2025-06-10 James Dimon.Morgan Stanley U.S. Financials Conference
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) Morgan Stanley U.S. Financials Conference Call June 10, 2025 1:00 PM ET
Company Participants
James Dimon - Chairman & CEO
Conference Call Participants
Betsy Lynn Graseck - Morgan Stanley, Research Division
Betsy Lynn Graseck
贝齐·林恩·格雷塞克
I do have to read a disclosure. So let me get that out of the way.
我需要先读一段免责声明，请允许我先处理这个流程。
James Dimon
詹姆斯·戴蒙
You do.
你确实得这么做。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
贝齐·林恩·格雷塞克
I do.
是的。
James Dimon
詹姆斯·戴蒙
Total waste of time.
完全是浪费时间。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
贝齐·林恩·格雷塞克
Okay. For important disclosures, please see Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at morganstanley.com/researchdisclosure. And taking of photographs and recording devices is not allowed, unless you're authorized. If you have any other questions, please reach out to MS representative. And with that, I am just so delighted to say, Jamie Dimon, welcome back to our conference. We're so delighted to have you with us today. And everyone knows, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, such a thrill, so thank you very much.
好的。有关重要的免责声明，请参阅摩根士丹利研究披露网站：morganstanley.com/researchdisclosure。除非获得授权，禁止拍照和使用录音设备。如有任何其他问题，请联系您的摩根士丹利代表。接下来，我非常高兴地欢迎Jamie Dimon重返我们的会议。我们非常荣幸今天能请到您。大家都知道，您是摩根大通董事长兼首席执行官，这是一次令人兴奋的交流，非常感谢您。
James Dimon
詹姆斯·戴蒙
Happy to be here, Betsy.
很高兴来到这里，贝齐。
Question-and-Answer Session
问答环节
Betsy Lynn Graseck
贝齐·林恩·格雷塞克
And I did want to kick off by saying congratulations on your 20th year of running JPMorgan and delivering industry-leading profitability with ROTCE of 17% plus over each of the last 7 years, and we could pull that back in the Excel spreadsheet quite longer if we wanted to. But really, 20 years of just consistent, strong industry-leading performance, and it's really a thrill to have you here.
首先我想先祝贺您担任摩根大通首席执行官20周年，并且在过去7年中保持了超过17%的股本回报率（ROTCE），持续实现行业领先的盈利能力。其实如果我们回顾Excel表格，可以拉得更长。这20年来，您带领公司取得了持续、强劲且领先行业的业绩表现，我们非常荣幸能请到您。
And the question that I wanted to just kick off with is just understand a little bit more about your management style. Before we get into the outlook and the numbers and all of that, I thought this would be a really great opportunity. So first off, asked the question, what do you attribute JPMorgan's outperformance to?
我想用一个问题来开场：能否请您谈谈您的管理风格？在我们进入展望和具体数据等话题之前，我认为这是一个很好的切入点。请问您认为摩根大通持续跑赢同行的原因是什么？
James Dimon
詹姆斯·戴蒙
Well, first of all, welcome, everybody. If you do my management style, you should probably have my management team up here and they would probably disagree about the same. We're just -- we -- the team is pretty just relentless on just about everything. We meet all the time. We go through the issues. I think the first thing, and I really do mean it is I get in the business, not understand the numbers get them right, people don't allocate properly. They're not honest about their loss leaders. They give credit to parts of the company that don't deserve credit, nothing more than having a loss leader. At what level do you look at the business and manage the business, you aggregate everything, it's very hard to do.
首先，欢迎大家。如果你想了解我的管理风格，其实应该把我的管理团队也请上来，他们可能会有不同意见。我们这个团队几乎在所有事情上都非常执着，我们经常开会、深入讨论问题。我认为最重要的一点，我是说真的，就是我要真正深入业务。你必须理解数字并确保它们准确无误。如果人们分配不当、不诚实地对待亏损业务，把不该获得功劳的业务归功于某个部门，这样的公司是无法正常运作的。在什么层级上看业务、管理业务？当你要整合所有内容时，这是非常困难的。
And people often inside the company fight for the credit of revenues and expenses and one set of books, proper allocations, proper capital and then just real discipline around that. And then even around that is like each thing has its own, are you thinking about -- if you ran take a small segment of JPMorgan, the small business credit card, you're competing with American Express. They are 3x our size. But if you were running that business, I'd be asking you, what are they doing better? How do you need it? What's your -- do you need capital, your technology, your marketing? Very often a unit like that it will have no marketing.
公司内部的人经常为了收入和费用的归属而争论。所以必须有一套统一的账本，合理的分配方式、合适的资本配置，并在这些方面保持严格纪律。即便在这些基础之上，每项业务也要有自己的思考。如果你负责摩根大通的一个小业务单元，比如小企业信用卡，你的竞争对手是美国运通，他们的规模是我们的三倍。如果你是负责人，我会问你：他们做得比我们好在哪？你需要什么？你是缺资本、技术，还是营销？很多这样的业务部门甚至根本没有营销预算。
And I'm a fanatic about are you doing your marketing? How are you getting paid for? What's the ROI? What's the returns? Do you do what they do? And you do extend it over an extended period of time, constantly curious in assessing what everyone else is doing, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Stripe, PayPal, we go around the world and we look at what DBS is doing, HSBC, you're always kind of measuring how you're doing, so you don't get kind of complacent and arrogant.
我对营销非常执着。我会问你：你在做营销吗？你如何获得回报？投资回报率是多少？回报情况怎样？你是否在模仿竞争对手？我们会长期持续地进行这些评估，对别人在做什么保持好奇心。摩根士丹利、高盛、Stripe、PayPal，我们放眼全球，看看星展银行、汇丰银行在做什么。你必须不断衡量自身表现，才能防止自满和傲慢。
没有突出自己的想法。
You invest fairly relentlessly on all those things, people, technology and then try to have an open environment, which I think is the part that gets rid of the politics in BS that a lot of you know all about when people -- the meetings are run for the boss and not run to uncover and discover and they're not one with curiosity and tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, trying to make someone look good, that everyone should contribute that everyone who should be in the room is in the room, that all the dead cats are on the table. Actually, at lunch with someone today said, why we have a dead cat, we have a few wounded ones. We'll put the wounded ones on the table.
我们在各方面都持续投入，包括人才、技术，同时努力营造一个开放的环境。我认为这一点能有效消除公司内部的政治斗争和废话。很多人都了解那种“为老板开的会议”——不是为了解决问题，不是基于好奇心去探讨真相，而是为了让某些人看起来更好。我们要求每个人都应贡献力量，所有应当参与讨论的人都要在场，所有“死猫”都要摆到桌面上。实际上，我今天午餐时还和人聊到这个话题，对方说我们可能没有“死猫”，但有几只“受伤的猫”，那我们也一并摆上桌讨论。
Where are we creating internal conflict that's hurting our ability to do things and then just do that relentlessly. And you don't overreact to the market, the markets go up or down. And don't overreact to the economy, we don't know what economy is going to do. Don't overexpose yourself to risk that you don't fully understand. Risks are always hidden somewhere. You're always trying to search them out and you got to be as consistent as you can, have a little fun, get on the road, so your clients, ask them what other people do better than us.
我们不断审视内部是否存在影响效率的冲突，然后持续解决它们。同时也不要对市场的波动反应过度——市场会上涨也会下跌；不要对经济走势反应过度——我们无法预测经济未来会怎样；不要暴露于你无法完全理解的风险之中。风险总是潜藏着，你必须时刻留意它们，尽量保持一致性。另外，也要有点乐趣，多走出去看看客户，问问他们别人做得比我们好在哪。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
贝齐·林恩·格雷塞克
And so looking for opportunities for growth, how are you addressing that?
那么，在寻找增长机会方面，您是如何应对的？
James Dimon
詹姆斯·戴蒙
Yes. So I think we're in a very fortunate position. So I remember -- I'm going back years when I was at Travelers and the Citi and then Bank One and then JPMorgan, remember, there's this constant chatter about endgame winner. Who is the endgame winner and we have to merge. We have -- and they did. So if you look at these banks, mergers are hard, socially, physically, getting systems and technology right and cultures right and management teams right. They often don't work, but Chemical, Chase, Manny Hanny, Bank One, WaMu, yes, we had all of that. So there is no business we're in. And I think this is a good thing, but we can't grow organically.
是的，我认为我们处在一个非常有利的位置。我记得——这要追溯到我在Travelers、花旗、Bank One以及后来摩根大通的时候——总是有很多关于“最终赢家是谁”的讨论。大家都说我们必须合并，必须做收购，然后很多人也确实这么做了。但你看看这些银行，合并是很难的，不管是社会层面还是操作层面——系统、技术、文化和管理团队的整合都非常复杂。很多并购最终都失败了。Chemical、Chase、Manny Hanny、Bank One、WaMu——我们经历了这一切。所以我们现在从事的每一项业务，我认为这是一件好事，都是我们可以实现有机增长的。
So the first thing I ask you when you come in the room is what are you doing to grow organically? Usually, management team starts to BS about M&A. Well, we're not as big as them. We really should think about inorganic growth. What are you doing organically? And organic is hard. You would find -- I really do mean this inside companies, huge resistance to it, by the existing sales force, the existing management team. It doesn't fit the budget. We'll disappoint the analyst community. I'm never like that.
所以当你走进会议室，我首先会问你：你正在做什么来实现有机增长？通常，管理团队会开始说一些关于并购的套话：“我们不如他们大，所以我们应该考虑非有机增长。”但我会问：你们有机地在做什么？而有机增长是很难的。我是真心说的，在公司内部你会发现来自现有销售团队和管理层的巨大阻力。有机增长可能不符合预算安排，可能会让分析师失望。但我从不这么想。
Are you doing all the things you need to do to build a great business. Hiring people, technology, marketing and stuff like that, and we'll explain it to our shareholders, why we're doing this and what we hope to accomplish. But that does not mean we shouldn't be doing M&A. I've always thought that M&A -- I learned this way back from Sandy Weill, you get so smart by looking at other companies. And then you're going to make mistakes and we've made a couple of boozies in M&A. We've had a couple of real winners, too. But -- and that makes you smart.
