JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to JPMorgan Chase's second quarter 2020 earnings call. This call is being recorded. Your line will be muted for the duration of the call. We will now go live to the presentation. Please stand by. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to JPMorgan Chase's chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon, and Chief Financial Officer, Jennifer Piepsak. Ms. Piepsak, please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone. I'll take you through the presentation, which, as always, is available on our website, and we ask that you please refer to the disclaimer at the back. Starting on page one, the firm reported net income of $4.7 billion, EPS of $1.38, and record revenue of $33.8 billion with a return on tangible common equity of 9%. Included in these results are a number of significant items. First, a credit reserve bill of $8.9 billion, and then approximately $700 million of gains in our bridge book and $500 million of gains in credit adjustments and other, both of which represent reversals of some of the losses we took in the first quarter. As we continue to navigate this challenging and uncertain environment, this quarter's performance once again demonstrates the benefits of the diversification and scale of our platform. So I'll just touch on a few highlights here. CIB reported its highest quarterly revenue on record, with IV fees up 54% and market revenue up 79% year-on-year, each representing record performances with strength across the board.

Don't be late to the party. Virginia Connect makes managing referrals easy, and it costs you nothing. Organize, coordinate, and schedule referrals all on a single screen. fewer faxes, fewer phone calls, and a direct connection between provider groups so you can chat, exchange documents, and check patient status. Because better communication and easier transitions means that patients won't get lost in the shuffle. Plus, with support from dedicated network liaisons, you can schedule patients twice as fast. Keep your practice efficient and keep your patients happy. Join Virginia Connect for free at virginia-connect.com.

My career path is not conventional. You know, being a singer-songwriter, most people don't think that's going to be a steady job. So I found myself in a lot of difficult situations, and that's when I started thinking I really have to learn how to run a business, not just play good music. One of the most useful tools about WGU is you're not just a tuition-paying student. It's me participating in something that's bigger than me. And I think that's the beauty of good marketing, is creating something that's authentically you and allowing people to plug into it.

we saw record consumer deposit growth of 20% up over $130 billion year on year, and firm-wide average deposits were $1.9 trillion up 25% year on year and 16% quarter on quarter. Average loans were up 4% year on year and quarter on quarter, largely reflecting the COVID-related loan growth that we saw in March. However, on an end-of-period basis, loans were down 4% quarter on quarter, due to revolver paydowns as well as lower balances in card and home lending, partially offset by the impact of $28 billion of PPP loans. And lastly, we increased our CET1 ratio by approximately 90 basis points in the quarter after building approximately $9 billion of reserves and paying nearly $3 billion of common dividends. As you'll recall, we started the second quarter on the back of unprecedented levels of business activity in March. On the following pages, I'll give you an update on some of those key activity metrics we looked at last quarter and share what we're seeing today. So with that, let's turn to page two. Starting with wholesale on the top of the page, we saw record levels of debt and equity issuance in the quarter as clients sought to pay down the majority of the revolver drones from March and continue to shore up liquidity while market conditions were receptive, supported by extraordinary central bank actions. The surge in investment-grade debt issuance seen in March continued throughout the second quarter, and as high-yield markets reopened, U.S. issuance volumes increased by 90% compared to the first quarter. In ECM, as markets rebounded to pre-COVID levels, May and June together were our two busiest months for equity issuance ever, driven by converse and follow-ons. Moving to consumer spending behavior on the bottom left. Debit and credit sales volume, while overall still down, has consistently trended upwards since the trough in the second week of April to down just 4% year-on-year in the last two weeks of June. T&E and restaurant spend continue to be down meaningfully, but we have seen some improvement, especially on the back of higher levels of restaurant spend. The most significant improvement we saw was in retail, with a strong recovery in card present volume in the second half of the quarter and consistently strong growth in current not present volumes throughout the quarter. More recently, we've seen the improvement in overall sales growth across the country flatten out, notably in both states with increasing cases and states with decreasing cases. We continue to see larger year-on-year declines in states that remain partially closed, particularly those in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. In terms of consumers' demand for credit, we observe similar recovery trends. In auto, April saw the lowest level of loan and lease origination since the financial crisis. But activity rebounded sharply in May and June, and in fact, June ended up the best month for auto originations in our history. And in home lending, retail purchase applications, after reaching a low in April, recovered to well above pre-COVID levels in June due to a strong and broad market recovery. Continuing on the topic of consumer behavior, let's turn to page three for an update on what we're seeing around our customer assistance programs. Relative to the peak levels we observed at the beginning of April, we've seen a significant decline in new requests for assistance over the quarter. To date, we have provided customer assistance for nearly 1.7 million accounts, representing 79 billion of balances across both our owns and service portfolios. and of those accounts, a large percentage having made at least one payment while in the forbearance period, just over 50% in both card and home lending. In terms of early re-enrollment trends, in card, only a small portion of our customers have completed both the initial 90-day deferral period and reached a payment date, but the majority of those customers resumed payments, with less than 20% of accounts requesting additional assistance. And then in home lending, of those whose forbearance period expired in June, most have either been extended at the customer's request or auto-enrolled into new three-month forbearances with approximately 40% of the extensions still current. And so while we're following this data closely, it's still too early to draw any conclusions. Now moving on to page four for some more detail about our second quarter results. We recorded revenue of $33.8 billion, which was up $4.3 billion, or 15% year-on-year. While net interest income was down approximately $600 million, or 4%, on lower rates, mostly offset by higher markets, NII, and balance sheet growth, non-interest revenue was up $4.9 billion, or 33%, predominantly driven by CIV markets and IVVs. Expenses of $16.9 billion were up approximately $700 million, or 4% year-on-year, on revenue-related expenses, partially offset by continued reduction in structural expenses. This quarter, credit costs were $10.5 billion, including a net reserve bill of $8.9 billion and net charge-offs of $1.6 billion. Let's turn to page 5 for more detail on the reserve bills. Our net reserve bill of $8.9 billion for the quarter consists of $4.6 billion in wholesale and $4.4 billion in consumer, predominantly card. The reserve increase in the first quarter was predicated on an acute but short-lived downturn with a solid recovery in the second half of the year. And while we have seen some positive momentum in the economy over recent weeks, there does continue to be significant uncertainty around the path of the recovery. At the bottom of the page, you can see our updated base case. But remember, this is just one of five scenarios we used to derive our allowance for credit losses. Our build is based on the weighted outcome of these scenarios and assumes a more protracted downturn with a slower GDP recovery and an unemployment rate that remains in the double digits through the first half of 2021. In addition to the obvious impact on consumer, This protracted downturn is expected to have a much more broad-based impact across wholesale sectors than we assumed in the first quarter.

