Edgar Filing: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO

10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



For the fiscal year ended		Commission file
December 31, 2015		number 1-5805

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Delaware		13-2624428
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. employer identification no.)

270 Park Avenue, New York, New York		10017
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (212) 270-6000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:



Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common stock		The New York Stock Exchange
		The London Stock Exchange
Warrants, each to purchase one share of Common Stock		The New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing a one-four hundredth interest in a share of 5.50% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series O		The New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing a one-four hundredth interest in a share of 5.45% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series P		The New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing a one-four hundredth interest in a share of 6.70% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series T		The New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing a one-four hundredth interest in a share of 6.30% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series W		The New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing a one-four hundredth interest in a share of 6.125% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series Y		The New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing a one-four hundredth interest in a share of 6.10% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series AA		The New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing a one-four hundredth interest in a share of 6.15% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series BB		The New York Stock Exchange
Alerian MLP Index ETNs due May 24, 2024		NYSE Arca, Inc.

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. o Yes x No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. o Yes x No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. x Yes o No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). x Yes o No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.



x Large accelerated filer	o Accelerated filer	o Non-accelerated filer (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	o Smaller reporting company

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). o Yes x No

The aggregate market value of JPMorgan Chase & Co. common stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2015: $249,201,931,877

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of January 31, 2016: 3,670,264,897

Documents incorporated by reference: Portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the annual meeting of stockholders to be held on May 17, 2016, are incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K in response to Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III.

Form 10-K Index



Part I		Page
Item 1	Business	1
	Overview	1
	Business segments	1
	Competition	1
	Supervision and regulation	1
	Distribution of assets, liabilities and stockholders’ equity; interest rates and interest differentials	316–320
	Return on equity and assets	66, 309, 316
	Securities portfolio	321
	Loan portfolio	112–129, 242–261, 322–327
	Summary of loan and lending-related commitments loss experience	130–132, 262–265, 328–329
	Deposits	278,330
	Short-term and other borrowed funds	331
Item 1A	Risk factors	8–18
Item 1B	Unresolved SEC Staff comments	18
Item 2	Properties	19
Item 3	Legal proceedings	19
Item 4	Mine safety disclosures	19

Part II
Item 5	Market for registrant’s common equity, related stockholder matters and issuer purchases of equity securities	20
Item 6	Selected financial data	20
Item 7	Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations	20
Item 7A	Quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk	20
Item 8	Financial statements and supplementary data	21
Item 9	Changes in and disagreements with accountants on accounting and financial disclosure	21
Item 9A	Controls and Procedures	21
Item 9B	Other information	21

Part III
Item 10	Directors, executive officers and corporate governance	22
Item 11	Executive compensation	23
Item 12	Security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management and related stockholder matters	23
Item 13	Certain relationships and related transactions, and director independence	23
Item 14	Principal accounting fees and services	23

Part IV
Item 15	Exhibits, financial statement schedules	24–27

Part I

ITEM 1: BUSINESS

Overview

JPMorgan Chase & Co., (“JPMorgan Chase” or the “Firm”) a financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United States of America (“U.S.”), with operations worldwide; the Firm had $2.4 trillion in assets and $247.6 billion in stockholders’ equity as of December 31, 2015. The Firm is a leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world’s most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.

JPMorgan Chase’s principal bank subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.”), a national banking association with U.S. branches in 23 states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association (“Chase Bank USA, N.A.”), a national banking association that is the Firm’s credit card-issuing bank. JPMorgan Chase’s principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (“JPMorgan Securities”), the Firm’s U.S. investment banking firm. The bank and nonbank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally as well as through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative offices and subsidiary foreign banks. One of the Firm’s principal operating subsidiaries in the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) is J.P. Morgan Securities plc, a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

The Firm’s website is www.jpmorganchase.com. JPMorgan Chase makes available free of charge, through its website, annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K pursuant to Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as soon as reasonably practicable after it electronically files such material with, or furnishes such material to, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Firm has adopted, and posted on its website, a Code of Conduct for all employees of the Firm and a Code of Ethics for its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and all other professionals of the Firm worldwide serving in a finance, accounting, tax or investor relations role.

Business segments

JPMorgan Chase’s activities are organized, for management reporting purposes, into four major reportable business segments, as well as a Corporate segment. The Firm’s consumer business is the Consumer & Community Banking (“CCB”) segment. The Firm’s wholesale business segments are Corporate & Investment Bank (“CIB”), Commercial Banking (“CB”), and Asset Management (“AM”).

A description of the Firm’s business segments and the products and services they provide to their respective client bases is provided in the “Business segment results” section of Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations (“MD&A”), beginning on page 68 and in Note 33.

Competition

JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries and affiliates operate in a highly competitive environment. Competitors include other banks, brokerage firms, investment banking companies, merchant banks, hedge funds, commodity trading companies, private equity firms, insurance companies, mutual fund companies, investment managers, credit card companies, mortgage banking companies, trust companies, securities processing companies, automobile financing companies, leasing companies, e-commerce and other Internet-based companies, financial technology companies, and other companies engaged in providing similar products and services. The Firm’s businesses generally compete on the basis of the quality and variety of the Firm’s products and services, transaction execution, innovation, reputation and price. Competition also varies based on the types of clients, customers, industries and geographies served. With respect to some of its geographies and products, JPMorgan Chase competes globally; with respect to others, the Firm competes on a national or regional basis. The Firm’s ability to compete also depends on its ability to attract and retain professional and other personnel, and on its reputation.

It is likely that competition in the financial services industry will become even more intense as the Firm’s businesses continue to compete with other financial institutions that may have a stronger local presence in certain geographies or that operate under different rules and regulatory regimes than the Firm, or with companies that provide new or innovative products or services that the Firm is unable to provide.

Supervision and regulation

The Firm is subject to regulation under state and federal laws in the U.S., as well as the applicable laws of each of the various jurisdictions outside the U.S. in which the Firm does business.

As a result of regulatory reforms enacted and proposed in the U.S. and abroad, the Firm has been experiencing a period of significant change in regulation which has had and could continue to have significant consequences for how the Firm conducts business. The Firm continues to work diligently in assessing the regulatory changes it is facing, and is devoting substantial resources to comply with all the new regulations, while, at the same time, endeavoring to best meet the needs and expectations of its customers, clients and shareholders. These efforts include the implementation of new policies, procedures and controls, and appropriate adjustments to the Firm’s business and operations, legal entity structure and capital and liquidity



		1

Part I

management. The combined effect of numerous rule-makings by multiple governmental agencies and regulators, and the potential conflicts or inconsistencies among such rules, present challenges and risks to the Firm’s business and operations. Given the current status of the regulatory developments, the Firm cannot currently quantify all of the possible effects on its business and operations of the significant changes that are underway. For more information, see Risk Factors on pages 8–18.