你是否正在做建立一个伟大业务所需的一切？比如招聘人才、发展技术、进行市场营销等等，我们会向股东解释我们为什么要这么做，以及我们希望达成什么目标。但这并不意味着我们不应该做并购。我一直认为并购是有价值的——这是我很早就从Sandy Weill那儿学到的。通过研究其他公司，你会变得更聪明。当然你也会犯错，我们在并购中确实有过几次“大败笔”，但也有几个非常成功的案例。而这些过程会让你变得更聪明。
And then you're looking at the adjacencies, what can you build and it's hard to -- in some business, it's hard to buy something that's in our main that we did First Republic. But there are adjacencies in all of our businesses where I want our people looking to be them. I don't want them to tell me because it's happened in one of these deals that we're pushing people to do deals. I would never push them to do a deal. I'm pushing them to look, to think, to analyze, to come back, to suggest and then if those make sense, we'll do those too.
然后你还要关注相邻领域（adjacencies），看看我们还能构建什么。某些主业务领域确实很难去收购一个合适的目标，比如我们收购First Republic。但在我们所有的业务中都存在一些邻近市场，我希望我们的人能够关注这些领域。我不希望他们告诉我——正如某些并购中发生的情况——是我们在逼他们做交易。我从不逼人做交易。我是要他们去观察、去思考、去分析，然后回来提出建议，如果这些建议有意义，我们也会去做。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
贝齐·林恩·格雷塞克
So during Investor Day, we did take a look at the track record of ROTCE, again, every single year, last 7 years, 17 plus. And then within the organization, you've got some business units that are above and some that are sub, right? How do you think about improving that ROTCE from here? Is it a function of putting more capital towards the above?
在投资者日那天，我们回顾了过去7年每一年ROTCE都在17%以上的记录。在公司内部，一些业务板块的回报高于这个水平，一些则低于。那您如何看待未来进一步提升ROTCE的问题？是否意味着要把更多资本投向高于17%的业务？
James Dimon
詹姆斯·戴蒙
I want to give you some numbers. And you guys -- you asked some great questions after the Investor Day. And the 2 questions that came in, I said, those are really great questions to Jeremy Barnum and Mikael Grubb and do not answer them. That's like TMI. I mean we're all going to tell you so much. And we do tell you an awful lot, and we give too much information sometimes.
我想给大家分享一些数据。你们在投资者日之后提出了很棒的问题，其中有两个我跟Jeremy Barnum和Mikael Grubb说，那是非常棒的问题，但别回答——因为那已经是“信息过载”（TMI）了。我们已经披露了大量内容，有时候甚至是过多的信息。
First, I want to point out, we have -- I think there are 12 competitors we use in our proxy and stuff like that, all the ones you know. In the last 10 years, including JPMorgan, how many times has the company earned 17% ROTCE or better of 120 company years? It's like 10, okay? So -- and I'm saying that out of -- should be very thoughtful when you set targets. And how many earned under 6% where we get no pay, I get no pay on my stock -- my restricted stock. It was like 25 to 30. So if you look at the spread, it's pretty wide. And of the 10, we were 6 of them or something like that. Capital One was in that group. Morgan Stanley was in that group. Goldman was in that group once, twice something like that.
首先，我想指出，我们在年报中参考了大概12家竞争对手，都是你们熟悉的名字。在过去10年里，这些公司合计大约有120个“公司年度”（每家公司每年算一个样本）。在这120个样本中，有多少次实现了17%以上的ROTCE？大概只有10次。而其中JPMorgan占了大约6次。Capital One、摩根士丹利也在这其中，高盛也有一两次。所以我想说的是——设定目标要谨慎。而ROTCE低于6%的次数有多少？大约有25到30次，那种情况下我们没有任何绩效奖金，我自己也拿不到股票激励。所以你可以看到这个差距是非常大的。
ROTCE，这种复杂并且自欺欺人的算法价值投资者是不要看的。
If you go into 10 years before that, okay, how many were over 17%? It was like 30 years, 30x. And how many were below 6%? It was like 20 or 30x, so a lot. But of those 30 -- the companies that earn over 17%? Half of them went bankrupt. So just -- I have deep respect for competition. They're coming everywhere. They're smart, Wells is back. Citi's back, Goldman never left, Morgan never left, you have Stripe, you have to assume there's competition. So we're not going to change the 17%. I think it becomes irresponsible.
如果我们再往前看10年，ROTCE超过17%的样本次数大概是30次，而低于6%的也有20或30次。但那30次高于17%的公司中，有一半后来破产了。所以我对竞争非常尊重。他们来自四面八方，非常聪明。富国银行回来了，花旗也回来了，高盛从未缺席，摩根士丹利也是，还有Stripe等新兴对手。竞争一直都在。所以我们不会轻易更改17%的目标，否则会变得不负责任。
I remember when Citi did that, they were earning probably the best returns of everybody. They're #1 in every single category and they've been pressured to -- they call it increased operating margin. Well, if you increase your operating margin too much, then people like me are going to come in and your margin is my opportunity. That quote is from Jeff Bezos, by the way. And -- but that's why I think about it.
我记得当年花旗做出类似举动的时候，他们当时几乎在所有类别中都是回报最高的。但他们被迫去提高“运营利润率”。但如果你把利润率提得太高，那像我这样的人就会进场——因为你的利润率就是我的机会。顺便说一下，这句话是杰夫·贝索斯说的。这就是我对这个问题的看法。
有价值的洞察力。
So we invest, we earn, we're in cyclical. Some of those years, it was -- we didn't -- we earned over 17%, but we were over-earning mostly on credit and a little bit on NII. So I'm just quite respectful that if you do -- anyone here got like a 12 PC in front of them? Do [70%] compound for 40 years and tell me the number? Do you start with 100, 117, 100 -- are you doing it? Can someone do that number. I just want to tell you, if you did that number for 40 years, you would probably be in the market cap of 100% of America, okay?
我们是持续投资、持续创造收益的企业，但也在周期性行业中。有些年份我们确实超过了17%的ROTCE，但那主要是由于信贷利润过高，以及一部分净利息收入的提升。所以我会非常谨慎地看待这些事情。有没有人手边有12位计算器？算一下年复合增长17%持续40年是多大数字？从100开始，乘以117……你算完会发现，如果你每年都这么干40年，那你大概就等于美国整个股市的总市值了。
So let's be respectful about what 17% is. I hope to still do 17%. Now the range of companies, so we did -- Jeremy put out a really neat chart and I forgot how many businesses were in it, but we have like -- if you look at 40 businesses, I don't know what detail you did and some don't earn 17%. Now it doesn't make them bad. You can have a business earning 14% that's very steady, very good. And there are a few like that, that just -- and put the mortgage business hasn't earned 17%. I mean, if you added it all together, it's probably lost money in the last [50] years combined, it's a shitty business. And it's being made worth by regulators and rules and regulations. And -- but I think we can eke out a decent return there over time, and we're working on that.
所以我们要对17%有敬畏之心。我当然希望我们还能做到17%。现在讲到具体业务板块——Jeremy做了一张很棒的图，我忘了里面列了多少个业务，大概有40个吧。不是所有业务都能达到17%的ROTCE。但这并不代表它们是坏业务。有些业务可能只能做到14%，但它们很稳定、也很优质。比如房贷业务，它基本从没赚到17%，如果你把过去50年的利润全加在一起，可能还是亏的。这是个烂业务——而且监管政策让它变得更烂。但我们正在努力，希望能从中挤出一些合理回报。
还不如没有抵押物的信用卡，汽车贷款估计有同样的问题。
But some of those business -- and you also can't allocate capital. If you said to me, can I allocate capital, all these businesses? I can allocate capital to a handful of them, not the others. The capital allocation to the others is an outcome of sales and the decisions you make and things like that, it's not input, whereas I could input into, if I want to go with certain credit or certain markets, I can input that. And so we're quite conscious of that and how you earn capital over time and which by the way is also seasonal. There are certain things that are not seasonal, but you're in a cycle that you probably will get better and some will probably get worse.
但对于某些业务，你也没法像你想的那样灵活配置资本。你问我能不能在所有业务中自由配置资本？我只能对少数几个业务做到这一点，其他业务则不行。它们的资本配置是销售情况、业务决策等各种结果的“产物”，而不是你能提前“输入”进去的变量。但像某些信贷或市场业务，我是可以主动“输入”的。所以我们非常清楚哪些业务能为我们长期创造资本回报。而且，这些回报本身也是具有周期性的。有些业务是非周期性的，但很多是跟经济周期相关的——有的板块会变好，有的会变差。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
贝齐·林恩·格雷塞克
Okay. So as we're thinking about capital...
好，那我们在考虑资本配置的时候……
James Dimon
詹姆斯·戴蒙
But the organic growth is the most important. If you can earn 17% and grow organically, that's where the value comes from. I mean, just do the numbers. If you were earning 17% or you can't grow, then you're a bond. You'll trade at a 6% yield or something like that, and that's a whole different issue.
但最重要的是有机增长。如果你能赚到17%的回报并实现有机增长，那才是真正的价值所在。你可以算一下，如果你赚了17%，但无法增长，那你就等于是个债券，只会以6%的收益率交易，那就是完全不同的情况了。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
贝齐·林恩·格雷塞克
So when you think about this panoply of businesses that you're running, is there any in particular that you would like to see larger as a percentage of total or maybe some businesses that...