Sage CRM is a communication system used by over 17,000 companies around the world. It consistently ranks as a top five CRM solution and it always gets the CRM industry's best overall value award. Like most CRMs, fundamentally it is used to profile companies and people and our interactions with them. It has an incredible integration with MS Outlook, which makes it very easy to work with. And it integrates with the full lineup of Sage accounting systems, including 50, 100, 300, 500, X3, and Intact. Beyond the fundamentals, companies generally use Sage CRM to solve different process problems that they have. It has excellent automation features that can be used to control how information flows through different individuals or different departments. For example, how jobs, customer service issues, or opportunities get managed. You can connect it to your website, pulling contact us requests directly into CRM or even activate a portal which would allow people outside of your organization to interact with your system. It has a very strong integration with Google Maps. Sage CRM is a non-industry specific general purpose communication system that is super easy to use. On average, companies that use it have 12 users accessing their system. Sage CRM is not hosted by Sage. Rather, you host it on your own private cloud. This distinction means that unlike competing systems, Sage gives you ultimate control and ownership of your system and your data. You can use Sage CRM to connect all your staff and systems. And getting organized with Sage CRM leads to smarter decision-making and better processes. If you want to learn more, you can subscribe to this channel, visit the mycrmmanager.com website, or you can reach out to your Sage representative.

Real cowboys customize and save with Liberty Mutual.

Hey Tex, can someone else get a turn?

Given the increased uncertainty of the macroeconomic outlook, how customer payment behavior will play out, and the future of government stimulus and its ultimate effectiveness as it relates to both consumers and wholesale clients, we've put more meaningful weight on the downside scenarios this quarter. And so therefore, we're prepared and have reserved for something worse than the base case. And given CECL covers life of loan, if our assumptions are realized, we wouldn't expect meaningful additional reserve bills going forward. Now moving to balance sheet and capital on page six. We ended the quarter with a CET1 ratio of 12.4%, which is over 100 basis points above our new SCB base minimum of 11.3%. And just to touch on SLR, while our reported ratio is 6.8%, It's worth noting that we're not going to rely on temporary relief, and so without that, our ratio is 5.7%. As we said in late June, unless things change meaningfully, the board intends to maintain the 90-cent dividend in the third quarter. Given the wide range of potential outcomes going forward, I'd like to spend a few minutes on why we're comfortable saying that, including the value of our strong and steady earnings stream, as well as how we're managing our capital through this crisis. So with that, let's go to page seven. It's an obvious point, but it's worth a reminder that since 2018, our average quarterly PP&R of over $13 billion has been generating over 60 basis points of new CEP1 capacity per quarter, even after having made meaningful investments in our businesses. This powerful earning stream allows us to grow the franchise and serve our customers and clients when they need us most, and it provides us the capacity to absorb losses and quickly replenish capital in times of stress. While over the last two and a half years we've paid out approximately 100% of cumulative earnings, distributing nearly $75 billion of excess capital, we're now building a significant amount of capital since we've suspended our share repurchases. And we believe our capital base remains strong even in more severe scenarios, which you can see on page eight. Standing here today, we have $34 billion of reserves and $191 billion of CET1 capital, of which $16 billion is excess over and above our regulatory buffers. Our 3.3% FCB translates to $51 billion of capital that is available to pre-fund stress at any time. And on top of that, our 3.5% GSIB surcharge translates to another $54 billion. All that, so our $69 billion regulatory minimum is never touched. And as you know, we prepare for and manage our capital to a number of scenarios, and one of them is the extremely adverse scenario that Jamie discussed in his shareholder letter earlier this year. We've updated this analysis, and it now assumes an even deeper contraction of GDP, down nearly 14% at the end of 2020 versus 4Q19, and reported unemployment ending the year at nearly 22%. Even under this scenario, we estimate that we would end the year with a CET1 ratio above 10%, and we would be bound by advance, so our regulatory minimum would be 10.5%. While we are not likely to voluntarily dip into any of our regulatory buffers, this scenario would require us to do so, but notably only to a small extent. It's also worth noting that based on the limited information provided from the Fed about their U and W scenarios, We believe that our extremely adverse scenario simulates an even worse path for the economy over the next 12 months. And even if we get this wrong and our losses are twice as high, we still wouldn't use the entire SCB.

Okay, yeah, so this is Jamie.

I'd just like to amplify a couple of these points. So we're showing this example, obviously it's predicated on a lot of assumptions, which we're not going to give you a lot of detail on, just simply to show that we can bear another $20 billion of loan loss reserves. That $20 billion brings us to an extreme adverse, which roughly may equate to the U or W of the Fed. And we're going to do a lot more analysis than that because, obviously, we need to be prepared for that. We dip into advanced CET1. That's because we're taking no actions. So I've always told you that advanced capital is very pro-cyclical. So as things get downgraded, your RWA goes way up. Your capital base doesn't change that much, but the RWA goes way up. And there would be lots of actions we would take that we could avoid that from taking place whatsoever. The other thing I want to point out is this extreme average probably can't happen in one quarter. It'll happen in several quarters because we already know kind of what July looks like and August and stuff like that. So even if the economy starts to head there, you know, it'll take us a couple quarters before you make the determination that that has 100% possibility. Remember, this is saying we now believe it's 100%. Of course, things can be worse, by the way, but we're just trying to show you how much capital a company does have. The dividend, it sounds like I'm going to contradict myself. I am not. Today, we have all of that PPNR, all of that earnings, all of the things, so it can't be foolish to guess the future of extreme adverse and cut your dividend because we can easily get through very, very tough times and never cut the dividend. However, If you enter something that's extreme adverse, all of a sudden you have new scenarios which are even worse.

An all-time classic. Like Capital Group's new ETFs, there's so much behind it. Like thinking long-term. Can I find an ETF with a whole lot behind it? With Capital Group, I can.

You don't know. So at one point, the board would consider cutting the dividend because... You know, things can get even worse in extreme adverse, and we want to be able to handle anything out there. The primary concern of the company is to serve our clients, serve our community through thick or thin, and no one should ever worry about J. So there's no intent to do it, but if things get really bad, and we use the word materially and significantly, you know, then something we should look at. The other thing, by the way, is these loan losses are our best estimate of loan losses. They're not the C-card type of stuff. You all are doing estimates that show DFAS and Fed adverse, We will not lose that kind of money on credit. And on the next page, Jen's going to explain some stuff. I'm going to make a few slight additional comments. I also want you to, she said that we're not going to use temporary buffers. I think temporary is a funny thing when you go into a crisis that you can use it for a while, but it disappears on March 1st or February 1st. So my view is we shouldn't rely on anything like that.