Financial holding company:

Consolidated supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”). As a bank holding company (“BHC”) and a financial holding company, JPMorgan Chase is subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision, regulation and examination by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve acts as an “umbrella regulator” and certain of JPMorgan Chase’s subsidiaries are regulated directly by additional authorities based on the particular activities of those subsidiaries. For example, JPMorgan Chase’s national bank subsidiaries, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Chase Bank USA, N.A., are subject to supervision and regulation by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and, with respect to certain matters, by the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). Certain non-bank subsidiaries, such as the Firm’s U.S. broker-dealers, are subject to supervision and regulation by the SEC, and subsidiaries of the Firm that engage in certain futures-related and swaps-related activities are subject to supervision and regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). See Securities and broker-dealer regulation, Investment management regulation and Derivatives regulation below. In addition, the Firm’s consumer activities are subject to supervision and regulation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and to regulation under various state statutes which are enforced by the respective state’s Attorney General.

Scope of permissible business activities. The Bank Holding Company Act generally restricts BHCs from engaging in business activities other than the business of banking and certain closely related activities. Financial holding companies generally can engage in a broader range of financial activities than are otherwise permissible for BHCs, including underwriting, dealing and making markets in securities, and making merchant banking investments in non-financial companies. The Federal Reserve has the authority to limit a financial holding company’s ability to conduct activities that would otherwise be permissible if the financial holding company or any of its depositary institution subsidiaries ceases to meet the applicable eligibility requirements (including requirements that the financial holding company and each of its U.S. depository institution subsidiaries maintain their status as “well-capitalized” and “well-managed”). The Federal Reserve may also impose corrective capital and/or managerial requirements on the financial holding company and may, for example, require divestiture of the holding company’s

depository institutions if the deficiencies persist. Federal regulations also provide that if any depository institution controlled by a financial holding company fails to maintain a satisfactory rating under the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Reserve must prohibit the financial holding company and its subsidiaries from engaging in any activities other than those permissible for bank holding companies. In addition, a financial holding company must obtain Federal Reserve approval before engaging in certain banking and other financial activities both in the U.S. and internationally, as further described under Regulation of acquisitions below.

Activities restrictions under the Volcker Rule. Section 619 of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) (the “Volcker Rule”) prohibits banking entities, including the Firm, from engaging in certain “proprietary trading” activities, subject to exceptions for underwriting, market-making, risk-mitigating hedging and certain other activities. In addition, the Volcker Rule limits the sponsorship of, and investment in, “covered funds” (as defined by the Volcker Rule) and imposes limits on certain transactions between the Firm and its sponsored funds (see JPMorgan Chase’s subsidiary banks — Restrictions on transactions with affiliates below). The Volcker Rule, which became effective in July 2015, requires banking entities to establish comprehensive compliance programs reasonably designed to help ensure and monitor compliance with the restrictions under the Volcker Rule, including, in order to distinguish permissible from impermissible risk-taking activities, the measurement, monitoring and reporting of certain key metrics. Given the uncertainty and complexity of the Volcker Rule’s framework, the full impact of the Volcker Rule will ultimately depend on its ongoing interpretation by the five regulatory agencies responsible for its oversight.

Capital and liquidity requirements. The Federal Reserve establishes capital and leverage requirements for the Firm and evaluates its compliance with such requirements. The OCC establishes similar capital and leverage requirements for the Firm’s national banking subsidiaries. For more information about the applicable requirements relating to risk-based capital and leverage in the U.S. under the most recent capital framework established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”)(“Basel III”), see Capital Management on pages 149–158 and Note 28. Under Basel III, bank holding companies and banks are required to measure their liquidity against two specific liquidity tests: the liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”) and the net stable funding ratio (“NSFR”). The U.S. banking regulators have approved the final LCR rule (“U.S. LCR”), which became effective on January 1, 2015. A proposed U.S. rule for NSFR is expected. For additional information on these ratios, see Liquidity Risk Management on pages 159–164. It is likely that the banking supervisors will continue to refine and enhance the Basel III capital framework for financial institutions. The Basel Committee recently finalized revisions to market risk capital for trading books; other proposals being contemplated by the Basel Committee include revisions to, among others, standardized credit and operational risk capital frameworks and revisions



2

to the securitization framework. After a proposal is finalized by the Basel Committee, U.S. banking regulators would then need to propose requirements applicable to U.S. financial institutions.

Stress tests. The Federal Reserve has adopted supervisory stress tests for large bank holding companies, including JPMorgan Chase, which form part of the Federal Reserve’s annual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (“CCAR”) framework. Under the framework, the Firm must conduct semi-annual company-run stress tests and, in addition, must submit an annual capital plan to the Federal Reserve, taking into account the results of separate stress tests designed by the Firm and the Federal Reserve. In reviewing the Firm’s capital plan, the Federal Reserve considers both quantitative and qualitative factors. Qualitative assessments include (among other things) the comprehensiveness of the plan, the assumptions and analysis underlying the plan, and the extent to which the Firm has satisfied certain supervisory matters related to the Firm’s processes and analyses, including the design and operational effectiveness of the controls governing such processes. Moreover, the Firm is required to receive a notice of non-objection from the Federal Reserve before taking capital actions, such as paying dividends, implementing common equity repurchase programs or redeeming or repurchasing capital instruments. The OCC requires JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to perform separate, similar annual stress tests. The Firm publishes each year the results of its mid-cycle stress tests under the Firm’s internally-developed “severely adverse” scenario and the results of its (and its two primary subsidiary banks’) annual stress tests under the supervisory “severely adverse” scenarios provided by the Federal Reserve and the OCC. Commencing with the 2016 CCAR, the annual CCAR submission will be due on April 5. Results will be published by the Federal Reserve by June 30, with disclosures of results by BHCs, including the Firm, to follow within 15 days. Also commencing in 2016, the mid-cycle capital stress test submissions will be due on October 5 and BHCs, including the Firm, will publish results by November 4. The Federal Reserve has indicated that it is currently evaluating the inclusion of all or part of the global systemically important bank (“GSIB”) surcharge into the 2017 CCAR test and the Firm is currently awaiting further guidance. For additional information on the Firm’s CCAR, see Capital Management on pages 149–158.

Enhanced prudential standards. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”), among other things, recommends prudential standards and reporting and disclosure requirements to the Federal Reserve for systemically important financial institutions, such as JPMorgan Chase. The Federal Reserve has adopted several rules to implement the heightened prudential standards, including final rules relating to risk management and corporate governance of subject BHCs. BHCs with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets are required to comply with enhanced liquidity and overall risk

management standards, including a buffer of highly liquid assets based on projected funding needs for 30 days, and their board of directors is required to conduct appropriate oversight of their risk management activities. For information on liquidity measures, see Liquidity Risk Management on pages 159–164. Several additional proposed rules are still being considered, including rules relating to single-counterparty credit limits and an “early remediation” framework to address financial distress or material management weaknesses.