所以在您管理的这一整套业务中，有没有特别希望某些业务在总收入占比中变得更大一些？或者有些业务您觉得……
James Dimon
詹姆斯·戴蒙
I think that every single one will grow organically. So in the commercial investment bank, I think middle market, innovation economy, multifamily, basic investment banking can grow, payments can grow, custody can grow, markets can grow. In markets and investment banking, it's a battle. I mean it's like trench warfare. But I think we can actually add market share over time. In consumer, in auto, mortgage, credit card, consumer, business banking, Chase Wealth Management, connected commerce, which is the new kind of travel stuff we're doing, I think they can all grow.
我认为我们每一项业务都可以实现有机增长。比如在商业投资银行业务中，中型企业、创新经济、多户住宅贷款、基础投资银行服务都可以增长，支付业务可以增长，托管业务也可以，市场交易同样如此。在市场和投行业务中，这是场硬仗，就像堑壕战。但我认为我们可以逐步扩大市场份额。在零售业务方面，汽车贷款、房贷、信用卡、消费者和小企业银行业务、Chase财富管理、“连接式商务”（也就是我们现在在做的新型旅行服务）等，我觉得全都有增长潜力。
In asset and wealth management, we can grow assets under management, we grow private banking clients. And we have other -- and each one, we have initiatives to grow a little bit more like workplace over here, new distribution over here, new products over there. And sometimes it's the technology. The technology will give the ability to grow the business. If you don't have the new product, new digital thing, you're not going to go grow. So in each one of those, we hope to grow. We're not going to succeed in all of them, but that's what our hope is.
在资产和财富管理方面，我们可以增长管理资产规模，也可以扩展私人银行客户基础。此外，每个板块都有各自的增长举措，比如“职场福利”平台、新的分销渠道、新产品开发等等。有时候是技术带来增长能力——如果你没有新产品、没有数字化能力，那就很难增长。所以在每一个业务板块里，我们都希望实现增长。当然，并不是所有领域我们都会成功，但这正是我们的目标。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
And in technology, I have to ask the question about AI. And is this something that could be a game changer for you in terms of your already industry-leading expense ratio, right? Your expense ratio is lowest, which is the best amongst coverage that I have at least. And I'm wondering, is that -- does AI drive that?
在科技方面，我必须问一个关于人工智能的问题。对于你们已经在行业中领先的费用率来说，AI 是否可能成为一个改变游戏规则的因素？你们的费用率是我所覆盖的公司中最低的，也就是最好的。我想知道，AI 是否是推动这一点的关键？
James Dimon
So the issue with AI, whenever you have something that you have, so AI will drive it, but everyone else has it, too. So is it going to change the competitive nature. Now if we deploy it better, faster and quicker, yes, then we can have slightly higher returns, but my experience has always been other people catch up. And remember, even smaller banks when they get AI, they can do it themselves. And they're going to get it from Fiserv or [ FIS ] or Salesforce or stuff like that. So it isn't like the game, isn't like all the big guys are simply going to own it, they're not. You're going to have to fight out for it.
关于 AI 的问题在于：你拥有 AI，没错，但其他人也有。所以它是否真的改变竞争格局，还不好说。如果我们部署得更快、更好、更有效率，是的，我们可能会获得稍高的回报，但我的经验告诉我，别人迟早会追上的。你要记住，即使是小银行，当他们获得 AI 技术时，他们也能自己用上。他们可以从 Fiserv、FIS、Salesforce 等公司获得这些工具。所以这不是一个“大公司就能垄断”的游戏，事实不是那样的，你还是得跟大家一起去争。
And I also point out, this just an important distinction, we have a lot of CRM systems. We have a lot of clients. If you came in and looked at some of them, you say, you would not be happy. That's not exactly right. You're not doing it. It's hard to transfer across the company. Why did you do 2 systems? And all true. If you're a community bank, what's your CRM system? What is it? It's the banker.
而且我还想指出一个很重要的区别：我们有很多 CRM 系统，我们也有很多客户。如果你进来看其中一些系统，你可能会觉得不满意。确实有些做得不够好，公司内部也难以实现系统之间的统一。你会问，为什么会有两个系统？这些都是真的。但如果你是一家社区银行，你的 CRM 系统是什么？就是银行经理本人。
I know her. I know her kids. I know her parents. I know her business. I know when your kid goes to school. I know where they go to school. I get them the credit card they need. I don't need a CRM. I know all the businesses down the street. I know who they are. I know which ones are good citizens and which ones aren't good citizens.
我认识她，我认识她的孩子，认识她的父母，了解她的生意，知道她孩子什么时候上学、在哪上学。我会帮他们办所需的信用卡。我根本不需要 CRM 系统。我了解街上的每一家生意，知道谁是好客户，谁不是。
And so there are competitive advantages that have nothing to do with AI. And so AI may help us compete that way. But yes, so I do think we'll deploy AI. And I think we get rated as we're very good at it. So when I meet, I often think we're not doing enough. We're not getting the benefit. We're not -- we haven't had enough projects. We haven't done things. So we put up that chart for you guys. It showed, I think we spent $2 billion on it. And roughly, we say the benefits are about $2 billion.
所以有些竞争优势其实跟 AI 没什么关系。AI 可能在某些方面帮助我们竞争，但我确实认为我们会积极部署 AI。我觉得大家都认为我们在 AI 方面做得不错。但我每次开会时都在想，我们做得还不够，我们没有真正发挥出效益，我们的项目还不够多，很多事还没做。我们曾经展示过一张图表，显示我们在 AI 上大概花了 20 亿美元，获得的回报也是差不多 20 亿美元。
There's some things we do, there's no benefit. We're doing it because we just think it's kind of a table stakes. And there are other ones like in fraud, risk, marketing, prospecting, idea generation, note taking, yes, we use AI. And we can kind of identify specific categories of benefit, which we should do. We should always justify it to ourselves, but not overdo that.
有些事我们做了却没有看到回报，我们之所以做，是因为我们觉得这些东西已经是“入场门票”。但在欺诈检测、风险控制、营销、客户拓展、创意生成、笔记记录这些方面，我们确实在用 AI，而且我们能识别出具体带来效益的地方。我们确实应该对这些进行评估，但也不需要过度分析。
I mean I've been at meetings sometimes where people they have all these people out trying to do NPVs and what was the benefit of digital account opening in consumer. Well, you open it up, you save time, you gain accounts, you lost account, the NII is different. You spend the whole rest of your life, something like that, I would say the same thing. Customers are going to want it, just do it. Just move on. Don't do 6 months of NPV analysis. And the other things you should do the analysis. There's been a lot of discrete money in something that you're not sure it's going to pay off or not. Digital account opening is table stakes.
我参加过一些会议，大家花大量时间去做净现值（NPV）分析，比如“数字化开户”带来了多少效益。你省了时间，多了些客户，也少了些客户，净息差也变化了……你可能一辈子都分析不清楚。我对这种事情的看法是：客户想要这个功能，那就去做。继续前进，不要花六个月去做 NPV 分析。当然，有些更大规模的项目确实需要分析。但像“数字开户”这种东西，现在已经是基本配置了。
这一段评论至少是坦诚的，没有洞察力但有一定程度的自信，这已经是全美最好的银行家。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Well, you invest 10% of your revenues in technology annually, roughly, right? $18 billion this year.
你们每年大约将收入的10%投入到技术上，今年是180亿美元，对吧？
James Dimon
It's $18 billion. Yes.
是的，是180亿美元。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Right. So as a result, I'm sure you're doing the ROI to make sure that, that's got a good return.
那我相信你们一定会做投资回报率分析，以确保这笔钱能够带来良好回报。
James Dimon
Yes. Well, we do the ROI on a bunch of it, but not all of it. And we do know we get benefits around $2 billion to pay for the $2 billion. But I think we're going to see more, as people are going to spend more in AI for now. They're getting benefit, but the costs are also going -- some costs are coming down. And the cost of running some of these models have dropped dramatically. But your usage has gone way up, it's still not perfect. It takes up a lot of data time and compute power and management time just to go out there. I'm heading out to California after this, and you get smarter every single time, but we are devoted to AI. I think it is real. I think it will change a lot of things. I think the thing you chose to think about is sometimes technologies do things that you don't -- the future is figure out. Cars created suburbs or shopping centers. It wasn't -- you didn't have shopping centers, [ you didn't ] have cars. And so there are other things that take place because there's AI. I don't know what those things are, but you could look at it. I saw the guy from Klarna, was on stage at one of JPMorgan's events and said, when you have agents and they're going to be searching for the best price and the best thing, all your banks are dead. Okay? I said thank you.But I don't think that's true. But I think you missed a couple of major points because we already compete on price all the time. We're completely used to that. But I do think you will have things like that where it changes the business. It's not just an enhancement. It actually can eliminate it. And so we have our eyes out for that. And at the end of the day, here's what you have to do. You have to hold your money, move your money, invest your money, raise money, do it safely, and we're going to be pretty good at that stuff. Hopefully, using technology to do a better job for you faster and cheaper.
是的。我们确实对其中很多项目做了ROI分析，但不是全部。我们知道现在大约能获得20亿美元的效益，也就是能“覆盖”那20亿的支出。我认为未来我们会看到更多，因为现在大家在AI方面的投入都在增加。确实带来了好处，但成本也在变化——有些成本在下降，比如运行这些模型的成本就大幅降低了。但与此同时，使用量也显著上升了，AI系统仍不完美。它占用了大量的数据时间、计算资源和管理精力。我这次会议之后还要去加州，每次都能学到更多。但我们坚定投入AI，我认为这是真的，是会改变很多东西的。你要明白，有些技术的影响是超出你想象的。比如汽车诞生后才有了郊区和购物中心——没有汽车，也不会有购物中心。所以AI也会催生一些新的事物。我不知道它们具体是什么，但你可以想象。我看到Klarna的某位高管在我们某次活动中说：“将来会有AI代理去帮你比价、找最好的服务，那所有银行都会死掉。”我说谢谢你啊（笑）。但我不这么认为。他忽略了一些核心问题，比如我们早就习惯于价格竞争了。我们每天都在价格上竞争，我们对此非常熟悉。但我确实认为AI可能带来根本性的变化，不只是功能优化，有些甚至会颠覆业务。我们正密切关注这一点。归根结底，客户需要的是：保管资金、转账、投资、融资——并且要做到安全。而我们恰好在这些方面很擅长。希望借助技术，我们能做得更快、更好、更便宜。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Great. And that's on JPMorgan. Maybe we could talk a little bit about what you're hearing and seeing in the client arena just from the perspective of what's the current environment...