And I'll just add, Jamie, to the point on advanced RWA. If you look on the slide and you can see, you know, we travel from 13.1% to 10.4%. About half of that is just the RWA increasing and the other half is the lumping increasing. So anyway, as Jamie said, moving on to page nine, all of this is against the backdrop of a capital framework that still has opportunities for recalibration. So while we've talked about this for years, it has perhaps never been more important I'll start with CCAR, and Jamie just made this point, but it is not predictive of what we actually think would happen. And the best example of this might be the global market shock. It is a significant portion of the SCB, and we've obviously experienced a very different result here in the first half of 2020. So we continue to believe that there are opportunities to rationalize the overall capital framework, including the points we've repeatedly made about GCIS. these changes would foster a higher pace of economic growth over time without compromising financial stability.

Yep. So, again, I just want to emphasize a couple of things here. So, look, the point of CCAR was that banks can handle extreme stress and if everything goes wrong. CCAR itself is not a predictive forecast of what your results might be. So all the CCAR tests roughly equate to a global financial crisis, and all the CCAR tests always have us losing somewhere between $25 and $30 billion dollars over the ensuing nine quarters. But in the ensuing nine quarters after Lehman, we made $30 billion. We never lost money in a quarter. We take actions. We're diversified. We got a lot of streams of earnings. And so we're not against CCAR because that's protecting you from the worst of the worst of the worst, but that's not necessarily predictive. The global market shock, which I think they have, is $25 billion in counterparty losses. Again, just to be instructive of that, You know, in 08 and 09, you had Fannie Mae go bankrupt, Freddie Mac go bankrupt. You had Bear Stearns effectively. You had Lehman Brothers effectively. You had AIG effectively. You had tons of financial institutions in Europe, tons of counterparty failures. And our trading results in the worst two quarters combined was a loss of $4 billion, not 25. And, of course, it was quickly made back because, as we pointed out, when things get bad in trading, spreads gap out, and then all of a sudden you're making more money trading because you have recoveries in position. So the stress capital buffer 3.3 is not indicative of what we would lose. And I hope over time we can drive that down by taking real actions to a number closer to 2.5. GSIB itself, I pointed out before, I'm not against the concept of big banks and more capital, but GSIB is... It's not the same as CCAR. CCAR includes your diversification, your strength, your earnings, your PPNR, and things like that. GSIB does not. It's just a measure of size multiplied over and over and over. It doesn't include diversification. It doesn't include margins. It doesn't include actions. It doesn't include, and it's just really not representative at all of what I would say is risk of a company or something like that. And so we have enough capital to handle a lot of stuff, which is we've always run the company that way. We always run the company so that we can handle adverse times because in my short lifetime, you know, I've seen crises over and over and over and over. We're not predicting them. We're just prepared for them. So I'll stop there.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So let's go on to the businesses. So we'll start on page 10 with consumer and community banking. So CCB reported a net loss of $176 million, including reserve bills of $4.6 billion. Revenue of $12.2 billion was down 9% year-on-year, driven by deposit margin compression, lower transaction activity and customer relief, partially offset by strong deposit growth and home lending margin expansion. The deposit margin was down 108 basis points year-on-year on a sharp decline in rates, but deposit growth was a record 20% year-on-year, up over $130 billion. We would estimate that approximately 50% of that growth is COVID-related due to government stimulus for consumers and small businesses, lower consumer spending, and tax payment delays. Mobile users were up 10% year-on-year, and since the start of the pandemic, we've seen increased levels of digital engagement. For example, quick deposit enrollment is up two times pre-COVID levels. As I noted earlier, for consumer lending, the overall activity for the quarter reflected an environment that continued to evolve. Auto loan and lease originations were down 9% year-on-year due to the exit of the MAVSA partnership. Excluding this impact, auto originations were up mid-single digits. And while the home lending market was favorable, home lending total originations were down 1% year-on-year, driven by a decline in correspondent volume, substantially offset by an increase in retail volume. Total CCB loans were down 7% year-on-year, driven by home lending, down 14% due to prior loan sales, and card down 7% on lower spend, offset by business banking, up 59% due to PPP originations. Expenses of $6.6 billion were down 3%, driven by lower travel-related benefits, structural and marketing expenses. And lastly, credit costs included the $4.6 billion reserve bills I mentioned earlier, and net charge-offs of $1.3 billion driven by card. Now turning to the Corporate Investment Bank on page 11. CID reported net income of $5.5 billion and an ROE of 27% on revenue of $15.4 billion. Investment banking revenue of $3.4 billion was up 91% year-on-year, largely driven by our strong performance in capital markets as well as the gains on our bridge book, which were primarily a function of improved market conditions. IB fees for the quarter were an all-time record, up 54% year-on-year. We maintained our number one rank and grew our market share to 9.8% for the first half of the year. In advisory, we were up 15%, driven by the closing of a few notable transactions. Net underwriting fees were up 55%, We maintained our number one rank in overall wallet and were the leaders and lead left across leveraged finance. In equity underwriting, fees were up 93% and we grew share by approximately 200 basis points relative to the first quarter. With regards to outlook, we expect third quarter IB fees to be down, both sequentially and year on year, due to the usual seasonal decline and lower M&A announcements year to date. And if the economy begins to stabilize, we expect capital markets to revert to normal levels. However, any sustained period of instability could result in additional demand for liquidity and therefore increase capital markets activity. Moving to markets, total revenue was $9.7 billion, up 79% year-on-year, an all-time record driven by strong performance throughout the quarter, and it was only later in June that activity began to revert to more normal levels. We saw strength across products and regions from both flow trading and large episodic transactions. While strong client activity was a continuation of the first quarter theme, our market-making activity this quarter benefited from improved market liquidity, and we were able to better monetize flows. Fixed income was up 99% year-on-year, or 120% adjusted for the gain from the IPO trade web last year, driven by very active primary and secondary markets across products, particularly in macro. Equities was up 38%, largely driven by strong client activity in equity derivatives and cash. Looking forward, we expect the slowdown that we started to see towards the end of June to continue. In addition, the second half of last year was very strong, making any year-on-year comparison difficult. But obviously, the environment makes forecasting markets' performance even more challenging than usual.

After saving with customized car insurance from Liberty Mutual, I customized everything. like Markle's backpack.