Risk reporting. In January 2013, the Basel Committee issued new regulations relating to risk aggregation and reporting. Under these regulations, the banking institution’s risk governance framework must encompass risk-data aggregation and reporting, and data aggregation must be highly automated and allow for minimal manual intervention. The regulations also impose higher standards for the accuracy, comprehensiveness, granularity and timely distribution of data reporting, and call for regular supervisory review of the banking institution’s risk aggregation and reporting. These new standards became effective for GSIBs, including the Firm, on January 1, 2016.

Orderly liquidation authority and resolution and recovery. As a BHC with assets of $50 billion or more, the Firm is required to submit annually to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC a plan for resolution under the Bankruptcy Code in the event of material distress or failure (a “resolution plan”). The FDIC also requires each insured depositary institution with $50 billion or more in assets, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A., to provide a resolution plan. For more information about the Firm’s resolution plan, see Risk Factors on pages 8–18. In addition, certain financial companies, including JPMorgan Chase and certain of its subsidiaries, can be subjected to resolution under an “orderly liquidation authority.” The U.S. Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the President of the United States, must first make certain extraordinary financial distress and systemic risk determinations, and action must be recommended by the FDIC and the Federal Reserve. Absent such actions, the Firm, as a BHC, would remain subject to resolution under the Bankruptcy Code. In December 2013, the FDIC issued a draft policy statement describing its “single point of entry” strategy for resolution of systemically important financial institutions under the orderly liquidation authority. This strategy seeks to keep operating subsidiaries of the BHC open and impose losses on shareholders and creditors of the holding company in receivership according to their statutory order of priority.

The Firm has a comprehensive recovery plan detailing the actions it would take to avoid failure by remaining well-capitalized and well-funded in the case of an adverse event. JPMorgan Chase has provided the Federal Reserve with comprehensive confidential supervisory information and analyses about the Firm’s businesses, legal entities and corporate governance and about its crisis management governance, capabilities and available alternatives to raise liquidity and capital in severe market circumstances. The



		3

Part I

OCC has published for comment proposed guidelines establishing standards for recovery planning by insured national banks, including JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.

Regulators in the U.S. and abroad continue to be focused on developing measures designed to address the possibility or perception that large financial institutions, including the Firm, may be “too big to fail,” and to provide safeguards so that, if a large financial institution does fail, it can be resolved without the use of public funds. Higher capital surcharges on GSIBs, requirements for certain large bank holding companies to maintain a minimum amount of long-term debt to facilitate orderly resolution of those firms, and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) protocol relating to the “close-out” of derivatives transactions during the resolution of a large cross-border financial institution, are examples of initiatives to address “too big to fail.” For further information on the potential impact of the GSIB framework and Total Loss Absorbing Capacity (“TLAC”), see Capital Management on pages 149–158 and Risk Factors on pages 8–18, and on the ISDA close-out protocol, see Derivatives regulation below.

Holding company as source of strength for bank subsidiaries. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is required to serve as a source of financial strength for its depository institution subsidiaries and to commit resources to support those subsidiaries. This support may be required by the Federal Reserve at times when the Firm might otherwise determine not to provide it.

Regulation of acquisitions. Acquisitions by bank holding companies and their banks are subject to multiple requirements by the Federal Reserve and the OCC. For example, financial holding companies and bank holding companies are required to obtain the approval of the Federal Reserve before they may acquire more than 5% of the voting shares of an unaffiliated bank. In addition, acquisitions by financial companies are prohibited if, as a result of the acquisition, the total liabilities of the financial company would exceed 10% of the total liabilities of all financial companies. In contrast, because the liabilities of non-U.S. financial companies are calculated differently under this rule, a non-U.S. financial company could hold significantly more than 10% of the U.S. market without exceeding the concentration limit. In addition, for certain acquisitions, the Firm must provide written notice to the Federal Reserve prior to acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any company with over $10 billion in assets that is engaged in activities that are “financial in nature”.

JPMorgan Chase’s subsidiary banks:

The Firm’s two primary subsidiary banks, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A., are FDIC-insured national banks regulated by the OCC. As national banks, the activities of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A. are limited to those specifically authorized under the National Bank Act and related interpretations by the OCC.

FDIC deposit insurance. The FDIC deposit insurance fund provides insurance coverage for certain deposits, which is funded through assessments on banks, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A. Changes in the methodology used to calculate such assessments, resulting from the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, significantly increased the assessments that the Firm’s bank subsidiaries pay annually to the FDIC. In October 2015, the FDIC proposed a new assessment surcharge on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets greater than $10 billion in order to raise the reserve ratio for the FDIC deposit insurance fund. Future FDIC rule-making could further increase such assessments.

FDIC powers upon a bank insolvency. Upon the insolvency of an insured depository institution, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the FDIC may be appointed as the conservator or receiver under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”). In addition, where a systemically important financial institution, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co., is “in default” or “in danger of default”, the FDIC may be appointed as receiver in order to conduct an orderly liquidation. In both cases, the FDIC has broad powers to transfer any assets and liabilities without the approval of the institution’s creditors.

Cross-guarantee. An FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any loss incurred or expected to be incurred by the FDIC if another FDIC-insured institution that is under common control with such institution is in default or is deemed to be “in danger of default” (commonly referred to as “cross-guarantee” liability). An FDIC cross-guarantee claim against a depository institution is generally superior in right of payment to claims of the holding company and its affiliates against such depository institution.

Prompt corrective action and early remediation. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 requires the relevant federal banking regulator to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to a depository institution if that institution does not meet certain capital adequacy standards. While these regulations apply only to banks, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A., the Federal Reserve is authorized to take appropriate action against the parent BHC, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co., based on the undercapitalized status of any bank subsidiary. In certain instances, the BHC would be required to guarantee the performance of the capital restoration plan for its undercapitalized subsidiary.

OCC Heightened Standards. The OCC has issued final regulations and guidelines establishing heightened standards for large banks. The guidelines establish minimum standards for the design and implementation of a risk governance framework for banks. While the bank may use certain components of the parent company’s risk governance framework, the framework must ensure that the bank’s risk profile is easily distinguished and separate from the parent for risk management purposes. The bank’s board or risk committee is responsible for approving the



4

bank’s risk governance framework, providing active oversight of the bank’s risk-taking activities and holding management accountable for adhering to the risk governance framework.

Restrictions on transactions with affiliates. The bank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase (including subsidiaries of those banks) are subject to certain restrictions imposed by federal law on extensions of credit to, investments in stock or securities of, and derivatives, securities lending and certain other transactions with, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and certain other affiliates. These restrictions prevent JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other affiliates from borrowing from such subsidiaries unless the loans are secured in specified amounts and comply with certain other requirements. For more information, see Note 27. In addition, the Volcker Rule imposes a prohibition on such transactions between any JPMorgan Chase entity and covered funds for which a JPMorgan Chase entity serves as the investment manager, investment advisor, commodity trading advisor or sponsor, as well as, subject to a limited exception, any covered fund controlled by such funds.