很好，这是关于摩根大通的部分。也许我们可以聊聊你从客户群体那里听到和观察到的情况，从当前市场环境的角度来看……
James Dimon
Who is -- Mike Santomassimo here?
等等——Mike Santomassimo今天在这里吗？
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Was this morning.
他今天早上在。
James Dimon
Yes. I mean, congratulations. I mean, boy, they went through a long arduous road to get out of that thing. I think it was grossly unfair, by the way, from a million different reasons because punishment should fit the crime, not be something you don't understand at all what the punishment is. So my hats off to them and they become -- as you know, I always look at competitors, well, they're back. They've got great bones. They're earning good returns. They've got ambition. They're back, the customers.
是的，祝贺他们。他们确实经历了一个漫长而艰难的过程才摆脱那一切。我认为那段经历从很多方面来看都非常不公平——惩罚应该与行为相称，而不是让人摸不着头脑。所以我要向他们致敬。他们回来了——你知道，我一向关注竞争对手。他们重新回到了正轨，基础扎实，利润不错，有雄心，客户也回来了。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Okay. And then what about client side? Yes, just wondering what you're hearing from corporates and we've been through a volatile year so far?
好。那么从客户的角度来看呢？我想知道你从企业客户那里听到了什么——毕竟今年迄今为止波动不小？
James Dimon
We have moments of volatility. Yes.
确实有一些波动期，是的。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Okay. And how are -- how is your conversation going with clients? What's the mood out there?
好的。你与客户的对话进展如何？市场的情绪怎么样？
James Dimon
It's okay. We've been in this soft landing now for a long time. And -- but I have the buts. I'm not going to let go these buts. But -- so the consumers have money, wages are pretty good, unemployment is pretty good. They're spending it. They've lost -- all the extra money from COVID has kind of gone. So the lower end folks doing normal behavior substitution, credit cost -- credit losses, delinquencies, you see the numbers have all gone up, but they've normalized. And at the upper end of the consumer, they're still doing travel and spending some money, their jobs are there. Their home prices are way up, their stock prices are way up. They're still feeling pretty good. Sentiment dropped. Sentiment came back. The stock market went down, the stock market came back.
还不错。我们在“软着陆”状态下已经很长一段时间了，但我有一些“但是”，这些“但是”我不会轻易放弃。消费者手头有钱，工资状况不错，失业率较低。他们仍在消费，但疫情期间额外的钱已经基本花完了。因此低收入群体正在进行常规的消费替代行为，信用成本——信用损失和逾期情况虽然增加了，但也已回归正常。至于高收入群体，他们仍在旅游、花钱，他们的就业情况稳定，房价大幅上涨，股市上涨，因此他们感觉还不错。情绪有所下降，但又回升了。股市曾经下跌，但现在也已回升。
And then in the corporate side, it's the same thing. The sentiment dropped, sentiment is coming back up, but business is still okay. And you see it in the earnings, in the announcements and stuff like that. But the [ bets ] are real. And I'm not trying to be negative. We spent $10 trillion. And this notion that somehow when you spend $10 trillion, well, of course, consumers have more money. We gave it to them. Of course, business is doing better. The consumers spent the $10 trillion. That goes right through P&Ls for all -- every industry out there.
在企业方面情况类似。企业的情绪一度下滑，目前正在回升，但业务状况仍然还不错，这一点从收益和公司公告中都可以看出来。不过，这些“但是”确实存在。我并不想唱衰，但我们花了10万亿美元。人们觉得当你花了10万亿美元后，消费者当然有更多的钱，我们把钱直接发给了他们，企业状况当然也会改善。这些钱都被消费者花掉了，进入了每个行业的损益表。
And then we had QE, which we haven't had the real reversal -- the real reversal is just starting in my view, like the first $1 trillion or something like that isn't a big deal. The next $1 trillion may be harder than you think, or it's going to hit a point where it causes some consternation. Then you have all these really complex moving tectonic plates around trade, economics, geopolitics and future factors, which I think are inflationary, military restructuring of trade, ongoing fiscal deficits. So it's okay.
此外，我们之前有量化宽松政策（QE），但真正的量化紧缩才刚刚开始。在我看来，前1万亿美元并不是什么大问题，但接下来的1万亿美元可能比想象中更难处理，或者会达到一个引发担忧的临界点。此外，还有贸易、经济、地缘政治和未来因素等复杂且持续移动的板块，它们可能导致通胀，比如军事上的贸易重组以及持续的财政赤字。所以现在还算不错。
But whenever you say consumer sentiment, remember, neither consumers nor businesses ever pick the inflection points. They never have. So if you're looking for that inflection point because it really doesn't matter if it's up or down just a little bit, they're not going to tell you that. You're going to see real numbers, and I think there's a chance real numbers will deteriorate soon. Employment will come down a little bit. Inflation will go up a little bit. Hopefully, just a little bit. I don't know the full effect of not adding 2 million people in our system every year. We added 8 million people, but you had to assume if 4 or 5 million were working in the prior 4 years. That's now 0. I don't know what that means in terms of -- obviously, it may be why unemployment is staying low, but at one point, it can slow down growth. These are a lot of moving parts. And to me, as a business, but I just build the business, I'm not going to worry too much about those fluctuations, except the big ones, the military alliances, the global economic alliances that matter to the future of the United States of America.
但每当你提到消费者情绪时，要记住，无论消费者还是企业，从来都不会准确预测拐点。他们从未做到过。因此，如果你在寻找那个关键的转折点，即使市场情绪略微波动，他们也不会告诉你答案。你会看到实际的经济数据，我认为这些数据有可能很快就会恶化一些。就业率可能会稍微下降，通胀可能会上升一些，希望只是略微上升一些。我不知道每年减少增加200万人对经济的具体影响。我们之前增加了800万人，你不得不假设其中有4、500万人在过去4年中就业，但现在这个数字变成了零。这或许是失业率保持低位的原因，但从某个时刻起，它可能会减缓增长。这些都是不断变化的因素。对我而言，作为企业，我只专注于发展业务，不会过于担忧这些波动，除非是那些重大的变化，比如军事联盟和全球经济联盟，这些才对美国的未来真正至关重要。
整个系统的效率也在提高。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
And when you say soon, why soon?
你刚才说“很快”，为什么说是“很快”？
James Dimon
Well, because we see it a little bit today, which is the tariffs are just hitting. So I think the last numbers I saw, it's about $1 billion a day. So all these things were put in place, even if the lower numbers are just starting to affect and hit people. You had a lot of people buying stuff ahead of time, both consumers and businesses for inventory. It's hard to see what that meant. So you haven't seen an effect yet other than in the sentiment. And maybe in July, August, September, October, you'll start to see did it have an effect? My guess is it did, hopefully not dramatic. It may just make the soft landing a little bit softer as opposed to the ship go down.
因为现在我们稍微已经开始看到了，比如关税才刚刚真正产生影响。我最近看到的数据，大概是每天10亿美元的关税成本。这些措施陆续实施，即使影响暂时还不明显，也开始逐渐传导到消费者和企业身上。此前消费者和企业囤积了一些库存，提前采购，造成了一些迷雾。因此，目前除了情绪上有所波动之外，实际影响还不明显。但也许在7月、8月、9月、10月，你会逐渐看到一些真实影响的显现。我猜会有一定的影响，希望不会太剧烈。这可能只是让原本的“软着陆”稍微更软一些，而不是让经济状况真正恶化下去。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
And how are you thinking about the leverage that your borrowers hold today? I mean how much of a slowdown do you think they can handle?
你怎么看待你们借款人的杠杆情况？换句话说，他们可以承受多大的经济放缓？
James Dimon
Well, that's a little more complex question. Most of the leverage you see in the world today is in governments and it's extraordinary, okay? And deficit levels are extraordinary. If you look at businesses, we don't have the leverage. When you go to '08, you were talking about investment banks, not JPMorgan leverage 30 or 41, hedge funds, quant funds, [ SIDs ], there was leverage everywhere in the public financial system. You don't really have that. You do have some more leverage, particularly in private credit and with some of the banks on leveraged lending. That is probably a bigger percent of borrowing than it was before.
这个问题比较复杂。当今世界的大部分杠杆其实集中在政府部门，规模非常巨大，财政赤字也极高。但如果看企业端，目前整体杠杆水平并不算太高。回想2008年时，当时投资银行（不包括摩根大通）杠杆水平达到30倍甚至41倍，此外还有对冲基金、量化基金、结构性投资工具（SIDs）等，整个金融系统中到处都是杠杆。如今你并没有看到那种情况。不过现在私人信贷以及一些银行的杠杆贷款领域的杠杆比例比过去要高。
If you look at companies and look at EBITDA, debt to EBITDA, of course, the range is probably more in the upper end than before. I think if you have a downturn, you will see more credit stress than people expect. It's just been a long time that we've had that. I'm not sure all that credit was all properly done. My operating assumption is that some people do it really well, but not all. And there will be a little bit of a surprise there. And we see a teeny bit of deterioration. I know some people here have said, not really. We see a little bit. Middle market, I mean I'm going to exaggerate the numbers. Losses for like 8 years were 0. And now we're seeing some. And if you look at upgrades and downgrades, there are more downgrades than upgrades. If you look at little things, but none of it's material yet. And it will not be material. If you look at consumers, their real behavior follows unemployment. So if unemployment -- their employment goes down, then you're going to see a little more stress on the consumer side.
