt, they have all that equity at the point of failure, and my guess is that company will be worth more than \$150 billion. It will be good for the system and bondholders or \[indiscernible]. They can afford losses. They take them all the time. Remember, the banks lost a lot of money in the Fannie and Freddie preferreds. And so we have to get back to a system you allow failure, and that's form of discipline.
在新的监管框架下，如果某家机构倒闭，它们或许有1200亿到1500亿美元的可计提债务，再加上破产时的全部股本。我猜那家公司最终价值会超过1500亿美元，这对金融体系和债券持有人都是好事。投资者完全承担得起损失，他们经常承担损失。别忘了，银行在房利美和房地美优先股上亏了不少钱。因此我们必须回到一个允许机构倒闭、以失败促成纪律的体系。
So there's a lot to look at, and I hope that after all these crisis, some people take a deep breath. And the other problem, it's all been politicized. So how do you make intelligent decisions when politics gets involved in the way of things. Anything which is a change, it looks like it's favorable, it's treated like they're favoring the banks. No, actually, they're favoring America. They're actually favoring the economy, and you may actually have a bank failure one day.
还有很多问题值得审视。我希望在经历了所有这些危机之后，人们能深呼吸、冷静下来。另一个问题是，一切都被政治化。当政治介入时，如何做出理性的决定？任何变动看上去有利，都会被贴上“偏袒银行”的标签。其实不是偏袒银行，而是对美国、对经济有利；哪天你可能真的会看到一家银行倒闭。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So before I take a couple of questions from the audience, let me just ask you about your view around inorganic growth. And I think, look, you've been open to the concept of M\&A for a while. I mean, obviously, you can't buy a depository institution, but there's a lot of other assets that, in theory, you could buy. I mean which part of the franchise do you think would benefit the most from an acquisition? What will you be looking to get from an acquisition? And how open do you think regulators would be? Do you bind something which obviously doesn't have deposits?
在回答听众提问之前，我想先询问您对外部并购增长的看法。我知道您一直对并购持开放态度。当然，您无法收购存款类机构，但从理论上讲，还有许多其他资产可以收购。那么您认为贵行哪些业务板块通过并购能获益最大？您希望从并购中获得什么？对于显然不含存款的收购标的，监管机构的态度可能有多开放？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
Yes. I think I'm very open. I mean at one point, you have to do business. Morgan Stanley, I think Morgan Stanley has done a good job with a couple of deals they've done. So asset management, my line is open. It's a scale business. It's a distribution business. It's a brand business. It's got to make sense. Asset management deals would be difficult sometimes.
是的，我非常开放。企业发展到一定阶段就需要做并购。我认为摩根士丹利在几笔交易上就做得不错。就资产管理而言，我持开放态度——这是规模、渠道和品牌驱动的业务，但必须符合逻辑。有时资产管理交易会比较棘手。
We just bought 55 IP, which does tax managed separate accounts. And so there will be others. We're looking more at adjacencies. We bought InstaMed, which is health care payments. WePay, which helps purchase services to ISBs. So I always -- we're trying to think about it as everything we do.
我们刚刚收购了 55 IP，这家公司提供税务管理的分离账户服务。未来还会有其他收购。我们关注的是相邻领域：我们收购了医疗支付平台 InstaMed，以及为独立软件商提供支付服务的 WePay。我们始终把所有业务都纳入并购思考范围。
If you look at what Square did, it was the adjacencies that dongle that made a difference, the data and the ability to process on one iPad cash, checks, debit, all -- so the personalized store can do all that in one place. And so there will be stuff, and it might be software, it might be fintech. We do -- we have lots of investments in some fintech to partner with. There might be something overseas. But yes, we're open minded. We've got brilliant ideas. Give me a call. And if you're a competitor investment bank and you bring the idea, you get the fig.
以 Square 为例，他们靠读卡小方块切入邻接领域，利用数据以及在一台 iPad 上同时处理现金、支票、借记卡等支付方式的能力，让小店铺“一机搞定”。未来可能还会有类似机会，可能是软件，也可能是金融科技。我们已经在多家金融科技公司中投资并合作，也可能在海外出手。总之，我们思想开放，点子多多，欢迎来电。如果你是竞争性投行并带来好创意，就能赚到承销费。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
There's some people probably on this conference call that might call you afterwards. But so let me take -- there's a ton of questions from the audience. Sadly, we don't have time to get through all of them. So let me just pick and choose a few, which I think are very relevant.