Dividend restrictions. Federal law imposes limitations on the payment of dividends by national banks, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A. See Note 27 for the amount of dividends that the Firm’s principal bank subsidiaries could pay, at January 1, 2016, to their respective bank holding companies without the approval of their banking regulators.

In addition to the dividend restrictions described above, the OCC and the Federal Reserve have authority to prohibit or limit the payment of dividends of the bank subsidiaries they supervise, if, in the banking regulator’s opinion, payment of a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice in light of the financial condition of the bank.

Depositor preference. Under federal law, the claims of a receiver of an insured depository institution for administrative expense and the claims of holders of U.S. deposit liabilities (including the FDIC) have priority over the claims of other unsecured creditors of the institution, including public noteholders and depositors in non-U.S. offices. As a result, such persons could receive substantially less than the depositors in U.S. offices of the depository institution. The U.K. Prudential Regulation Authority (the “PRA”), a subsidiary of the Bank of England which has responsibility for prudential regulation of banks and other systemically important institutions, has issued a proposal that may require the Firm to either obtain equal treatment for U.K. depositors or “subsidiarize” in the U.K. In September 2013, the FDIC issued a final rule which clarifies that foreign deposits are considered deposits under the FDIA if they are payable in the U.S. as well as in the foreign branch.

CFPB regulation and supervision, and other consumer regulations. JPMorgan Chase and its national bank subsidiaries, including JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A., are subject to supervision and regulation by the CFPB with respect to federal consumer

protection laws, including laws relating to fair lending and the prohibition of unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in connection with the offer, sale or provision of consumer financial products and services. These laws include the Truth-in-Lending, Equal Credit Opportunity (“ECOA”), Fair Credit Reporting, Fair Debt Collection Practice, Electronic Funds Transfer, Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (“CARD”) and Home Mortgage Disclosure Acts. The CFPB also has authority to impose new disclosure requirements for any consumer financial product or service. The CFPB has issued informal guidance on a variety of topics (such as the collection of consumer debts and credit card marketing practices) and has taken enforcement actions against certain financial institutions. Much of the CFPB’s initial rule-making efforts have addressed mortgage related topics, including ability to repay and qualified mortgage standards, mortgage servicing standards, loan originator compensation standards, high-cost mortgage requirements, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requirements, appraisal and escrow standards and requirements for higher-priced mortgages. Other areas of recent focus include pre-authorized electronic funds transfers, “add-on” products, matters involving consumer populations considered vulnerable by the CFPB (such as students), credit reporting, and the furnishing of credit scores to individuals. The CFPB has been focused on automobile dealer discretionary interest rate markups, and on holding the Firm and other purchasers of such contracts (“indirect lenders”) responsible under the ECOA for statistical disparities in markups charged by the dealers to borrowers of different races or ethnicities. For information regarding a current investigation relating to indirect lending to automobile dealers, see Note 31.

Securities and broker-dealer regulation:

The Firm conducts securities underwriting, dealing and brokerage activities in the U.S. through J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and other broker-dealer subsidiaries, all of which are subject to regulations of the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the New York Stock Exchange, among others. The Firm conducts similar securities activities outside the U.S. subject to local regulatory requirements. In the U.K., those activities are conducted by J.P. Morgan Securities plc, which is regulated by the PRA and by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), which regulates prudential matters for firms that are not so regulated by the PRA and conduct matters for all market participants. Broker-dealers are subject to laws and regulations covering all aspects of the securities business, including sales and trading practices, securities offerings, publication of research reports, use of customer’s funds, the financing of clients’ purchases, capital structure, record-keeping and retention, and the conduct of their directors, officers and employees. For information on the net capital of J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp., and the applicable requirements relating to risk-based capital for J.P. Morgan Securities plc, see Broker-dealer regulatory capital on page 158. Future rule-making under



		5

Part I

the Dodd-Frank Act and rules proposed by the Department of Labor may impose (among other things) a new standard of care applicable to broker-dealers when dealing with customers.

Investment management regulation:

The Firm’s investment management business is subject to significant regulation in numerous jurisdictions around the world relating to, among other things, the safeguarding of client assets, offerings of funds, marketing activities, transactions among affiliates and management of client funds. Certain of the Firm’s subsidiaries are registered with, and subject to oversight by, the SEC as investment advisers. As such, the Firm’s registered investment advisers are subject to the fiduciary and other obligations imposed under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as various state securities laws. For information regarding investigations and litigation in connection with disclosures to clients related to proprietary products, see Note 31.

The Firm’s asset management business continues to be affected by ongoing rule-making. In July 2013, the SEC adopted amendments to rules that govern money-market funds, requiring a floating net asset value for institutional prime money-market funds, effective October 14, 2016. As noted above, the Department of Labor has also proposed a rule that would significantly expand the universe of persons viewed as investment fiduciaries to retirement plans and IRAs. In addition, the SEC has issued proposed rules regarding enhanced liquidity risk management for open-end mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”); restrictions on the use of derivatives by mutual funds, ETFs and closed-end funds; and enhanced reporting for funds and advisors.

Derivatives regulation:

The Firm is subject to comprehensive regulation of its derivatives businesses. The regulations impose capital and margin requirements, require central clearing of standardized over-the-counter derivatives, require that certain standardized over-the-counter swaps be traded on regulated trading venues, and provide for reporting of certain mandated information. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the registration of “swap dealers” and “major swap participants” with the CFTC and of “security-based swap dealers” and “major security-based swap participants” with the SEC. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities plc and J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation have registered with the CFTC as swap dealers, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities plc will likely be required to register with the SEC as security-based swap dealers. As a result of their registration as swap dealers or security-based swap dealers, these entities will be subject to a new, comprehensive regulatory framework applicable to their swap or security-based swap activities, which includes capital requirements, rules regulating their swap activities, rules requiring the collateralization of uncleared swaps, rules regarding segregation of

counterparty collateral, business conduct and documentation standards, record-keeping and reporting obligations, and anti-fraud and anti-manipulation requirements. Further, some of the rules for derivatives apply extraterritorially to U.S. firms doing business with clients outside of the U.S., as well as to the overseas activities of non-U.S. subsidiaries of the Firm that either deal with U.S. persons or that are guaranteed by U.S. subsidiaries of the Firm; however, the full scope of the extra-territorial impact of the U.S. swaps regulation has not been finalized and therefore remains unclear. The effect of these rules may require banking entities, such as the Firm, to modify the structure of their derivatives businesses and face increased operational and regulatory costs. In the European Union (the “EU”), the implementation of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (“EMIR”) and the revision of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (“MiFID II”) will result in comparable, but not identical, changes to the European regulatory regime for derivatives. The combined effect of the U.S. and EU requirements, and the potential conflicts and inconsistencies between them, present challenges and risks to the structure and operating model of the Firm’s derivatives businesses.

In November 2015, the Firm and other financial institutions agreed to adhere to an updated Resolution Stay Protocol developed by ISDA in response to regulator concerns that the close-out of derivatives transactions during the resolution of a large cross-border financial institution could impede resolution efforts and potentially destabilize markets. The Resolution Stay Protocol provides for the contractual recognition of cross-border stays under various statutory resolution regimes and a contractual stay on certain cross-default rights.