Wholesale payments revenue of $1.4 billion was down 3% year-on-year, primarily driven by our reporting reclassification in merchant services. Security services revenue of $1.1 billion was up 5% year-on-year, as continued elevated volatility in the second quarter drove increased transaction volume and higher average deposit balances. Credit adjustments and other was a gain of $510 million, as I mentioned up front. driven by the tightening of funding spreads on derivatives and was a partial reversal of the losses in the first quarter. Expenses of $6.8 billion were up 19% compared to the prior year due to revenue-related expenses. Finally, credit costs of $2 billion reflect the net reserve bills I referred to earlier. Now, moving on to commercial banking on page 12. Commercial banking reported a net loss of $691 million, which included reserve bills of approximately $2.4 billion. Revenue of $2.4 billion was up 5% year-on-year, driven by higher deposits and loans and equity investment gain and higher investment banking revenue, largely offset by lower deposit NII. Record gross investment banking revenues of $861 million were up 44% year-on-year due to increased bond and equity underwriting activity. Expenses of $899 million were down 3% year-on-year, driven by lower structural expenses. Deposits of $237 billion were up 41% year-on-year, as the increase in balances from March has largely remained on our balance sheet as clients look to remain liquid in this environment. End-of-period loans were up 7% year-on-year, but down 4% quarter-on-quarter. D&I loans were down 7% quarter-on-quarter as revolver utilization, while still elevated, has declined significantly from the all-time highs in March. However, this was partially offset by the impact of PPP loans. CRE loans were flat, with generally lower originations in both commercial term lending and real estate banking. Credit costs of $2.4 billion included the reserve bills mentioned earlier and $79 million of net charge-offs, roughly half of which were in oil and gas. Now, on to asset wealth management on page 13. Asset and wealth management reported net income of $658 million with pre-tax margin and ROE of 24%. Revenue of $3.6 billion for the quarter was up 1% year-on-year as growth in average deposit and loan balances along with higher brokerage activity were largely offset by deposit margin compression. Expenses of $2.5 billion were down 3% year-on-year with lower structural as well as volume and revenue-related expenses partially offset by continued investments in advisors. Credit costs were $223 million driven by the reserve bills that I mentioned earlier. For the quarter, net long-term inflows were $29 billion, positive across all channels and all regions, led by fixed income and equity. At the same time, we saw net liquidity inflows of $95 billion, making us the number one institutional money manager globally. AUM of $2.5 trillion and overall client assets of $3.4 trillion, up 15% and 12% year-on-year respectively, were driven by cumulative net inflows into liquidity and long-term products. And finally, deposits were up 20% year-on-year on growth and interest-bearing products, and loans were up 12%, with strength in both wholesale and mortgage lending. Now on to corporate on page 14. Corporate reported a net loss of $568 million. Revenue was a loss of $754 million, down $1.1 billion year-on-year, driven by lower net interest income on lower rates, including the impact of faster prepaids on mortgage securities. And expenses of $147 million were down $85 million year-on-year. Now let's turn to page 15 for the outlook. You'll see here that despite the uncertain environment, our latest full-year outlook remains largely in line with our previous guidance. Based on the latest implies, we expect net interest income to be approximately $56 billion and adjusted expenses to be approximately $65 billion, which is slightly higher than expected previously, reflecting the outperformance in the second quarter and will ultimately be an outcome of our performance in the second half of the year. So to wrap up, Against the backdrop of an unprecedented environment, our second quarter performance highlighted the benefits of our diversification and scale, and the resulting earnings power of our company. While the range of outcomes is broader than ever before, our priorities remain unchanged. We are focused on supporting our employees, customers, clients, and communities around the globe, and on being good stewards of the capital entrusted to us by our shareholders. I'd like to end by thanking all of those who continue to serve on the front lines of this crisis and our people here at JPMorgan Chase who have demonstrated unwavering fortitude and dedication through these times. And with that, operator, please open the line for Q&A.

Certainly. If you would like to ask a question, please press star then the number one on your telephone keypad. We kindly request that you ask one question and only one related follow-up. If you would like to ask additional questions, please press star one to be re-entered into the queue.

An all-time classic.

Like Capital Group's new ETFs, there's so much behind it. Like thinking long-term. Can I find an ETF with a whole lot behind it? With Capital Group, I can.

Our first question comes from John McDonald of Autonomous.

Good morning, Jen and Jamie. Jen was wondering if you could give us some incremental color on your commercial exposures to heavily COVID impacted sectors across CRE and CNI. You know, so thinking oil and gas, travel, retail, just to help us understand the types of areas where your incremental commercial reserve building was directed towards this quarter.

Sure. So I'll start by saying the most impacted sectors, like the ones that you mentioned, represents about a third of our overall exposure. More than half of that is investment grade and two-thirds of the non-investment grade is secured. And in terms of the second quarter downgrade, well, first I'd say in the first quarter when we were really looking at a deep but short-lived downturn, we were really very much focused on the most impacted sectors. And now that we're looking at a more protracted downturn, we're reserved for a much more broad-based impact across sectors. So just to put that in context, the second quarter reserve bills, about 40% of that is in the most impacted sectors versus two-thirds of the bills in the first quarter was the most impacted sectors. And then in terms of the downgrades that we saw in the second quarter, less than a third of those were in the most impacted sectors.

And just for your definition of most impacted sectors, what would you be including in that?

Consumer and retail, oil and gas, real estate, retail and lodging and subsectors as you think about real estate.

Okay. Just a quick follow-up question. You maintain the NII outlook for the year despite a pretty big drop in net interest margin. Can you talk about the dynamics embedded in that second half outlook for NII and maybe how trading NII might play into the thinking?

Yeah, it's a great question and you're spot on, which is markets helps NII, so the outperformance in markets helps NII, but can be a headwind on NIM just given that the NIM is below the average. So yes, it was maintaining that outlook did have something to do with the outperformance in markets, you're right.

Our next question is from Betsy Gracek of Morgan Stanley.

Hi, good morning. Thanks. Jennifer, just to kick off on the question, on page three you went through a lot of detail around the forbearance that you've been given and the percentage that has been paying you at least once during the deferral period. Could you give us a sense on these different asset classes that you've outlined in your base case? What are you assuming those delinquencies end up becoming?

I won't go into specific details, but I'll just say a couple of things, which is it is still too early to really read a whole lot into what we're seeing. The visibility here remains low, I would say, given the amount of support that is out there. But you are right that we are considering these customers to be higher risk given that they are in forbearance programs. So we did account for that as we thought about our reserves.

Okay, because I'm thinking, all right, you've got the inverse of the right-hand column could be construed as what should be expected to become delinquencies over time. And I'm wondering, as a follow-up question, you mentioned during the prepared remarks that, you know, if your assumptions are realized that, you know, you could be basically close to fully reserved for this cycle, maybe you could give us a sense as to which assumptions you're talking about, because I know you're You're expecting an outcome that's worse than your base case, so I was just a little confused about what I should assume your base case is and what assumptions you're pointing to that if realized, you're done on the reserving.