这场电话会议里可能有人随后会联系您。不过听众问题太多，我们无法全部回答。我挑选几个我认为最相关的问题。
So here's one. You spend a lot of time with management teams and with Boards. How does that tone compare to the optimism and euphoria that we've seen in parts of financial markets today?
第一个问题：您与管理团队和董事会沟通时间很多。与当今金融市场部分领域的乐观和亢奋相比，他们的基调如何？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
It's not like the markets, okay, it's considerably less than that. But it's growing confidence. Again, it's really different in different industries. It's just exactly what we expect in travel, retail, stuff like that. But in general, there's confidence that the country is going to get through this. The vaccine is going to be there.
他们的情绪并不像市场那样高涨，明显低得多，但信心在不断上升。当然，不同行业差异巨大——在旅游、零售等行业，情况正如我们预期那样更为谨慎。但总体而言，人们有信心美国能渡过难关，疫苗即将普及。
The people are talking -- we do get surveys from businesses that base is talking about that 75% think they'll be fully recovered, the bigger ones, by the way, fully -- these are public, fully recovered by the end of 2021. You don't get the same data with small businesses, and that's why we have been very sensitive about small businesses.
我们的企业调研显示，大型企业中有 75% 认为到 2021 年底将完全复苏（这些数据是公开的）。对于小企业，却没有同样的数据可参考，这也是我们一直非常关注小企业处境的原因。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
So as a follow-up, do you think that markets are appropriately pricing credit risk today, given everything that you can see across your franchise and given your view of the world in 2021?
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
作为跟进问题，结合您对自身业务的观察以及对2021年全球形势的看法，您是否认为市场目前对信用风险的定价是合理的？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
I'm not really, but I don't know why it's such a surprise. The central banks of the world bought, I forgot the number, \$12 trillion of assets. There's something like 275 global train. That's a lot of assets. And when they buy assets, those assets have to be reinvested and list up prices and reduces bond yields, et cetera.
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
并不合理，但这并不令人意外。全球各国央行买入了约12万亿美元的资产（具体数字我记不清），全球资产规模大约275万亿美元。这是巨量资产。当央行买入资产时，这些资产需要被再投资，抬高价格、压低债券收益率，等等。
But when you look at markets, and this is a very important thing, if you said -- if you sat around a table right now and said, "The base cases, the case is going to happen," I'm highly confident we're going to get back to growth and unemployment under 5% by such and such. Bond spreads and most equity prices will be justified.
但从市场角度看，这一点非常重要：如果我们现在坐下来讨论“基准情景”，我非常有信心经济将恢复增长，失业率降至5%以下。在这种情况下，债券利差和大多数股价都是合理的。
If you said, "Oh, no. It's going to get much worse than that," they will be. And since neither you and I know it's going to happen, so the market is an accumulation of all these probability of folks thinking through what's going to happen and stuff like that. I think there may be a bubble in a small part of the stock market, not all of it. If you actually analyze it by segment, by this, that's not true. And I'm not -- I would not be a buyer of treasury. I think treasury is at these rates, I wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole.
如果你认为“情况会比这糟得多”，市场也会反映出来。由于你我都无法确定未来走向，市场价格实际上是各种可能性加权后的结果。我认为股市中某些小领域可能存在泡沫，但并非全面泡沫。如果按细分板块分析，并非如此。我不会买美国国债，当前利率水平下，我避之唯恐不及。
And the other thing, which is very important, there's also 10, 11 or 12 train of fiscal stimulation. Fiscal stimulation is completely different than QE, okay? So it's like QE if -- but QE -- fiscal stimulation is putting money in people's pockets to spend, and they spend it. Maybe not right away, but they spend it. You still had here, that's why the GDPs data and stuff like that. That, by its nature, is inflationary. QE, by its nature, may not be. And it's also even more inflationary when you give money if the government finances it and the Fed buys the bonds, so basically financing a deficit.