In the U.S., two subsidiaries of the Firm are registered as futures commission merchants, and other subsidiaries are either registered with the CFTC as commodity pool operators and commodity trading advisors or exempt from such registration. These CFTC-registered subsidiaries are also members of the National Futures Association.

Data regulation:

The Firm and its subsidiaries are subject to federal, state and international laws and regulations concerning the use and protection of certain customer, employee and other personal and confidential information, including those imposed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as well as the EU Data Protection Directive.

In addition, there are numerous proposals pending before U.S. and non-U.S. legislative and regulatory bodies regarding privacy and data protection. For example, the European Parliament and the European Council have reached agreement on certain data protection reforms proposed by the European Commission which includes numerous operational requirements, adds a requirement to notify individuals of data breaches and establishes enhanced sanctions for non-compliance, including increased fines.



6

The Bank Secrecy Act and Economic Sanctions:

The Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) requires all financial institutions, including banks and securities broker-dealers, to, among other things, establish a risk-based system of internal controls reasonably designed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The BSA includes a variety of record-keeping and reporting requirements (such as cash transaction and suspicious activity reporting), as well as due diligence/know your customer documentation requirements. In January 2013, the Firm entered into Consent Orders with its banking regulators relating to the Firm’s Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering policies, procedures and controls; the Firm has taken significant steps to modify and enhance its processes and controls with respect to its Anti-Money Laundering procedures and to remediate the issues identified in the Consent Order. The Firm is also subject to the regulations and economic sanctions programs administered by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”).

Anti-Corruption:

The Firm is subject to laws and regulations relating to corrupt and illegal payments to government officials and others in the jurisdictions in which it operates, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the U.K. Bribery Act. For more information on a current investigation relating to, among other things, the Firm’s hiring of persons referred by government officials and clients, see Note 31.

Compensation practices:

The Firm’s compensation practices are subject to oversight by the Federal Reserve, as well as other agencies. The Federal Reserve has issued guidance jointly with the FDIC and the OCC that is designed to ensure that incentive compensation paid by banking organizations does not encourage imprudent risk-taking that threatens the organizations’ safety and soundness. In addition, under the Dodd-Frank Act, federal regulators, including the Federal Reserve, must issue regulations or guidelines requiring covered financial institutions, including the Firm, to report the structure of all of their incentive-based compensation arrangements and prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by providing compensation that is excessive or that could lead to material financial loss to the institution. The Federal Reserve has conducted a review of the incentive compensation policies and practices of a number of large banking institutions, including the Firm. In addition to the Federal Reserve, the Financial Stability Board has established standards covering compensation principles for banks. In Europe, the Fourth Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV) includes compensation provisions. In the U.K., compensation standards are governed by the Remuneration Code of the PRA and the FCA. The implementation of the Federal Reserve’s and other banking regulators’ guidelines regarding compensation are expected to evolve over the next several years, and may affect the manner in which the Firm structures its compensation programs and practices.

Significant international regulatory initiatives:

The EU operates a European Systemic Risk Board which monitors financial stability, together with European Supervisory Agencies which set detailed regulatory rules and encourage supervisory convergence across the 28 Member States. The EU has also created a Single Supervisory Mechanism for the euro-zone, under which the regulation of all banks in that zone will be under the auspices of the European Central Bank, together with a Single Resolution Mechanism and Single Resolution Board, having jurisdiction over bank resolution in the zone. At both global and EU levels, various proposals are under consideration to address risks associated with global financial institutions. Some of the initiatives adopted include increased capital requirements for certain trading instruments or exposures and compensation limits on certain employees located in affected countries.

In the EU, there is an extensive and complex program of final and proposed regulatory enhancement which reflects, in part, the EU’s commitments to policies of the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (“G-20”) together with other plans specific to the EU. This program includes EMIR, which requires, among other things, the central clearing of standardized derivatives; and MiFID II, which gives effect to the G-20 commitment to trading of derivatives through central clearing houses and exchanges and also includes significantly enhanced requirements for pre- and post-trade transparency and a significant reconfiguration of the regulatory supervision of execution venues.

The EU is also currently considering or implementing significant revisions to laws covering: depositary activities; credit rating activities; resolution of banks, investment firms and market infrastructures; anti-money-laundering controls; data security and privacy; corporate governance in financial firms; and implementation in the EU of the Basel III capital and liquidity standards.

Following the issuance of the Report of the High Level Expert Group on Reforming the Structure of the EU Banking Sector (the “Liikanen Group”), the EU has proposed legislation providing for a proprietary trading ban and mandatory separation of other trading activities within certain banks, while various EU Member States have separately enacted similar measures. In the U.K., legislation was adopted that mandates the separation (or “ring-fencing”) of deposit-taking activities from securities trading and other analogous activities within banks, subject to certain exemptions. The legislation includes the supplemental recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards (the “Tyrie Commission”) that such ring-fences should be “electrified” by the imposition of mandatory forced separation on banking institutions that are deemed to test the limits of the safeguards. Parallel but distinct provisions have been enacted by the French, Belgian and German governments. These measures may separately or taken together have significant implications for the Firm’s organizational



		7

Part I

structure in Europe, as well as its permitted activities and capital deployment in the EU.

U.K. regulators are introducing a range of policy measures that make significant changes to the regulatory environment in the U.K. Alongside broader recommendations made by the Fair and Effective Markets Review which focused on fixed income currencies and commodities markets, there is a focus by U.K. regulators on raising standards and accountability of individuals, and promoting forward-looking conduct risk identification and mitigation, including by introducing the new Senior Managers and Certification Regimes.

Item 1A: RISK FACTORS

The following discussion sets forth the material risk factors that could affect JPMorgan Chase’s financial condition and operations. Readers should not consider any descriptions of such factors to be a complete set of all potential risks that could affect the Firm.

Regulatory Risk

JPMorgan Chase operates within a highly regulated industry, and the Firm’s businesses and results are significantly affected by the laws and regulations to which the Firm is subject.

As a global financial services firm, JPMorgan Chase is subject to extensive and comprehensive regulation under federal and state laws in the U.S. and the laws of the various jurisdictions outside the U.S. in which the Firm does business. The financial services industry has experienced and continues to experience an unprecedented increase in regulations and supervision, both in the U.S. and globally, and the cumulative effect of all of the new and proposed legislation and regulations on the Firm’s business, operations and profitability remains uncertain.