Sure. So first of all, there are a lot of assumptions given, as I said, the visibility is still quite low. So assumptions around the economic outlook, and I'll come back to that, assumptions around consumer payment behavior, and then assumptions around stimulus. So going back to the economic outlook, we have five different scenarios. We did lean in more heavily to the downside scenarios relative to what we would have otherwise done. Even the Fed has put equal weight on downside scenarios and their base case. So we certainly thought having a conservative bias there was the prudent thing to do. And so as you look at that slide five, that is just the base case. So you can see there exiting this year just under 11%. When you then look at the weighted outcome of unemployment across the five scenarios, we end up with double-digit unemployment through the first half of 2021 versus what you see on page five there is just the base case, which shows some improvement relative to the fourth quarter getting down to just under 8% by the end of 2021.

Betsy, can I just clarify, the base case, if you took Morgan Stanley's estimates or Mike Ferole is a J.P. Morgan or the Fed estimates for their base case. That is basically the base case. Embedded in that are all these assumptions about stimulus and PPP and all these other things. So that is the base case, and we're reserved more than that. So, therefore, if the base case happens, we may be over-reserved.

I hope the base case happens.

Me too. Our next question is from Jim Mitchell of Seaport.

Hey, good morning. Maybe just a quick follow-up on the consumer and delinquencies. Obviously, you had an impact from deferral programs, and 30-day delinquencies were actually down. Can you talk to what you're seeing in the non-deferral programs? It doesn't seem like we're seeing much stress at all, even in early-stage delinquencies. What would you attribute that to? What are you seeing in your non-deferral programs?

mean simply I would attribute it to the amount of support that is out there in the form of stimulus and so as I said the visibility on what we're dealing with is very very low because we're not seeing right now what you would typically expect to see you know given given a recession and so the way we have to think about reserving is all about the outlook because we're not actually seeing it today and so Jamie has said this many times May and June are will prove to be the easy bump in terms of this recovery. And now we're really hitting the moment of truth, I think, in the months ahead.

Yeah, just to amplify, in a normal recession, unemployment goes up, delinquencies go up, charge-ups go up, home prices go down. None of that's true here. Incomes go down, savings go down. Savings are up, incomes are up, home prices are up. So you will see the effect of this recession. You're just not going to see it right away because of all

stimulus and the fact you know 60 or 70 percent of the unemployed are making more money than they were making when they were working so uh it's just very peculiar times and yep no it's fair maybe maybe a follow follow up on dfast uh jamie you made comments about the market shock we kind of went through a market shock and and everyone's trading held up quite well um do you see that changing the fed's view over time in terms how they think about stress losses in the trading book, or you don't think that's too optimistic?

I don't expect any change. And like I said, what they're looking at is they're making sure a bank can withstand the bad as if they were all the worst bank. They're not giving credit to banks for things having good. So I'm not against that concept. They just want to say, if it goes really bad and you do everything totally wrong, what happens to your trading or something like that? And they do the same assumptions like outflows. The outflows they have on liquidity are worse than the outflows of the worst bank in the worst crisis.

But they just want to make sure that every bank can withstand that.

Our next question is from Brian Klein Hansel of KBW.

Great. Thanks. Quick question on the balance sheet. I mean, obviously, there's tremendous balance sheet growth as liquidity built up in the quarter, but how are we thinking about that on a go-forward basis? Is that expected to roll off over the next couple quarters? Is that kind of persistent and expected to stick around, or are you just going to be operating with a much larger balance sheet in the near term?

So I'll start with deposits. I mean, in the first quarter, it was very much a wholesale story, and we said we expected to normalize, and we have seen that. We've started to see that. So looking ahead on wholesale, I think there are puts and takes. We'll continue to see revolvers pay down. Security services will likely continue to normalize. I think tailwinds for deposits, said balance sheet expansion, will be slower, but will continue, and we do think we'll continue to see organic growth. On the consumer side, probably down from here on tax payments as well as the pickup in consumer spending. But in both cases, I think we'll continue to see very, very strong year-on-year growth both for wholesale and consumer in the latter part of this year. And then in terms of balance sheet management, I mean, we manage the balance sheet across multiple dimensions, NII, liquidity, capital, and interest rate risk. And so We have had $400 billion of deposit growth since the end of last year. And when you consider, as you note, that some of that growth is likely to be transitory and deployment opportunities have been diminished given the rate environment, we have held a decent amount of that in cash. However, we did add about $88 billion in securities here in the second quarter. And on the deposit side, we've been very disciplined on pay rates.

So if those deposits stick around, we should expect more to migrate from deposits on the asset side into securities, or are you looking to fund loans on those?

As the Fed grows the balance sheet, it's going to end up in deposits, and for the most part, a lot of deposits will end up in securities because the loan growth, usually going to recession, doesn't go up that much.

Yes. We should see, as consumer spending recovers, we should see some growth in cards. which will help, but we'll have PPP starting to pay down and, as Jamie said, loan growth, but likely slower.

Only two things are forever, love and Liberty Mutual customizing your car insurance so you only pay for what you need.

I should point out that, look at the big numbers, we have over a trillion dollars between cash held at the central bank, which is close to $400 or $500 billion, treasuries, which is close to several hundred billion, and other very liquid assets, mostly good securities, that's a trillion dollars. When people look at the safety and soundness of an institution like this, that is a tremendous sum of money. Some is required. We are required to hold a lot of liquidity, but some is just because we're investing considerably. Thanks.

Our next question is from Matt O'Connor of Deutsche Bank.

Good morning. I was just wondering if you could talk a bit about the expected timing of starting to see some charge-offs. Obviously, there's a lot of unknowns with the stimulus and the forbearance, but what are your assumptions in terms of when charge-offs start going up, maybe where they peak, and how long they stay at that level?

It's really difficult to know. I mean, first, we have to start seeing delinquencies. And so later this year, but next year will be much heavier on charge-offs as you think about realizing the assumptions that we've made in the reserves. It's difficult to know. The good thing is CECL is life of loans, so we feel well covered for the scenarios that we're looking at.

And then remind us, you know, you are seeing some creep in the non-performing assets. Obviously, it's off low levels, but they are starting to go up. And, you know, remind us why that's not starting to feed into net charge-offs or if it's just a timing issue and will in the next quarter or two.

Yeah. When you look at the non-accrual increase in wholesale, half of that is one client. So, you know, it's really – I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that. And as you say, it's creeping up off of very low levels. So, again, we still aren't seeing what you would expect to see in terms of recessionary indicators.

Our next question is from Mike Mayo of Wells Fargo.