还有一点非常关键：目前还有10、11或12万亿美元的财政刺激。财政刺激与量化宽松（QE）完全不同。QE更多是资产置换，而财政刺激是直接把钱放进人们口袋里让他们消费——也许不会立刻花完，但终究会花出去，这也是GDP数据仍然坚挺的原因。从本质上看，这种做法具有通胀性。QE本身未必如此。当财政支出由政府融资、再由美联储买入国债进行赤字货币化时，通胀效应会更强。
And now, of course, that interplay is in global recession, COVID, high unemployment. Of course, you're not going to see the effects of that right away, but you might down the road. So I wouldn't be a buyer of rates at these rates. And unfortunately, we are. We have no choice about how we do that. And credit spreads themselves are all-time tight. I'm not sure it's ever justifiable if you want to be paid for risk.
如今，这一切又与全球衰退、疫情、高失业率交织在一起，其影响短期内难以显现，但未来可能爆发。因此我不会在目前水平买入利率产品，但遗憾的是我们别无选择。信用利差已处于历史低位，如果你想获得与风险相匹配的回报，我不确定当前定价是否合理。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So here's a second question, which I think is an interesting one, which is, look, every retail industry that has digitized has consolidated at the same time, with the top 3 or 4 players ending up controlling 70% plus of the market. Do you think that retail banking will follow the same route?
这是第二个问题，我认为很有意思：几乎所有实现数字化的零售行业都同时经历了整合，最终排名前3或4位的公司控制了超过70%的市场份额。您认为零售银行业会走同样的道路吗？
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
Yes. I wouldn't necessarily tie to digitized. I mean for all the folks on -- listen, this thing, the American banking system is hugely fragmented. We still have like over 5,000 banks, 6,000 banks. And it's going to be consolidating. It's been consolidating my whole life. It's going be consolidating for the next 50 years. There's too many. Very hard to be efficient in that business.
会的。但我不一定把整合完全归因于数字化。各位要知道，美国的银行体系极为分散，我们仍有大约5000到6000家银行，这个行业将继续整合。我一生都见证了这种整合，而且未来50年也会持续下去。银行数量过多，很难实现效率。
If you take a quick tour around the world, most other countries, developed countries, have a much smaller banking system. Australia, Japan, France, U.K., Spain, Canada, parts of Latin America, not Germany. The countries that didn't have because of regulations. In the United States many years ago, you couldn't have interstate banking. Some places, you can't even open more than one branch. Bank -- the old first Chicago had one branch in Chicago, not by law. So once they -- as you know, merge at the top, it's really hard. You start to see them in the banking field. I think you'll see a lot more, too. It's just going to consolidate. And yes, the digital part will be a really important part of that because that's a way to generate customers at a lower cost. And people are going to come up with different schematics and what's the best way to serve the customer.
放眼全球，大多数发达国家的银行体系要小得多，例如澳大利亚、日本、法国、英国、西班牙、加拿大、拉丁美洲部分国家（德国除外）。一些国家以前由于监管限制无法实现跨州银行业务，在美国多年前也不能跨州经营，有些地方甚至只能开一家网点，比如昔日的第一芝加哥银行在芝加哥就只有一家分行。随着高层合并的推进，整合会越来越难，但你已经看到银行业的整合趋势，我认为这种现象会更普遍。行业必将继续整合，而数字化将在其中扮演重要角色，因为它能以更低成本获取客户。各家机构将提出不同的经营模式，寻找最佳的客户服务方式。
While we think branches are important, you may have a hub-and-spoke strategy, and this may one have small branch strategy without tellers. This one may have blanket with ATMs in a central bank -- central branch. And several strategies may work, but we test a lot where we're thinking about that, but we do expect that, and so you'll have bigger and bigger banks here. But of course, the bigger banks can't acquire, so the acquirers are going to be the middle-sized banks.
虽然我们认为实体网点依旧重要，但可能会出现“枢纽加辐射”策略，也可能出现无柜员的小型网点策略，还有可能通过中央网点配合遍布各地的ATM网络来覆盖市场。多种策略都可能奏效，我们也在不断测试这些模式。可以预见，美国将出现规模越来越大的银行。不过，大型银行受到收购限制，因此真正的收购方将是中型银行。
这是买入JPM的理由。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
So look, we have time for one last question, and I think this is a very good one to end on, which is what is the 2 or 3 most important attributes you think JPMorgan's Board will look for in your successor? And what is the single most critical piece of advice you would give him or her? So we'll finish with that one.