The recent legislative and regulatory developments, as well as future legislative or regulatory actions in the U.S. and in the other countries in which the Firm operates, and any required changes to the Firm’s business or operations resulting from such developments and actions, could result in a significant loss of revenue for the Firm, impose additional compliance and other costs on the Firm or otherwise reduce the Firm’s profitability, limit the products and services that the Firm offers or its ability to pursue business opportunities in which it might otherwise consider engaging, require the Firm to dispose of or curtail certain businesses, affect the value of assets that the Firm holds, require the Firm to increase its prices and therefore reduce demand for its products, or otherwise adversely affect the Firm’s businesses. In addition, to the extent that legislative or regulatory initiatives are imposed on a limited subset of financial institutions (based on size, activities, geography or other criteria), the requirements to which the Firm may be subject under such laws and regulations could require the Firm to restructure its businesses, or re-price or curtail the products or services that it offers to customers, which could result in the Firm not being able to compete effectively with other institutions that are not impacted in the same way.

In addition, there can be significant differences in the ways that similar regulatory initiatives affecting the financial services industry are implemented in the U.S. and in different countries and regions in which JPMorgan Chase does business. For example, recent legislative and regulatory initiatives within the EU, including those relating to the resolution of financial institutions, the separation of trading activities from core banking services, mandatory on-exchange trading, position limits and reporting rules for derivatives, conduct of business requirements, restrictions on compensation and governance and accountability regimes, could require the Firm to make significant modifications to its non-U.S. business, operations and legal entity structure in order to comply with these requirements. These differences in implemented or proposed non-U.S. regulations and initiatives may be inconsistent or may conflict with current or proposed regulations in the U.S., which could subject the Firm to increased compliance and legal costs, as well as higher operational, capital and liquidity costs, all of which could have an adverse effect on the Firm’s business, results of operations and profitability.

Expanded regulatory and governmental oversight of JPMorgan Chase’s businesses may continue to increase the Firm’s costs and risks.

The Firm’s businesses and operations are increasingly subject to heightened governmental and regulatory oversight and scrutiny. The Firm has paid significant fines (or has provided significant monetary and other relief) to resolve a number of investigations or enforcement actions by governmental agencies. The Firm continues to devote substantial resources to satisfying the requirements of regulatory consent orders and other settlements to which it is subject, which increases the Firm’s operational and compliance costs.

Certain regulators have taken measures in connection with specific enforcement actions against financial institutions (including the Firm) that require admissions of wrongdoing and compliance with other conditions in connection with settling such matters. Such admissions and conditions can lead to, among other things, greater exposure in civil litigation, harm to reputation, disqualification from providing business to certain clients and in certain jurisdictions, and other direct and indirect adverse effects.

In addition, U.S. government officials have indicated and demonstrated a willingness to bring criminal actions against financial institutions, including the Firm, and have increasingly sought, and obtained, resolutions that include criminal pleas from those institutions, such as the Firm’s agreement in May 2015 to plead guilty to a single violation of federal antitrust law in connection with its settlements with certain government authorities relating to its foreign exchange sales and trading activities and controls related to those activities. Such resolutions, whether with U.S. or non-U.S. authorities, could have significant collateral consequences for a subject financial institution, including loss of customers and business, or the inability to offer certain products or services, or losing permission to operate certain businesses, for a period of time (absent the



8

forbearance of, or the granting of waivers by, applicable regulators).

The Firm expects that it and the financial services industry as a whole will continue to be subject to heightened regulatory scrutiny and governmental investigations and enforcement actions and that violations of law will more frequently be met with formal and punitive enforcement action, including the imposition of significant monetary and other sanctions, rather than with informal supervisory action.

In addition, if the Firm fails to meet the requirements of the various governmental settlements to which it is subject, or more generally, to maintain risk and control procedures and processes that meet the heightened standards established by its regulators and other government agencies, it could be required to enter into further orders and settlements, pay additional fines, penalties or judgments, or accept material regulatory restrictions on its businesses. The extent of the Firm’s exposure to legal and regulatory matters may be unpredictable and could, in some cases, substantially exceed the amount of reserves that the Firm has established for such matters.

Requirements for the orderly resolution of the Firm could require JPMorgan Chase to restructure or reorganize its businesses, and holders of JPMorgan Chase’s debt and equity securities would be at risk of absorbing losses if the Firm were to enter into a resolution.

Under Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Title I”) and Federal Reserve and FDIC rules, the Firm is required to prepare and submit periodically to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC a detailed plan for the orderly resolution of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and certain of its subsidiaries under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and other applicable insolvency laws in the event of future material financial distress or failure. In August 2014, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC announced the completion of their reviews of the second round of Title I resolution plans submitted by eleven large, complex banking organizations in 2013, including the Firm. The agencies jointly identified specific shortcomings with the 2013 resolution plans, including the Firm’s 2013 plan. The FDIC’s board of directors determined under Title I that the 2013 resolution plans, including the Firm’s 2013 plan, were not credible and did not facilitate an orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Federal Reserve Board determined that the eleven banking organizations must take immediate actions to improve their resolvability and reflect those improvements in their 2015 plans. The Firm has devoted significant resources to its resolution planning efforts, and believes that in its most recent Title I resolution plan submitted to the Federal Reserve and FDIC in July 2015, it has addressed, or has made substantial progress in addressing, each of the shortcomings previously identified by the agencies.

However, if the Federal Reserve and the FDIC were to jointly determine that the Firm’s 2015 plan, or any future update of that plan, is not credible, and the Firm is unable to remedy the identified deficiencies in a timely manner, the regulators may jointly impose more stringent capital,

leverage or liquidity requirements on the Firm or restrictions on growth, activities or operations of the Firm, and could, if such deficiencies are not remedied within two years after such a determination, require the Firm to restructure, reorganize or divest businesses, legal entities, operational systems and/or intercompany transactions in ways that could materially and adversely affect the Firm’s operations and strategy. In addition, in order to develop a Title I resolution plan that the Federal Reserve and FDIC determine is credible, the Firm may need to make certain changes to its legal entity structure and to certain intercompany and external activities, which could result in increased funding or operational costs.

In addition to the Firm’s plan for orderly resolution, the Firm’s resolution plan also recommends to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC its proposed optimal strategy to resolve the Firm under the special resolution procedure provided in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Title II”). The Firm’s recommendation involves a “single point of entry” recapitalization model in which the FDIC would use its power to create a “bridge entity” for JPMorgan Chase; transfer the systemically important and viable parts of the Firm’s business, principally the stock of JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s main operating subsidiaries and any intercompany claims against such subsidiaries, to the bridge entity; recapitalize those subsidiaries by, among other things, converting some or all of such intercompany claims to capital; and exchange external debt claims against JPMorgan Chase & Co. for equity in the bridge entity. As discussed below, the Federal Reserve has also proposed rules regarding the minimum levels of unsecured external long-term debt and other loss-absorbing capacity that bank holding companies would be required to have issued and outstanding, as well as guidelines defining the terms of qualifying debt instruments, to ensure that adequate levels of debt are maintained at the holding company level for purposes of recapitalization of the bridge entity and operating subsidiaries (“eligible LTD”). If JPMorgan Chase & Co. were to enter into a resolution, either in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or in a receivership administered by the FDIC under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, holders of eligible LTD and other debt and equity securities of the Firm would be at risk of absorbing the losses of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its affiliates. If JPMorgan Chase & Co. commenced proceedings under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, creditors and shareholders of JPMorgan Chase & Co. would realize value only to the extent available to JPMorgan Chase & Co. as a shareholder of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its other subsidiaries, after the payment to the creditors of such subsidiaries. In addition, even under the Firm’s preferred resolution strategy under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, the value of the stock of the bridge entity that would be redistributed to holders of the Firm’s eligible LTD and other debt securities may not be sufficient to repay all or part of the principal amount and interest on such debt. It is also possible that the application of the Firm’s recommended Title II strategy could result in greater losses to security holders of JPMorgan Chase & Co. than the losses that would result from a different resolution strategy for the Firm.