如果你查看企业债务与EBITDA的比率，现在的企业杠杆水平可能比过去略高。如果经济真的出现放缓，信贷压力可能会比预期更严重一些。我们已经很长时间没有经历过真正的信贷压力了。我不确定目前所有的信贷质量是否都做得很好。我的假设是，一部分人做得非常好，但并不是所有人都如此，因此可能会有一些意外的压力出现。我们目前已经看到了一点点信用状况的恶化，我知道一些人说并不明显，但我们确实看到了一些。以中端市场为例，虽然有点夸张，过去8年的损失基本为零，现在开始看到一些损失。从信用评级的角度看，降级多于升级。这些细微的变化已经出现，但还没有真正产生实质性影响，预计也不会变成重大事件。至于消费者，其实际行为与失业率紧密相连。因此如果就业情况变差，消费者压力自然会增加。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
And just a question on private credit. Obviously -- well, at the Investor Day, you mentioned you wouldn't be leaning into credit right now. But then private credit, I think you mentioned that the $50 billion could go to $100 billion or $200 billion that you are looking to invest into the that ecosystem. So how do I square that?
关于私人信贷的问题很明显，在投资者日时，你提到现在不会积极扩大信贷。但与此同时，你也提到私人信贷领域，从目前的500亿美元可能增加到1000亿甚至2000亿美元的投资规模。如何理解这一点？
James Dimon
There are 2 different things. We are -- we will do what the client wants. So we offer a client bank syndicated lending, other capital markets or direct lending. There are differences. There are pros and cons. Direct lending is unitranche, it could be done faster, specialized covenants, one price as opposed to Term A and Term B and all that. And they like it, obviously. They're willing to pay more for it. I'm not sure I would have always a borrower, but they're still paying 200 basis points more for that. But I want you, the client, to decide and that's where our $50 billion comes from that we can deploy a lot of capital there.
这是两个不同的事情。我们首先要满足客户的需求，因此我们会向客户提供银行的银团贷款、其他资本市场融资或者直接贷款。每种方式各有差异，有优点也有缺点。直接贷款通常是单一结构（unitranche），执行速度更快，有专门的契约条件，价格也相对统一，不像传统贷款那样分为Term A和Term B等多个层次。客户显然喜欢这种方式，他们愿意为此支付更多的费用。我不确定我是否会一直愿意成为这种借款人，但客户愿意为此多支付约200个基点。我们希望由客户来做选择，而这正是我们当前能够投入约500亿美元资本的原因。
Our deployment is an outcome of doing things right. So we're not out here trying to deploy $100 billion. But if the business is coming in, and it was a good business in a way we're very comfortable, yes, we deploy more money. And I still -- but the second question is, do I think that now is a good time to buy credit if I was a fund manager? No. I wouldn't be buying credit today at these prices and these spreads. That's a different kind of concept. We're a bank. We still make loans to clients and even when I think spreads are low. And so -- but for us, the lending is an outcome. It's not an input. We're not trying to put money out there. And whenever I've heard that in credit, I just -- all my sensors go up. Credit is a tough game, and it's been a very easy game for the better part of a decade, and it may not be the next decade.
我们资本的投入是把业务做好后的自然结果。因此，我们并不是有意去投放1000亿美元。但如果业务需求增加，且这些业务的质量足够优秀，让我们感到非常放心，我们自然就会投入更多资金。但第二个问题是，如果我是一个基金经理，我是否认为现在是购买信贷资产的好时机？不，我不会在当前的价格和利差水平下买入信贷资产。这是一个完全不同的概念。我们是一家银行，即使我认为当前利差偏低，我们仍然会为客户提供贷款。但对我们来说，放贷是一个业务结果，而不是业务的起点。我们不会为了投放资金而去投放资金。每当我听到有人在信贷领域强调要积极放贷时，我的警觉性就会立即提高。信贷是一场艰难的游戏。过去十年它或许很容易，但下一个十年可能不会如此。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Okay. Yes, you've been vocal on the potential risk at the long end of the curve. Anything there you want to remind us of?
好的。你曾经明确提醒过长期利率曲线端的潜在风险，关于这一点，有什么你想再次提醒我们的吗？
James Dimon
No, it's just -- if inflation [ rears ] as we head or any form of stagflation, that will surprise people. And you all can handle 4.5 -- all of us can handle 4.5% 10-year bond rates and probably 5%, but 5.5% or 6% puts a lot of stress on people. All ratios -- and if you have a recession at the same time, that's when you have a credit cycle and all that kind of things. So -- and as a business, my view is you should always be prepared for that, whether or not you think it is going to happen. I don't spend that much time guessing about what's going to happen in '25 or '26 or '27 because our business is going to determine the loans we make, the growth, the outcomes.
其实没有太多补充，只是提醒一下，如果通胀再度抬头，或者出现某种形式的滞胀，可能会让人感到意外。我们所有人都能承受10年期国债收益率在4.5%甚至5%的水平，但如果达到5.5%或6%，情况就会非常紧张，各种财务比率都会承压。如果同时发生经济衰退，这就是你可能会看到信贷周期和类似问题出现的时刻。因此，作为企业，我的观点是，无论你是否认为它一定会发生，你都应该随时为此做好准备。我不会花太多时间去猜测2025年、2026年或2027年到底会发生什么，因为业务本身会决定我们如何发放贷款，如何成长，以及最终的结果。
需要更保守的投资组合。
And we try to run the company that whatever happens, we're actually doing the same thing every day. And then we do trim our sales around credit. Every now and then, you can do it in a million different ways to be careful about it. But we basically just build the business to serve clients. We want more good clients. Another thing about private credit, which is important to us is, remember, in general, when we do a loan, they're a client of the firm, and we do a lot of other noninterest revenue business, not just NII. And that's important to me. If it was just NII, I'm not sure that I'd be that comfortable as a business doing that. As an investor, maybe, but not as a business.
无论市场发生什么，我们都会努力让公司每天都按照同样的原则运营。当然，我们也会在信贷方面适当地做些谨慎的调整，这种调整的方式可以有很多种。但总的来说，我们的业务目标就是为客户服务，争取更多优秀的客户。私人信贷业务对我们而言另一个重要的点是，通常情况下，当我们做出贷款决定时，借款人同时也是公司的客户，我们可以从中获得许多非利息收入，而不仅仅是净利息收入（NII）。这一点对我非常重要。如果仅仅是为了净利息收入，我可能不会觉得作为一个企业这样做是合适的。作为投资者或许可以，但作为企业运营者可能就未必合适。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Okay. Now turning to the next couple of years, we do have one thing changing what seems like, which is regulation. And Jamie, I know since great financial crisis, you've been asking for a holistic review of capital liquidity rule set. What do you think?
好的，接下来几年我们似乎会面临一个变化，那就是监管方面。杰米，我知道自金融危机以来，你一直在呼吁对资本和流动性规则进行全面审视。你怎么看待这一点？
James Dimon
I think you're going to get some of that. I really do think it's time, and I've urged them take a step back, take -- it's not what's happened. You regularly have been whack-a-mole. This one doing this, this one doing this and this one doing that, adding to this and LCR, ELCR and TLAC and TLAC 2 and Tier 1 and G-SIFI and some of these calculations, I mean, they are through the looking glass. If you actually spend time on them, you say, what the hell is that? Like G-SIFI is not one risk-based measure in it. And no benefits for diversification, I mean nothing. And CCAR is dead wrong. I don't -- I like stress testing. And then, of course, if you're going to fix CCAR and then -- but you don't fix G-SIFI and then you do Basel III the wrong way or the fundamental review of the trade book, you get all this mismatch.
我觉得这方面会出现一些改变。我真的认为现在是时候了，我一直呼吁监管方应该后退一步，全面审视，但实际情况却是一直在“打地鼠”，各个部门各自为政，不断新增一些规则，比如LCR、ELCR、TLAC、TLAC 2、一级资本、G-SIFI以及各种计算公式，这些东西简直让人难以理解。如果你真的花时间深入研究，就会忍不住问：“这到底是什么？” 比如G-SIFI，里面甚至没有一个基于风险的指标，也完全不考虑多元化的好处，什么都没有。CCAR也是完全错误的。我并不是反对压力测试，但如果你修正了CCAR，却又不修正G-SIFI，再以错误方式实施巴塞尔III协议或者交易账簿的根本审查，那么整个体系就会不匹配。
And -- but the biggest question is what do you want? Did you want leverage lending to leave the banking system. So if they were geniuses and said, that's exactly we intended, they should have said it. They don't want banks to make leverage lending, no problem, let us know, we'll move on. I mean it. Or if you want banks out of the mortgage business and most out of the mortgage business, just say it. We don't want banks in the mortgage business. And then Janet Young comes out and says, well, since the banks have moved out of the mortgage business because the rules and regulations, we need a special facility to finance the brokers if something gets bad, so they can fund all these securitizations. I think really? That's the idea. Force out of the system that has liquidity into a system that has no liquidity and the Fed steps in again, they should look at this stuff. They should look at it for international competitiveness.