好了，我们还有时间做最后一个提问，我认为用这个问题收尾非常合适：在您看来，摩根大通董事会在选择您的继任者时，最看重的两到三个关键特质是什么？您会给他或她的最重要的一条建议又是什么？我们就以此结束。
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
Oh, that's a tough one. I had my Board meeting today, by the way, and we spoke about this very thing. Look, I think there's some very basics about analytical skills and detail and facts and analysis and work ethic. Character's \[indiscernible]. But there's also part of character that you got to be tough to make decisions. I mean I love that song about the Boy Named Sue, which talks about the ground and the gut and the spit in the eye. I mean if you're like a deer in the headlights, you can't make those decisions. You have to be able to serve the client and not panic when you have bad times. You've got to be able to see around the corner a little bit because you know you're going to have bad times.
哦，这可真是个难题。顺便说一句，我今天刚开完董事会，我们讨论了这个话题。我认为，候选人必须具备一些最基本的素质：分析能力、注重细节、基于事实进行分析，以及良好的职业操守。\[听不清] 另一方面，性格中还要有果断决策的坚韧。我很喜欢那首《名叫苏的男孩》的歌，里面提到脚踏实地、胆识和迎难而上的精神。如果像被车灯照到的鹿那样惊慌失措，你就无法做决定。你必须能够在艰难时刻服务客户而不惊慌失措，并且要具有“预见拐角”的能力，因为你知道坏日子总会到来。
正确的废话，不够清晰，最关键的是洞察力，巴菲特的总结是合适的性格+合适的智力框架。
So I think the most important thing is -- and this is true for all you out there, you want to work for people you respect. You want to work for people who have a little humility to know that I don't know everything that you know. I mean I would tell you, Richard, before we started this formal session, what a great job you did in that research report talking about SLR and effects on markets, et cetera. And so the leaders, we become more like the coach. And when you have a coach, you -- the coach may kick out, but they also celebrate your victories, take blame for the bad plays.
因此，我认为最重要的一点——这对在座各位都适用——是你希望为你尊敬的人工作。你希望为那些懂得谦逊、知道自己并非事事皆通的人工作。比如在正式访谈前，我就对你说过，理查德，你那篇关于补充杠杆率（SLR）及其对市场影响的研究报告写得非常出色。领导者要更像教练：既会督促你，也会在你取得胜利时为你喝彩，在你表现不佳时承担责任。
I asked myself a question now that I always use and ask when I was much younger, would you want your kid to work for that person? And it's not how smart they are or some -- it's about whether that person is -- want you to succeed and wants to help you and not artificially, not like stuff like that.
我常用一个问题来检验别人，也在年轻时常这样问自己：你愿意让自己的孩子为这个人工作吗？这与对方是否聪明无关，而在于他是否真心希望你成功并愿意帮助你，而非虚情假意。
So I think it's a full spectrum of values. Fortunately, JPMorgan has tons of quality people. So you didn't ask me, so I'll tell you anyway. Trading and investment banking numbers, up about 20%, maybe a tick more. But -- and I've already told you that expenses are higher than in your models. So I would give you the good news and the bad news at the same time.
所以我认为这是一整套价值观。幸运的是，摩根大通拥有大量优秀人才。你没问，但我还是补充一句：我们的交易和投行业务收入增长了大约20%，甚至略高一点；不过我也早告诉过你们，我们的费用支出比你们模型中的要高。所以好消息和坏消息我一起告诉你。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
Okay. Look, Jamie, with that, we're out of time, but we really do appreciate you coming. So thank you very, very much. And hopefully, we'll get to see you in person next year. So thank you.
好的，杰米，时间差不多了，非常感谢你出席本次会议。衷心感谢！希望明年能有机会与你当面交流，再次感谢。
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
Absolutely, Richard. Thank you.
当然，理查德。谢谢你。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
Thank you. Thanks, everyone.
谢谢，也感谢各位。
James Dimon Chairman & CEO
詹姆斯·戴蒙 董事长兼首席执行官
Keep the faith, folks.
各位要保持信心。
Richard Ramsden Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
理查德·拉姆斯登 高盛集团
Thanks.
谢谢。
热门主题
Recent Articles
2003-02-21 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2003-02-21 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 2002 was $6.1 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...2004-02-27 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2004-02-27 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 2003 was $13.6 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...2005-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2005-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 2004 was $8.3 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...2006-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2006-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 2005 was $5.6 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...2007-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2007-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 2006 was $16.9 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...