Hi. Just more on the reserve question. So if the Fed's base case is achieved, then you are over-reserved. If your base case assumptions, which are more – We hope we're over-reserved. Okay. Okay. And if your base case assumptions, which are more conservative, are realized, then, okay, you're done with the reserve building. And if it's worse, then you'll have to add more reserves. But since the end of the quarter, we're seeing an increase in COVID cases in Florida and Texas and California and elsewhere. And isn't there a link between an increase in COVID cases with deaths with economic activity or how do you think about that and i'm staring at slide two i can't get my eyes off that debit and credit card sales volume and it seems like it's flattening off here in june so just you know since the end of the quarter you know a you know if you were to kind of mark to mark you're thinking mark to market you're thinking as of this second with what's happening um do you feel better worse or the same versus the end of the quarter as it relates to your assumptions

So guys, we feel exactly the same today that we did at the end of the quarter. That's the mark to market. And Mike, we're very clear. We cannot forecast the future. We don't know. We're also very clear that, at least I think, you're going to have a much murkier economic environment going forward than you had in May and June. And you have to be prepared for that. You're going to have a lot of ins and outs. You're going to have people get scared about COVID. They're getting scared about the economy. Small businesses, big companies, bank receipts, emerging markets. It's just going to be murky, which is why if you look at the base case, an adverse case, an extreme adverse case, they're all possible. We're just guessing at the probabilities of those things. That's all we're doing. We are prepared for the worst case. We simply don't know. I don't think anyone knows. The word unprecedented is rarely is used properly. This time it's being used properly. It's unprecedented what's going on around the world. Obviously, COVID itself is a main attribute. The Fed's W case, they made it very clear. Their W case is that COVID comes back in a big way in the fall and you have to shut down the economy again. Obviously, we've got to be prepared for that too. We don't know the probability of that. We simply don't know. By the way, I'm guessing.

And I would just add to clarify that we are reserved for something worse than the base case. And for all the reasons you said, they informed our decision to lean in a bit more on the downside scenarios. And so, you know, while there is a bit of, we hope, a conservative bias here, this does represent our best estimate based upon everything we know, which does include the sort of slowdown that you referenced in terms of more recent activity.

All right. And my follow-up would be kind of the flip side. During this very difficult time, you've grown deposits over the past year equal to the fifth largest bank. I mean, the deposit growth is kind of off the charts here. So you said half of that is due to COVID. But is the other half due to share gains? So I guess there's several questions in that. But how much of that is related to digital banking? And how much of that do you expect to, you know, go away once this crisis has passed?

An iconic shot. Like Capital Group's new ETFs, there's so much behind it. Like navigating ups and downs. Can I find an ETF with a whole lot behind it? With Capital Group, I can.

So I talked a little bit about kind of how we're thinking about the target looking forward. Also, I just clarified, Mike, when we said 50% COVID related, that was on the consumer side. And so that we do think some of that will leave with tax payments and consumer spending coming back. And then in terms of how much of it is share gains, it's difficult to know at this point. Historically, we have performed well in lower rate environments, and I think you're right. I think it is because of our digital capabilities and our branch footprint and our people and all the things that we offer that differentiate us in a time like this.

Our next question is from Erica Nigerian from Bank of America.

Hi, good morning. The first question is for Jamie. A lot of investor feedback has indicated that they are encouraged by the fact that banks can remain profitable while absorbing pretty significant provisions, which you've proven today, but are hesitant about bank stocks given the overhang of the DFAS resubmissions in the fourth quarter and what that could imply for the dividend. And I guess, I just, I know you alluded to this in your prepared remarks, but I'm wondering, you know, under the scenario that you see, you know, playing out and relative to that 60 basis points of CET1 generation per quarter, you know, what is your view on dividend sustainability outside of that extreme adverse case?

It's completely sustainable. And if we enter the extreme adverse case, the board should and will consider reducing it. And like I pointed out, the extreme adverse case itself is completely sustainable with the dividend. The reason they would consider reducing it is because once you enter like 14% or 15% unemployment, you don't know the future. So now you're going to have another extreme adverse case, which is going to be 20% unemployment. And therefore, you would protect yourself from that, and cutting the dividend is cheap equity. And so the goal is to sustain the dividends. You can look at the numbers. It's completely minuscule relative quarter by quarter. So this decision can be made as you enter these things. And we're all hoping that the base case happens.

And just as a quick follow-up, we also got this question from investors. In the extreme adverse case, is there a preference towards cutting the dividend or a temporary suspension, or is there a difference between the two?

There's no difference between the two. You cut your dividend, you're going to hopefully put it back when the time comes. So, you know, the temporary suspension just sounds peculiar. It's a suspension. And I've done that twice in my life. It's a prudent thing to do. And if you might need that capital going forward, because things are going to get that terrible or something like that. So, remember the other thing, and you can ask the other question. If the base case happens, we're going to end up with far too much capital generation, and we'll start buying back stock again.

which I hope we can do before it goes way up. We don't expect that this year, but I wouldn't completely rule it out in the fourth quarter.

And our next question is from Glenn Shore of Evercore.

Hi, Glenn.

Hello there.

Question for you. So we've had this big market rebound in the overall markets, and that's led to a lot of revenue. But given this outlook and the uncertain past that we've been talking through this whole time, I'm curious on ways you think about potentially de-risking on balance sheet. Now, some of it is just this huge liquidity buildup is a de-risked balance sheet. I get that. But are there proactive things you can do to reduce the high leverage RWA in a more stressed environment? Have you been selling into this recovery is, I guess, my question.

I guess there's two components to it, which is the investment securities portfolio and then proactive things we can do on RWA, if that answers your question, Glenn. I'll start with investment securities. We are being cautious, and we have opportunistically looked to reduce credit exposure there over the second quarter. And then on RWA, because we're preparing for a range of outcomes, we are spending a lot of time thinking about if we needed to, what could we do? But it is sort of a last resort because we certainly don't want to have any impact on clients and customers. And so we're ready, we're looking at it, but we haven't done anything, I would say, proactively at this point. We're very much focused on helping clients and customers get through this crisis.

So let me answer this right. On the consumer side, We, like other banks, have seen a kind of prudent tightening up of how you do credit. That's already happened. And obviously you could do some more. But, Jen, you had some great numbers about how good credit is. I think the – give those FICO numbers you gave me the other day. Well, how much better home lending is?

Oh, that was on the LTV, the weighted average LTV. I mean, it's really extraordinary, and I was in mortgage, so I should have remembered, but I did have to ask. And in 2010, our weighted average LTV on the portfolio in home lending was 90%, and it's now 56%. Right.

And you can assume it's better in credit cards, better in auto, we have less subprime. That's the consumer side. On the business side, we've always been prudent. We're always very tight and careful and stuff like that. Usually what happens in downturns like this, you get a little more serious about security and the management team and responsiveness and raising capital. So a lot of these companies have been raising a lot of capital. On the investment side, and this is kind of a peculiarity of accounting again, we can actually make it more conservative in putting securities into health and maturity, which we've done very little of and I'm going to consider it. I don't personally understand why that reduces risk, but it does reduce your SEB. And, you know, maybe we'll do that over time. But the security proposals are pretty crude as they are. And in trading, it's every day. So trading is, just think of trading as that, you know, Daniel and Troy Warbeck and Jason Sippel and the whole team, they are every single day managing those risks and those exposures. And you can assume that they're managing very, very well and tightly today. And, you know, we certainly are not punting to the fences or anything like that. We're We're trying to be very cautious and serve our clients. And so, yeah, you are more conservative. And reducing RWA, yes, if we wanted to, we could start doing that by all these various things.