更大的问题在于你们到底想要什么？你们是不是希望杠杆贷款退出银行体系？如果监管者真的足够聪明，并表示这正是他们的意图，他们应该明确说出来。他们如果不希望银行做杠杆贷款，没问题，请告诉我们，我们会调整策略。我是认真的。又或者如果你们希望银行退出抵押贷款业务，明确告诉我们就好了，“我们不希望银行参与抵押贷款业务”。但珍妮特·扬出来说，“由于监管规则导致银行退出了抵押贷款业务，因此一旦情况恶化，我们需要特别融资机制为经纪人提供资金，以支持这些证券化产品。” 真的吗？这难道就是他们的想法？把资金从拥有充足流动性的体系逼到一个完全没有流动性的体系，然后美联储又不得不出手相救。他们真的应该好好审视这些问题，并关注国际竞争力。
We are driving a lot of stuff out of the public markets. So I'm not talking about private credit now, just public companies, 8,000 or 4,000. Is that what we wanted? And why is that? It's litigation, it's taxation, it's [cookie-cutter] rules, it's ISS, it's the cost. If you -- our 10-K, every now and then I get an investor and say, you guys, you're taking those risk derivatives. What about this? You don't disclose that? I say, we do it on Page 144 of the 10-K. I mean no reason anymore because they're so full of crap in there that I just -- I look at we've done and I'm just saying, is this what we wanted? I don't think we did the right thing. I think they should fix it. And worse than that, I think we could have built a system. I mean, if I ran the FDIC, which is a mutual insurance company, it's a mutual insurance company. The losses are borne by us. If I ran the FDIC with my CEO partners, we would reduce the risk that people were taking on interest rate exposure like Silicon Valley Bank or First Republic, wouldn't have happened.
我们正在迫使大量企业离开公开市场，我这里并不是指私人信贷，而是公开上市公司，从8,000家降到4,000家。这真的是我们想要的结果吗？为什么会这样？原因在于诉讼、税务、僵化的规则、ISS以及高昂的成本。我们的10-K报告，有时候有投资者问我：“你们那些衍生品风险怎么办？为什么不披露？” 我告诉他们，“我们在10-K第144页披露了。” 事实上这种披露已经毫无意义，因为里面已经塞满了太多无用的信息。我看着我们所做的一切，我会质疑：这真的是我们想要的吗？我认为监管的做法并不恰当，他们应该予以纠正。更糟糕的是，我们本可以建立一个更好的系统。如果让我和其他CEO一起管理FDIC（美国联邦存款保险公司），FDIC本质上是一个互助保险机构，损失由我们银行业承担，那么我们一定会降低银行所承担的利率风险，像硅谷银行或第一共和银行的情况就不会发生。
We could change certain basic things that would make it much easier for a bank, make it easier for community banks, and we don't. And unless you are willing to sit back, just I can do to a company. I don't justify what we did the last 10 years, take a step back, do a real analysis, really think about it, have a lot of conversations. They show a lot of conversations with bankers around the world. And then try to improve and enhance regulations.
我们完全可以改变一些基本规则，使银行业务更容易进行，让社区银行更好地发展，但我们并没有这样做。除非监管者愿意真正后退一步，就像我在公司内部会做的那样，不为过去十年的错误辩护，真正地进行分析、认真思考，与全球银行家广泛讨论，并据此改进和完善监管规则。
Now you have in place a bunch of people who want to fix the regulations. I applaud that. I hope they do that. I expect you'll see changes in SLR, maybe LCR window, resolution recovery, probably still the whole goddamn thing out since it doesn't work. 80,000 pages of shit. I guess the whole thing is amazing to me. And unless people have the ability to see things what they are, you're wasting your time. So I'm hoping they do that. And I think they will. I hope -- I'm not looking for radical stuff. We have $60 billion of excess capital. It will probably become real excess capital, which puts a little more of a burden on us to -- but they do because it's the right thing to do, not because JPMorgan wants it.
现在监管机构内部确实有不少人想改善监管，我对此表示赞赏，也希望他们能够真正实现。我预计你会看到在SLR（杠杆比率）、LCR（流动性覆盖率）窗口、破产处置机制等方面的一些变化，也许整个规则都会被重新审视，因为目前根本不起作用，8万页的垃圾规则实在令人难以置信。除非监管者能够真正看清现实，否则只是在浪费时间。我并不是寻求激进变革，我们手里有600亿美元的超额资本，也许会成为真正的超额资本，这对我们来说是一种压力，但监管的改变是因为这是正确的，而非因为摩根大通想要这些改变。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Well, [ Michelle Bauman ] did say that they're going to be bringing together a group from banking, academic...
好的，[米歇尔·鲍曼]确实提到他们将在7月份组织一次银行界和学术界人士的会议……
James Dimon
People actually know shit. Yes, that would be good.
那些真正懂行的人。是的，那会很好。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Regulators in July for kicking off...
7月份监管部门也会参加，正式开始……
James Dimon
Some of these regulators I deal with have no idea about the real world. And I'm being serious. They're pure economists who do models, and they think those models are the real world. And they're not.
我接触过的一些监管人士对现实世界毫无了解。我是认真的。他们只是纯粹的经济学家，只知道建模，以为那些模型就是现实世界，但事实并非如此。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Well, will you be there in the July session to...
那么，你7月份会去参加那个会议吗？
James Dimon
If they invite me. I'd be happy to go. They all know what I think, but I write about it. It's like -- and sometimes in an excruciating detail. And so, yes, I would like to be part of fixing the system and making it safer and helping the smaller banks.
如果他们邀请我，我很乐意去。他们都知道我的观点，我也一直在公开地写这些东西，有时候写得非常详细。所以，是的，我希望能够参与修复这个体系，让它变得更安全，并且帮助那些规模较小的银行。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Okay. So now on to the topic of excess capital. You just mentioned if this all gets done, maybe it will make that excess capital real.
好的，现在我们谈谈超额资本的话题。你刚才提到，如果这些都落实了，可能会让这些超额资本变成真正的超额资本。
James Dimon
Yes. I think it will be real, yes.
是的，我认为确实会变成真正的超额资本。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
What's the difference between real excess capital and the excess capital you have today?
你所说的真正的超额资本和你们现在拥有的超额资本有什么区别？
James Dimon
Whatever, it's either 45 or 60 or 40, doesn't matter. It's going to be a number. Even today, it really -- it depends if they do G-SIFI and some of this other stuff, I'm hoping that a lot of that becomes excess. I don't think that's going to change anything for us because I've always known there was a point if they went through Basel III and somebody of these other things, they would be -- you need the whole -- you need 40 or 50, which, of course, is absurd. But I mean, JPMorgan has $600 billion of bailinable capital, equity and TLAC and stuff like that. And we've got $1.4 trillion of loans.
无论怎样，超额资本是45亿、60亿还是40亿其实并不重要，总会有个具体数字。即便是今天，这其实取决于他们如何处理G-SIFI和其他一些监管规则，我希望这些规则调整后，我们的大部分资本能变成真正的超额资本。我认为这对我们不会产生太大的实际影响，因为我一直知道，如果他们彻底实施巴塞尔III协议以及其他一些监管措施，他们可能会要求我们总共需要400亿或500亿美元，这当然是荒谬的。摩根大通目前拥有6000亿美元的可转债务资本（bail-inable capital）、股本和TLAC等，而我们一共有1.4万亿美元的贷款。
所有者权益3447.58亿，可能仅次于BRK，这是巴菲特关心的真实数据。
I mean where are they going with this stuff? And I hear they have 25% that academic and [indiscernible] 25% capital against loans, we have more than that. Again, if you look at the numbers, if you look at RWA and stuff like that, [indiscernible] most of that stuff means at this point. So -- but the hierarchy is the same. We're going to continue to pay our dividend. We're going to invest in organic stuff. Maybe not more aggressively, but we've been doing that aggressively. And I do think they can use up some of that over time. And then we look at the inorganic opportunities, which I'm not -- there might be, but not enough to bend that curve probably or at least not right now. And then buying back stock, and we're buying back a little. I don't think we tell people what that number is. I think it was $7 billion last quarter. You do know. We don't want to build up the excess, but I like buying stocks when they are cheap.
我不太明白监管到底想把事情带往何方。我听说有些学术人士或监管部门说贷款应该持有25%的资本，我们已经超过了这个比例。再强调一下，如果你真正深入研究风险加权资产（RWA）之类的数字，[难以理解的部分]这些指标如今实际上意义不大。不过，我们的资本运用优先级始终是明确的。我们会继续支付股息，也会持续进行内生增长的投资，也许不会更加激进，但我们一直以来的投资就已经非常积极了。我认为长期来看这些投资会逐渐消耗掉一些资本。至于外延并购的机会，目前可能会有一些，但规模不足以对整体资本使用情况产生重大影响，至少现在不会。最后我们会进行股票回购，我们一直在适度回购股票。我想我们没有具体公布过回购数字，上个季度大概是70亿美元左右，这一点你们应该清楚。我们并不希望累积太多超额资本，但我确实喜欢在股票便宜时进行回购。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
But your CET1 is at 15%
但你们的普通股一级资本充足率（CET1）达到15%。
James Dimon
That's the $60 billion of excess capital.
这正是那600亿美元的超额资本。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Right. Right. So then the other side of this question is how long is it okay to hold this excess capital? And how do you deal with the trade-off between the opportunity costs?
是的。那么，这个问题的另一个方面就是，你们持有这些超额资本多长时间是合适的？你如何看待与机会成本之间的取舍？
James Dimon
Well, I have no problem holding at all. I look at it if I own 100% of the company, it would be nothing to me to own that. That's just earnings in store and cash wing to be deployed. You could argue, raise your dividend. We've done it pretty aggressively. I can't suck up that much really. And I've asked -- I've surveyed a bunch of people, our folks have done it about special dividends. Most people think that doesn't work. So basically, we're going to be patient. We will find an opportunity to make real payouts for our shareholder. Just give us time. And I don't want to look at an annual year or something like that.
其实我对持有这些超额资本并不介意。假如我100%拥有这家公司，对我来说持有这些资本并不会造成什么问题。这些资金只不过是储存起来的收益，等待合适的投资时机来部署。有人可能会建议提高股息。我们已经在积极提高股息，但股息并不能完全吸纳这么大的规模。我也曾问过许多人，我们团队也做过相关的调查，关于特别股息的做法。大多数人认为这并不合适。因此，基本上，我们将保持耐心，慢慢寻找真正能够回报股东的机会。给我们一点时间，我并不想只盯着一年的期限或者类似的短期视角。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
So as the environment rolls forward, maybe there'll be more opportunities.