		9

Part I

Market Risk

JPMorgan Chase’s results of operations have been, and may continue to be, adversely affected by U.S. and global financial market and economic conditions.

JPMorgan Chase’s businesses are materially affected by economic and market conditions, including the liquidity of the global financial markets; the level and volatility of debt and equity prices, interest rates, currency and commodities prices (including oil prices) and other market indices; investor, consumer and business sentiment; events that reduce confidence in the financial markets; inflation and unemployment; the availability and cost of capital and credit; the economic effects of natural disasters, health emergencies or pandemics, severe weather conditions, outbreaks of hostilities, terrorism or other geopolitical instabilities; monetary policies and actions taken by the Federal Reserve and other central banks; and the health of the U.S. and global economies. These conditions can affect the Firm’s businesses both directly and through their impact on the businesses and activities of the Firm’s clients and customers.

In the Firm’s underwriting and advisory businesses, the above-mentioned factors can affect the volume of transactions that the Firm executes for its clients and customers and, therefore, the revenue that the Firm receives, as well as the willingness of other financial institutions and investors to participate in loan syndications or underwritings managed by the Firm.

The Firm generally maintains market-making positions in the fixed income, currency, commodities, credit and equity markets to facilitate client demand and provide liquidity to clients. The revenue derived from these positions is affected by many factors, including the Firm’s success in effectively hedging its market and other risks; volatility in interest rates and equity, debt and commodities markets; interest rate and credit spreads; and the availability of liquidity in the capital markets, all of which are affected by global economic and market conditions. Certain of the Firm’s market-making positions could be adversely affected by the lack of liquidity, which will be influenced by many of these factors, and which could affect the Firm’s ability to realize returns from such activities and adversely affect the Firm’s earnings.

The Firm may be adversely affected by declining asset values. This is particularly true for businesses that earn fees for managing third-party assets or receive or post collateral. For example, a higher level of U.S. or non-U.S. interest rates or a downturn in financial markets could affect the valuations of the client assets that the Firm manages or holds in custody, which, in turn, could affect the Firm’s revenue. Macroeconomic or market concerns may also prompt outflows from the Firm’s funds or accounts or cause clients to invest funds in products that generate lower revenue.

Changes in interest rates will affect the level of assets and liabilities held on the Firm’s balance sheet and the revenue that the Firm earns from net interest income. A low interest rate environment may compress net interest margins,

reducing the amounts that the Firm earns on its investment securities portfolio, or reducing the value of its mortgage servicing rights (“MSR”) asset, thereby reducing the Firm’s net interest income and other revenues. Conversely, increasing or high interest rates may result in increased funding costs, lower levels of commercial and residential loan originations and diminished returns on the investment securities portfolio (to the extent that the Firm is unable to reinvest contemporaneously in higher-yielding assets), thereby adversely affecting the Firm’s revenues and capital levels.

The Firm’s consumer businesses are particularly affected by U.S. domestic economic conditions, including U.S. interest rates, the rate of unemployment, housing prices, the level of consumer confidence, changes in consumer spending and the number of personal bankruptcies. If the recent positive trends in the U.S. economy are not sustained, this could diminish demand for the products and services of the Firm’s consumer businesses, or increase the cost to provide such products and services. In addition, adverse economic conditions, such as declines in home prices or persistent high levels of unemployment due to economic dislocations in certain geographies or industries caused by falling oil and gas prices or other market or economic factors, could lead to an increase in mortgage, credit card, auto, student and other loan delinquencies and higher net charge-offs, which can reduce the Firm’s earnings.

Widening of credit spreads makes it more expensive for the Firm to borrow on both a secured and unsecured basis, and may adversely affect the credit markets and the Firm’s businesses. Credit spreads widen or narrow not only in response to Firm-specific events and circumstances, but also as a result of general economic and geopolitical events and conditions. Changes in the Firm’s credit spreads will impact, positively or negatively, the Firm’s earnings on certain liabilities that are recorded at fair value.

Sudden and significant volatility in the prices of securities and other assets (including loans and derivatives) may curtail the trading markets for such securities and assets, make it difficult to sell or hedge such securities and assets, adversely affect the Firm’s profitability, capital or liquidity, or increase the Firm’s funding costs. Sustained volatility in the financial markets may also negatively affect consumer or investor confidence, which could lead to lower client activity and decreased revenue for the Firm.

Credit Risk

The financial condition of JPMorgan Chase’s customers, clients and counterparties, particularly other financial institutions, could adversely affect the Firm.

The Firm routinely executes transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks, mutual and hedge funds, investment managers and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose the Firm to credit risk and, in some cases, disputes and litigation in the event of a default by the counterparty or client. The failure of a significant market participant, or concerns about a default by such an institution, could also



10

lead to significant liquidity problems for, or losses or defaults by, other institutions, which in turn could adversely affect the Firm. In addition, in recent years the perceived interrelationship among financial institutions has also led to claims by other market participants and regulators that the Firm and other financial institutions have allegedly violated anti-trust or anti-competition laws by colluding to manipulate markets, prices or indices, and there is no assurance that such allegations will not arise in the same or similar contexts in the future.

As part of providing clearing services, the Firm is a member of a number of central counterparties (“CCPs”), and may be required to pay a portion of the losses incurred by such organizations as a result of the default of other members. As a clearing member, the Firm is also exposed to the risk of non-performance by its clients, which it seeks to mitigate through the maintenance of adequate collateral. In addition, the Firm can be exposed to intra-day credit risk of its clients in connection with providing cash management, clearing, custodial and other transaction services to such clients. If a client for which the Firm provides such services becomes bankrupt or insolvent, the Firm may suffer losses, become involved in disputes and litigation with various parties, including one or more CCPs, or the client’s bankruptcy estate and other creditors, or involved in regulatory investigations. All of such events can increase the Firm’s operational and litigation costs and may result in losses if any collateral received by the Firm is insufficient to cover such losses.

During periods of market stress or illiquidity, the Firm’s credit risk also may be further increased when the Firm cannot realize the fair value of the collateral held by it or when collateral is liquidated at prices that are not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan, derivative or other exposure due to the Firm. Further, disputes with obligors as to the valuation of collateral could increase in times of significant market stress, volatility or illiquidity, and the Firm could suffer losses during such periods if it is unable to realize the fair value of collateral or manage declines in the value of collateral.