Thanks.

One quickie on the consumer side. I'm curious if you've had – we're now four months into the bulk of the lockdown in the United States, and some of your branches have been either closed or drive-up only. And we're watching your deposits grow like a weed. So I'm curious if you've learned any lessons that might change your thoughts on the branch network, on your organic growth efforts as we go forward and come out of this someday.

Yeah, so first of all, deposit numbers, deposits went up because of PPP. Deposits went up because of the payroll checks that people got. deposits went up, the revolvers were taken down by $50 billion, something like that. Almost all of that ended up in deposits. And of course, a lot of that's already reversed and stuff like that. So you've got to look at both sides of that. But you were going to say something, Jen?

I was just going to add on. I mean, of course we're learning a lot. I mean, I mentioned the quick deposit enrollment, but we haven't learned enough to make any – changes to our strategy around branch expansion. In fact, we just opened our 100th branch in market expansion, so we're really excited about that. We think we'll open probably another 75 this year, so we'll be nearly halfway to the 400 branches that we've talked about in market expansion. And so we'll see. We do still have about 1,000 branches that are closed, And it's possible that we learn something that helps us think about accelerating de-densification or consolidation, but it'll be at the margin and we're not going to make any big changes quickly because we want to make sure that we have the benefit over time of watching our customer behavior so they can really be the ones that inform our strategy.

Our next question is from Charles Peabody of Portalis Partners.

Yes, good morning. Two questions. One, on page six, you give the SLR ratio as adjusted for the temporary relief programs on the capital. I wonder if you had a similar ratio for CET1. And part of that question would also be, which would be the more confined ratio starting next March?

There's no temporary relief in CET1.

Well, CET1, the only, and I'm not even trying to call it relief, there's a phase-in on CET1, but it's over many years, and so I don't necessarily think about that as temporary like SLR. SLR, at this point, it is temporary. It is due to expire in the first quarter of next year, which is why we're very focused on managing that without the exclusions.

And they're both, we manage them both. I wouldn't say one is more than the other. We manage something like 20 different capital liquidity ratios.

After saving with customized car insurance from Liberty Mutual, I customize everything, like Marco's backpack.

And, Jamie, EPSOC is meeting today behind closed doors. I understand there are two topics. One has to do with secondary mortgage market liquidity issues. and the other with the COVID stress test overlay. Do you have any thoughts or insights as to what they may be discussing on either of those?

I don't. You know, the COVID, that means you could be, you obviously have some insights, but I don't have. The COVID, obviously, we're going to run a new stress test. We're going to run it. We're going to look at all the Fed cases, UW and stuff like that, because they laid it out perfectly reasonable that people would prepare that kind of stress test. I think the mortgage markets is a different issue, okay? And we've been very consistent that, Mortgages, believe it or not, are far more costly than they should be. Normally, if you look at the 10-year rate, which is like 60 basis points, the mortgage tax should be 1.6% or 1.8% instead of 3.3%. The reason for that is because the cost of servicing and origination is so high, it's obviously got to be passed through. It's high because an enormous amount of rules and regulations are put in place that a lot do not create safety and soundness. Safety and status is basically 80% LTV, verify people's incomes, make sure you're doing the right kind of stuff. And the second one is because there's very no securitization market. The securitization market is important because it reduces your risk-weighted asset and it puts more incentive for banks to put on their balance sheet. And the securitization market is a real transfer of risk to somebody else. So I think they should change that. They should change it immediately. The beneficiary of that will be non-agency mortgages. which are even more expensive, a lot more expensive than agency mortgages. So once you have a securitization market that people believe in and you have to change reg A, B a little bit for that whole thing, you're going to have a much better market. The cost of mortgages will come down, and they'll particularly come down for people at the lower end.

I mean, so this should be phased, and it should be phased right away.

Our next question is from Saul Martinez of UBS.

Thanks for taking my question. I have a broader question. And I just want to get your perspectives on public policy and banks and a little bit more broadly than the discussion about capital planning and stress test. And, you know, I know banks are working hard to be part of the solution this time and not part of the problem. But, you know, we're also having more open discussions about things like inequality and social justice, which, in my opinion, are long overdue. But I worry that, fair or not, banks are sort of being depicted as being on the wrong side of some of those issues. And I think you see that in things like the mainstream press's depictions of big banks and PPP and stuff like that. And I'm just curious if you are concerned at all about populist anti-bank policies gaining traction, however you want to define them, whether it's breaking up the banks, directed lending, recapture of or whatever in a pretty polarized political environment? Or do you think I'm being too alarmist or overly concerned about stuff that, you know, is pretty unlikely in our country? So I just kind of want to get your perspective just generally on how banks fit into the overall, you know, policy and political backdrop.

I mean, the thing you've got to do every single day when you go to work is just do the right thing for the right reasons, serve your customers, and we try to do that. We try very hard to take care of our employees, to train people. We try very hard to advance black leaders of the company, finance, and of course we make mistakes. And so I understand some of the angst out there, but we try to do the best we can. We get involved in policy like this Moores thing. That would be better for Americans. And we understand that people want banks to help America. We do. The most important thing we can do is be a healthy, vibrant bank through this crisis and continue to serve our clients. And remember, responsible lending is good lending. Irresponsible lending is bad lending. So very often we hear that banks should do more of that. No, irresponsible stuff is irresponsible. It will lead to bad outcomes. And that's kind of what happened last time around. So we try to do it right and we try to listen very carefully when there's criticism and sometimes and often legitimate about what we could have done better or should do better or try to do better in the future.

Okay, that's helpful. I guess as broad as that question was, I'm going to ask a very narrow question, you know, for Jen and on your NII guidance. Does that, I presume that includes gains on PPP fees for unforgiven loans, and have you quantified that or sized that up in terms of where you think the magnitude of those figures could be?

So we've been really clear on PPP, which is that we don't intend to profit from PPP. That doesn't mean that you won't have some geography issues. So you'll have some revenue, and then you'll have expenses, and the profit will be near zero. It is an immaterial amount this quarter, given these fees are recognized over the lives of the loans. So it's very little this quarter, both revenue and expenses. And looking out, we'll see more of that probably in the third and fourth quarter. again, it will still be zero on the bottom line, and even the gross numbers won't be meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

Our next question is from Gerard Cassidy of RBC.