那么随着环境的发展，或许未来会有更多机会。
James Dimon
Yes. I think there will be opportunities.
是的，我认为未来确实会有更多机会。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
I did want to see if there's any questions from the room here. Yes. Wait for the mic.
我想看看现场是否有任何提问。是的，请等一下麦克风。
Unidentified Analyst
Do you see with all the kind of stuff that's been going on this year, that the future of the U.S. dollar strengthens financial system in the future?
你怎么看待今年发生的一系列事件？未来美元地位和金融体系是否会得到加强？
James Dimon
So to keep this kind of simple, if we are no longer in the military power of the world, the preeminent and no longer the preeminent economy in 40 years, we will not be the reserve currency. So it's directly related to that. And now there's no replacement for it. If you were going to give you dollar supported by rule of law, by the court, by the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen, by a central bank who is supposed to be independent and stop inflation, hopefully, stop inflation and military, all -- I tell you, the military is an important part of what makes America stable. We're still the reserve currency. And we've heard it a little bit with certain sanctions and certain tariffs and -- but it will still be there. I would be cautious. I don't think we should misuse sanctions or overdo America [ bullying ] of other countries like that for that reason. But again, it's going to be predicated on the other 2 things.
简单来说，如果未来40年后，美国不再是世界上的主要军事强国，也不再是最强大的经济体，那么美元将不再是全球储备货币。这二者直接相关。目前来说，并没有可以替代美元的货币。美元之所以具有目前的地位，是因为它背后有法治体系、司法体系、全球最繁荣的经济体、一个理应独立且能控制通胀的中央银行，以及强大的军事力量。我明确告诉你们，军事力量在确保美国稳定方面发挥了重要作用。现阶段我们仍然是储备货币。尽管在制裁和关税方面可能带来了一些争议，但美元的地位仍然不会轻易动摇。当然，我认为我们应该保持谨慎，不要过度滥用制裁，也不要在国际事务中过于强势地欺压其他国家。但最终美元地位的未来取决于我刚才提到的另外两大因素——军事力量和经济实力。
Unidentified Analyst
Betsy, congratulations on getting Jamie to your conference. And Jamie, I love your shout-out.
贝茜，恭喜你成功邀请到杰米参加你的会议。杰米，我很喜欢你刚才提到的一些内容。
James Dimon
She is one of the great analysts. I have tremendous respect for her.
她是一位出色的分析师，我对她十分尊重。
Unidentified Analyst
And Jamie, I love your shout out on travelers. I was an analyst that followed you 35 years ago, your management style hasn't changed one bit. My question for you...
杰米，我也很喜欢你刚才对旅行者集团（Travelers）的评价。35年前我就是跟踪你的分析师，你的管理风格这么多年从未改变。我的问题是……
James Dimon
I'm still immature basically.
基本上我还是很不成熟。
Unidentified Analyst
I think I talked for a lot of people in this room. We wait for your annual letter every year to read it. What 2 or 3 annual letters do you wait for?
我想我能代表这里的很多人说句话：我们每年都会非常期待阅读你的年度致股东信。那么你自己每年最期待阅读的是哪两三封年度致股东信？
James Dimon
I always read Buffett's, Andy Jassy's and Jeff Bezos. In my business, I would read Fairbanks. I read -- I mean I read a tremendous amount. And I read a lot of the research you all do. And buy side and sell side and things like Grant's Interest Rate Observer, Gloom, Doom & Boom report and stuff like that. So you always have to be thinking very carefully. I used to remember the -- they don't do it anymore, The Outstanding Investor. I used to read that cover to cover. But some CEOs, they're pretty good. Others are just constant corporate [indiscernible]. So I don't read them.
我总是会读巴菲特、安迪·贾西（Andy Jassy）以及杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）的致股东信。具体到我的业务领域，我也会读Fairbanks的。我其实读得非常广泛，也经常阅读你们这些分析师的研究成果，包括买方、卖方的研究报告，以及像《格兰特利率观察》（Grant's Interest Rate Observer）、《Gloom, Doom & Boom》这样的刊物。你必须保持谨慎深入地思考。我还记得以前有一本杂志叫《卓越投资者》（The Outstanding Investor），虽然现在已经停刊了，但过去我一直从头读到尾。有些CEO的信写得非常好，而另一些则只是不断重复的公司套话，所以我就不读了。
Andy Jassy是几个职业经理人中比较成熟的，有一些自己的理解，已经做了一点配置，Fairbanks是Capital One的CEO。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Dick. Yes, we have a mic coming to you.
迪克，好的，我们的麦克风马上就到你那边。
Unidentified Analyst
Jamie, a lot of your competitors have programs, one -- well, one Goldman, one Bank of America, one bank in New York. But I think of JPMorgan is like not having to do that because...
杰米，你的很多竞争对手都有类似的计划，比如“一个高盛”、“一个美银”、“一个纽约银行”等。但我认为摩根大通似乎并不需要这样做，因为……
James Dimon
It's a program?
你的意思是类似的计划？
Unidentified Analyst
Like where they're trying to get all the different parts of the business to cooperate and to share information and clients and promote using the whole company. I think of that happening very organically at JPMorgan in large part, correct me if I'm wrong, because of kind of your management style and the culture you've created at the firm. So the question is how do you feel that, that will persist, that culture will persist when you finally hand the baton off to the next leader of JPMorgan? Can the culture continue to produce the kind of results and sharing and lack of bureaucracy when you drop the mic?
就是他们试图让公司各个部门彼此合作，分享信息和客户资源，推动整个公司共同发展。但我感觉在摩根大通，这种情况似乎是非常自然地发生的。如果我说错了，请纠正我。我认为这主要是因为你的管理风格和你创造的企业文化。那么问题是，当你最终把接力棒传给下一任领导时，你认为这种文化还能持续吗？当你最终离开的时候，这种文化还能继续保持良好的业绩、有效的信息共享以及减少官僚作风吗？
James Dimon
Yes. I think the answer is yes. It will be different. All CEOs are different. They run places differently. I hope that they've learned enough and they do enough that they do what I consider most in the right way. They may be better than me in certain things, and they may be worse than me in other certain things. But I think the culture you're talking about, my management team meets and it starts right at the beginning, my first week at JPMorgan. I mean the management team, you all got in a room and it's like, what do you do? Give me your reports. What do you do? What do you do? Share all the dead cats to the table. Get your numbers right, come back on that one, follow-up lists, deep dives that we would do, just constantly making that happen. Most of the people have been part of that for 20 years now. So if you ask them, they say, they've stayed -- that's embedded and ingrained in how we kind of run the company and just raise those issues. The issues themselves are always changing. But the nature of meeting and sharing and honestly assessing, that should not change.
是的，我认为是可以持续的。当然，未来会有所不同，每位CEO都是不同的，他们管理公司的方式也会有所差别。我希望他们学到了足够多的经验，能够继续以我认为正确的方式运营公司。他们可能在某些方面比我做得更好，也可能在其他方面不如我。但你刚才所说的这种文化，从我来到摩根大通的第一周起就开始了。当时管理团队的人聚集在一起，我就问他们：“你的职责是什么？你的报告拿给我看看，你做些什么？你又做些什么？” 每个人都把棘手的问题公开提出，然后确保数据准确，再回来跟进。我们一直保持这样的问题跟进、深度研究的方式，使这些沟通不断进行。如今，大多数团队成员都已经参与了这种管理模式近20年。如果你问他们，他们会告诉你，这种模式已经深深地融入到我们的管理风格中，成为日常运营的一个组成部分。具体的问题本身会不断变化，但这种开诚布公的交流、坦诚的评估方式不应发生变化。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
And when is the building going to be ready?
那么那栋大楼什么时候能完工？
James Dimon
I'm pretty relentless on that. The building in September. I'm going to move in temporarily in September and then hopefully permanently in December of this year. Having a big -- I was with the union guys. I've been over there many times and one of the big union, there's like 1,000 people out there, and he's a huge thing. We built the best building in the best city with the best union. And I have to speak after this guy. I got up there and said, you built the best building in the best city. But he also said that one day, you're going to walk by this building with your families, you're going to look up and say, that's what I help build. And so I ended by saying I'm doing you one [ bed ], Gary, I'm going to give you all a barbecue with your families, which we're doing sometime this summer. It could be thousands of people who come in and enjoy what they built. They did it 14 different -- I think 40 unions, by the way. And it was a labor love for all of us. I mean we all worked on it. Marianne, Jen, Mary and [indiscernible] and different parts of it. And we had a fabulous time. It could be an unbelievable building.
我对这个问题抓得很紧。这栋大楼将在9月基本完工。我9月会暂时搬进去，理想情况下，今年12月能够永久性地搬入。我之前与建筑工会的成员们一起，去过施工现场很多次。当时其中一个大型工会有约1000人在场，那是一个非常重大的场面。他们说，“我们和最优秀的工会一起，在最棒的城市建设了最好的大楼。” 而我当时需要接着他的发言，所以我说：“你们确实在最棒的城市建了最好的大楼。” 他还说，“总有一天，你们会和家人一起路过这里，抬头望着这栋大楼，骄傲地说‘我曾经参与了这座大楼的建设’。” 所以，我在最后告诉他：“加里，我还要再做点更好的，今年夏天我会邀请所有工人带上家人来参加一次烧烤聚会。” 预计会有数千人带着家人前来，庆祝他们的建设成果。整个工程由40个不同工会的成员共同完成。这项工程对我们所有人来说都是一项充满热情的事业，我们所有人都参与了其中，包括玛丽安、珍、玛丽以及其他许多同事，我们度过了一段美好的时光。这栋大楼最终会成为一座令人惊叹的建筑。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Excellent. So the barbecue is set for August.
太好了。那么烧烤聚会就定在8月了。
James Dimon
It's yet. Yes. I'm not going tell you the date, though, yes.
对，是定下来了。但具体日期我可不会告诉你，是的。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
No, no. That's okay. I just walked by pretty much every day. So I guess I'll sense it in a variety of ways.
没关系。我几乎每天都会路过那里，所以我应该能够从各种迹象中感知到。
Unidentified Analyst
You think about cohorts of your customer base. How do you think about the either the household or the individual that earns somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 as it pertains to the cost to serve and then the opportunity either short term or very long term as people grow in their careers?
当你们考虑客户群体的不同收入层次时，对于那些家庭或个人收入在5万至10万美元之间的群体，你们如何看待服务成本，以及在短期或长期内随着他们职业发展而带来的机遇？
James Dimon
Yes. So we have an awful lot of clients in that neighborhood. As you know, we are in all 48 branches now in rural. We're in LMI neighborhoods. We're in low-income neighborhoods. And we've got products and service for them. There's some we do because they don't really make a profit, but we think it's a great product for the community. But we do it. We're pretty conscious. That's why I used to point out that Durbin pushed so many [ pillars ] of the banking system because one of the revenue streams for a bank, this for a lot of business, not always a direct thing, but they took away $60 a year of debit fee. And the cost of maintaining an account, so take an average checking account is $250, it's like 80% fixed. And the revenue you get is debit, some NII and stuff like that. So obviously, NII is much lower on an account that's spending $20,000 and has $2,000 in there than something else.
是的，我们有很多处于这个收入水平的客户。你们知道，我们现在在农村地区开设了48家分行。我们在中低收入（LMI）社区、低收入社区都有业务。我们为这些客户提供特定的产品和服务。其中一些产品实际上并不能给我们带来多少利润，但我们认为它们对社区非常重要，所以依然会继续提供。我们非常清楚地意识到这些成本问题。我过去经常强调，《德宾修正案》（Durbin Amendment）确实挤压了银行体系的一些重要收入渠道。比如，银行过去每年可以从每个账户获得约60美元的借记卡手续费，但这一收入渠道后来被取消了。而维护一个普通支票账户的成本大约是250美元，其中约80%是固定成本。账户的收入主要来自借记卡费用和一些净利息收入（NII）。显然，一个年支出只有2万美元且账户余额仅为2,000美元的账户所产生的净利息收入，要远低于其他规模更大的账户。
So -- but we specialize in that. We have credit cards for that group. We've got -- we have what we call the starter segment. I think Marianne was talking about things going after that starter segment. So think of get them when they're 18 years old and maybe younger because Venmo and Chime are getting much younger, lower income. We may not try to compete with all of them. But we're pretty competitive on those sets.
但我们专门为这类客户设计了服务。我们为这一群体提供信用卡服务，并且设有专门的初始客户群（starter segment）服务。玛丽安之前提到过，我们正在努力吸引这些初始客户群。这些客户可能刚满18岁甚至更年轻，因为像Venmo和Chime这样的平台已经开始更早、更年轻地接触低收入客户。我们可能不会和这些平台在每个领域都进行竞争，但在这些客户群体中，我们还是颇具竞争力的。
Unidentified Analyst
Okay. Great. My question is on digital first consumer banks. I'm curious, what does it take for those business models to generate 17% kind of returns? JPMorgan is launching one in Germany, a digital-first consumer bank. So what does it take to really become profitable in that business model?
好的，很棒。我的问题是关于数字优先的零售银行。我很好奇，这些商业模式需要具备什么条件才能达到17%左右的回报？摩根大通正在德国推出数字优先的零售银行，那么这种模式真正实现盈利需要什么条件？
James Dimon
Yes. Well, I'm not going to -- I mean, you -- we study Revolut and Chime and Klarna and everybody else. I mean, you could do your own study. I think some can. I think some of the business models will be almost impossible. But the other thing you've learned about fintech, these folks, they're pretty good, and they morph. They start here and they changed that. So like, if you remember correctly, Square came out with cash in the crisis, I invented a new thing. It was a great thing. And so I always assume they're going to do other things. They're going to move upscale, they are going to add products, they are going to add services.
是的，我不打算具体分析某家公司，但你知道，我们对Revolut、Chime、Klarna以及其他公司都有深入研究。你也可以自己去做一些研究。我认为其中有些公司确实可以做到这样的盈利水平，而有些公司的商业模式几乎不可能实现盈利。但关于金融科技公司，我们发现另一件事情是，这些公司其实相当不错，并且具备很强的适应能力。他们从一个方向起步，但很快会向其他方向转型。比如，Square在金融危机后推出了Cash App，当时创造了一种新的模式，非常成功。所以我总是认为，这些公司未来还会持续演变，他们会逐步提升客户群体层次，增加更多产品和服务。
For us, the long-term goal is that we have a huge -- we have a profitable digital bank, hopefully, Pan-European, it wasn't meant just to be in one country or another. Remember, once you're in a European country, you have a transportable licenses and things like that. And we will be adding products and service to that bank over time. And the capital, it depends if you look at capital because we're going to have hopefully some asset management business, things like that. But we -- I'm quite optimistic that it will be a good thing, more for the next generation than for the next 5 years. But we should be working.
就我们而言，我们的长期目标是建立一家规模庞大的盈利的数字银行，希望最终能实现泛欧洲范围的运营，而不是仅限于某个国家。你知道，一旦进入了一个欧洲国家，就可以利用牌照在其他欧洲国家开展业务。我们也会随着时间的推移不断为这家银行增加产品和服务。关于资本回报，这取决于具体的资本使用方式，比如我们可能会增加一些资产管理业务等等。我非常乐观地认为，这将是一件好事，但更多地是为下一代服务，而不是短短五年内就能实现的目标。但无论如何，我们会持续推进。
The other thing which I keep on telling my team is, I'm not telling you can't have physical plants, branches. So if they came to me and said, we want to have a flagship branch in every major city in the U.K., there's good logic. I'd be fine with that. So it might be a combination of both. But remember, I always look at JPMorgan Chase. We do have competitive advantage. We have a lot of people go cross-border. We have a lot of wealthy clients all around the globe. We've got asset management products. You can go online now if you want to be a Chase Wealth Management client and get digitized, simplified versions of our research. That's a $1 billion worth of research we do that we're giving to those clients.
我一直告诉我的团队，我并不是禁止他们设立实体分行。比如如果他们跟我说：“我们希望在英国每个大城市都设一个旗舰分行”，这在逻辑上也说得通，我完全赞成。因此，这种模式未来可能会是线上和线下的结合。但要记住，我一直认为摩根大通是具备竞争优势的。我们有大量跨境客户，全球各地都有许多富裕客户，我们还有丰富的资产管理产品。如果你想成为大通财富管理客户，可以直接在线获取我们经过数字化处理和简化的研究报告，这些研究每年的成本高达10亿美元，但我们正通过这种方式分享给客户。
And I think we're doing it in 2 forms, short form and a longer form. So you can see the whole report or kind of a summarized report. And I think those things over time are advantages. You will be able to, I think, sometime this year, move money from Chase U.S. to Chase U.K. So for people moving back and forth, which happens. So they're -- we're worried about doing it right for ourselves. And Revolut worth $60 billion. I mean, I'd like to have some more $60 billion. I don't know why we can't.
我们的研究报告分为两种形式，一种是完整报告，另一种是摘要形式。随着时间的推移，这将成为我们的竞争优势之一。今年内，你应该就可以实现从美国的大通账户直接向英国的大通账户转账，这对经常往返于两国的客户而言非常重要。因此，我们的关注点始终在于把这些服务做到位。Revolut的市值现在高达600亿美元，我当然也希望我们能再多创造几个600亿美元的业务，我不觉得我们有什么理由做不到。
Betsy Lynn Graseck
Excellent. Well, Jamie, thank you so much for your time today.
非常好。杰米，非常感谢你今天的宝贵时间。
James Dimon
Thank you. Thank you. Good luck to everyone.
谢谢你们，谢谢大家。祝大家一切顺利。
热门主题
Related Articles
2025-06-10 Capital One Financial Corporation (COF) Presents at Morgan Stanley US Financials, Payments & CRE Conference Transcript
apital One Financial Corporation (NYSE:COF) Morgan Stanley US Financials, Payments & CRE Conference Call June 10, 2025 2:30 PM ET Company Participants Jeff Norris - Senior Vice President of Finance Richard D. Fairbank - Founder, Chairman, CEO & ...2024-10-11 JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Q3 2024 Earnings Call Transcript
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) Q3 2024 Earnings Conference Call October 11, 2024 8:30 AM ET 摩根大通公司（纽约证券交易所：JPM）2024 年第三季度收益电话会议 2024 年 10 月 11 日 美国东部时间上午 8:30 Company Participants 公司参与者 Jeremy Barnum - Chief Financial Officer 首席财务官 - 杰里米·巴纳姆 Jamie ...2024-05-29 James Dimon.Bernstein's 40th Annual Strategic Decisions Conference
Unknown Analyst Okay. Thanks, everyone. We're very happy to have JPMorgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, joining us. Jamie, thanks so much for coming back. Great to have you here. 未知分析师 好的，谢谢大家。我们非常高兴邀请到摩根大通首席执行官杰米·戴蒙。杰米，非常感谢您再次到来，很高兴您能出席。 James Dimon ...2023-09-11 James Dimon.Barclays 21st Annual Global Financial Services Conference
Unknown Analyst Thank you, everybody. It's a very, very distinct pleasure of mine to introduce the preeminent leader of our industry, person who's been the preeminent leader of our industry for many decades, Jamie Dimon. It's an even greater pleasure ...2025-01-15 JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Q4 2024 Earnings Call Transcript
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) Q4 2024 Earnings Conference Call January 15, 2025 8:30 AM ET JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) 2024 年第四季度收益电话会议 2025 年 1 月 15 日 上午 8:30 ET Company Participants 公司参与者 Jeremy Barnum - CFO Jeremy Barnum - 首席财务官 Jamie Dimon ...