Thank you. Good morning, Jane.

Can you share with us the reclassification of the wholesale portfolio that you talked about How often do you go through that process where you have to look to reclassify the corporate loans? And second, you touched on earlier in a question about some of the COVID related sectors that are being impacted because of what we're going through. Can you highlight for us what is the most stressed within that COVID group that you mentioned?

So first on the reclassification, we mentioned it was a geography issue in merchant services.

It didn't have to be... There was no reclassification of wholesale loans.

Yeah. Yeah, and then in terms of the most impacted... I mean, they are the ones that you would expect to see around travel, oil and gas, and real estate and retail. So it's the sectors that you would expect to see. Although, as I said earlier, and it's important to note, that for the downgrades that we experienced in the second quarter, less than a third of them were in the most impacted industries. So really, we're seeing this as being much more broad-based.

Okay. Thank you. And then second, I may have missed this. I apologize. But in your slide three, you give a very good detail on the forbearance on the consumer portfolio. Do you have any numbers on the commercial and corporate portfolios that loans that might be in forbearance? And is it more commercial real estate or C&I?

They're just not meaningful numbers. We would have included them had they been. So I'll just go back to what we said, which is we're just not seeing what you would typically see.

But they end up in non-performing.

They end up in non-performing.

We don't have a category in wholesale or commercial the same way you have a category in consumer.

And our next question is from Ken Oosten of Jefferies.

Thanks. Good morning. Just a question on the points and slides you made about capital and long-term opportunities for recalibration. First, I guess, will you have any dialogue with the Fed about the 3.3 SCB, as some other banks have mentioned? And then secondly, where do you think we stand on the G-SIB recalibration to your points about systemic risk that shouldn't impact a bank's balance sheet?

We're not going to go back to the Fed and the 3.3, but obviously we're looking at why 3.3, and we can try to adjust our plans going forward to try to reduce that number a little bit. Because we know we have another CCAR coming up in a couple months, so there's no reason for us to go through extensive amount of work as opposed to fix what's already there. And GSIB, you know, GSIB, you know, look, I've always thought GSIB needs a lot of recalibration, but there are things they should have recalibrated for already. which is America gold-plated it, which I think is wholly unnecessary. They should have taken cash and treasuries and a whole bunch of stuff out of the calculation. Obviously, it goes way up when the Fed does things like they're doing recently. And they never adjusted it for growth in the economy or growth in the shadow banking system, which they were supposed to do. So I'm just hoping they go about and do that at one point. But these things get so wrapped up in political, you know, people politicize very complicated calculations, which I find kind of peculiar and funny, but... But my view is if they do the numbers, they should do them right. And they're just not right anymore.

Yep. And the second question is just going back to slide three. You lay out the percent of accounts on this page. Auto seems to be the biggest. And then in the supplement on page 13, the balances seem to imply a bigger percent on deferral. Just can you talk a little bit about the differences there, and then why do you think you're seeing more accounts in auto deferring versus other asset classes? Thank you.

Okay. I don't actually know the answer to reconciling the supplement to slide three, so Jason and team can follow up with you on that one.

Maybe then just a comment about auto on deferrals and what do you think you're seeing, you know, in that customer base versus others? And do you think that means anything different for forward credit trends? No.

No, yes.

Okay. Thanks very much.

Our next question is from Chris Katowski of Oppenheimer.

Yeah, good morning. Thank you. I guess I just think it was such an extraordinary quarter for capital raising. Theologic shows over $2 trillion of debt and equity raised in the quarter. And I guess a two-part question around that. One is, you know, as you look at that, you know, was a good portion of that in kind of the stressed areas, you know, and presumably capital as a junior to your bank debt? And to what extent has all that helped raise the quality of bank loans? And then secondly, you know, looking forward, I mean, did all the companies that needed to and could raise capital do so in the second quarter? And therefore, we're looking at, you know, a kind of a flat spot going forward? Or do you see this as kind of like there's an ongoing need for a lot of these companies to continue to raise capital?

I think, first of all, it was across the board. I mean, you saw strong companies, weaker companies, high-yield markets opened up. Converts, I put converts and equity in there, too. People did a lot of capital raising. I think it was wise. I think a lot of people said they pre-funded a lot of their capital needs to make sure they can get through whatever this crisis means for their company and their industry and stuff like that. So I don't think it would be like it was before, so it will definitely come down, but I still think there's opportunity for some people to pre-fund some of that. But it is pre-funding. This is not capital. A lot of this capital is not being raised to go spend. It's being raised to sit in the balance sheet so that you're prepared for whatever comes next. And you've heard a lot of companies make statements, and you guys got to go through it yourself, about, you know, we've got two years of cash, we've got three years of cash, we've got people who want to be prepared. I think it's appropriate.

Okay. That's it for me. Thank you.

But just for your models, we don't expect revenues in investment banking to They'll normalize or even come down below normal next quarter and the quarter's out. At one point, and we can't predict month by month exactly, and for trading, because no one asked, cut it in half. Cut it in half, and that'll probably be closer to the future than if you say it's going to still be double what it normally runs.

And our next question is from Andrew Lim of Society General. Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions.

I think they're quite straightforward. I just wanted some clarity really on the nature of CECL provisioning. And obviously you've made some very big provisions based on much more conservative assumptions, but the nature of CECL provisioning logically should mean that in a third quarter, if your assumptions do not change, then your provisions should fall down quite considerably versus a second quarter to a much more normal level. I just wanted to see how you thought about that for the third quarter.

Sure. So I would start by saying where we are right now, while there is a conservative bias to where we are right now, it is our best estimate of what we're facing. We certainly hope that in the future we look back on this as a conservative moment, but this is our best estimate. And so if our assumptions are realized, and again, our reserve reflects something worse than the base case, So if that's realized, then we shouldn't see meaningful reserve bills in the third quarter. Or if that continues to be our problem in the third quarter.

So, I mean, context, would it be similar to costs that we've seen in 2019, for example?

Yes, you'd have reserves for growth, but not for the prices, per se.

Exactly. That's very clear. Thanks for that. And then on the CRT trading environment, obviously we saw June and we've seen a bit of a July. Would you say that's normalized to a level consistent with what we've seen with 2019 or are you still seeing some pretty strong trading following through into the third quarter?

I just answered that question. You should assume it's going to fall in half. We don't know. It's only a couple weeks into the thing, but we don't assume we have these unbelievable trading results going forward. And hopefully we'll do better than that, but we simply don't know. I also support a point of reserving since it's probabilistic. You can actually change nothing in your assumptions but the probabilities of potential outcomes and put up more reserves.

We have no further questions at this time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for participating in today's call. You may now disconnect.