Concentration of credit and market risk could increase the potential for significant losses.

JPMorgan Chase has exposure to increased levels of risk when customers or counterparties are engaged in similar business activities or activities in the same geographic region, or when they have similar economic features that would cause their ability to meet contractual obligations to be similarly affected by changes in economic conditions. For example, a significant deterioration in the credit quality of one of the Firm’s borrowers or counterparties could lead to concerns about the credit quality of other borrowers or counterparties in similar, related or dependent industries and thereby could exacerbate the Firm’s credit risk exposure and potentially increase its losses, including mark-to-market losses in its trading businesses. Similarly, challenging economic conditions affecting a particular industry or geographic area could lead to concerns about the credit quality of the Firm’s borrowers or counterparties, not only in that particular industry or geography but in

related or dependent industries, wherever located, or about the ability of customers of the Firm’s consumer businesses living in such areas or working in such affected industries or related or dependent industries to meet their obligations to the Firm. As a result, the Firm regularly monitors various segments of its exposures to assess potential concentration or contagion risks. The Firm’s efforts to diversify or hedge its exposures against concentration risks may not be successful.

In addition, disruptions in the liquidity or transparency of the financial markets may result in the Firm’s inability to sell, syndicate or realize the value of its positions, thereby leading to increased concentrations. The inability to reduce the Firm’s positions may not only increase the market and credit risks associated with such positions, but may also increase the level of risk-weighted assets on the Firm’s balance sheet, thereby increasing its capital requirements and funding costs, all of which could adversely affect the operations and profitability of the Firm’s businesses.

Liquidity Risk

If JPMorgan Chase does not effectively manage its liquidity, its business could suffer.

JPMorgan Chase’s liquidity is critical to its ability to operate its businesses. Some potential conditions that could impair the Firm’s liquidity include markets that become illiquid or are otherwise experiencing disruption, unforeseen cash or capital requirements (including, among others, commitments that may be triggered to special purpose entities (“SPEs”) or other entities), difficulty in selling or inability to sell assets, default by a CCP or other counterparty, unforeseen outflows of cash or collateral, and lack of market or customer confidence in the Firm or financial markets in general. These conditions may be caused by events over which the Firm has little or no control. The widespread crisis in investor confidence and resulting liquidity crisis experienced in 2008 and into early 2009 increased the Firm’s cost of funding and limited its access to some of its traditional sources of liquidity (such as securitized debt offerings backed by mortgages, credit card receivables and other assets) during that time, and there is no assurance that these severe conditions could not occur in the future.

If the Firm’s access to stable and low cost sources of funding, such as bank deposits, is reduced, the Firm may need to raise alternative funding which may be more expensive or of limited availability. In addition, the Firm’s cost of funding could be affected by actions that the Firm may take in order to satisfy applicable liquidity coverage ratio and net stable funding ratio requirements, to lower its GSIB systemic risk score or to satisfy the amount of eligible LTD that the Firm must have outstanding under the final TLAC rules.

As a holding company, JPMorgan Chase & Co. relies on the earnings of its subsidiaries for its cash flow and, consequently, its ability to pay dividends and satisfy its debt and other obligations. These payments by subsidiaries may take the form of dividends, loans or other payments. Several of JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s principal subsidiaries are



		11

Part I

subject to dividend distribution, capital adequacy or liquidity coverage requirements or other regulatory restrictions on their ability to provide such payments. Limitations in the payments that JPMorgan Chase & Co. receives from its subsidiaries could reduce its ability to pay dividends and satisfy its debt and other obligations.

Proposed banking regulations relating to liquidity, including U.S. rules relating to total loss-absorbing capacity, could require JPMorgan Chase to issue a substantial amount of new debt, and thereby significantly increase its funding costs.

On October 30, 2015, the Federal Reserve issued proposed rules (the “proposed TLAC rules”) that would require the top-tier holding companies of eight U.S. global systemically important bank holding companies (“U.S. GSIB BHCs”), including JPMorgan Chase & Co., among other things, to maintain minimum amounts of eligible LTD, commencing January 1, 2019. The proposed TLAC rules would disqualify from eligible LTD, among other instruments, senior debt securities that permit acceleration for reasons other than insolvency or payment default, as well as debt securities that are not governed by U.S. law and structured notes. The currently outstanding senior long-term debt of U.S. GSIB BHCs, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., includes structured notes as well as other debt that typically permits acceleration for reasons other than insolvency or payment default and, as a result, none of such outstanding senior long-term debt or any subsequently issued senior long-term debt with similar terms would qualify as eligible LTD under the proposed TLAC rules. The Federal Reserve has requested comment on whether certain currently outstanding instruments should be allowed to count as eligible LTD “despite containing features that would be prohibited under the proposal.” The steps that the U.S. GSIB BHCs, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., may need to take to come into compliance with the final TLAC rules, including the amount and form of long-term debt that must be refinanced or issued, will depend in substantial part on the ultimate eligibility requirements for senior long-term debt and any grandfathering provisions. To the extent that outstanding senior long-term debt of JPMorgan Chase & Co. is not classified as eligible LTD under the TLAC rule as finally adopted by the Federal Reserve, the Firm could be required to issue a substantial amount of new senior long-term debt which could significantly increase the Firm’s funding costs.

Authorities in some non-U.S. jurisdictions in which the Firm has operations have enacted legislation or regulations requiring that certain subsidiaries of the Firm operating in those countries maintain independent capital and liquidity. In addition, some non-U.S. regulators have proposed that large banks which conduct certain businesses in their jurisdictions operate through separate subsidiaries located in those countries. These requirements, and any future laws or regulations that seek to increase capital or liquidity requirements that would be applicable to non-U.S. subsidiaries of the Firm, could hinder the Firm’s ability to efficiently manage its funding and liquidity in a centralized manner.

Reductions in JPMorgan Chase’s credit ratings may adversely affect its liquidity and cost of funding, as well as the value of debt obligations issued by the Firm.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. and certain of its principal subsidiaries are currently rated by credit rating agencies. Rating agencies evaluate both general and firm- and industry-specific factors when determining their credit ratings for a particular financial institution, including economic and geopolitical trends, regulatory developments, future profitability, risk management practices, legal expenses, assumptions surrounding government support, and ratings differentials between bank holding companies and their bank and non-bank subsidiaries. Although the Firm closely monitors and manages, to the extent it is able, factors that could influence its credit ratings, there is no assurance that the Firm’s credit ratings will not be lowered in the future, or that any such downgrade would not occur at times of broader market instability when the Firm’s options for responding to events may be more limited and general investor confidence is low.

Furthermore, a reduction in the Firm’s credit ratings could reduce the Firm’s access to capital markets, materially increase the cost of issuing securities, trigger additional collateral or funding requirements, and decrease the number of investors and counterparties willing or permitted, contractually or otherwise, to do business with or lend to the Firm, thereby curtailing the Firm’s business operations and reducing its profitability. In addition, any such reduction in credit ratings may increase the credit spreads charged by the market for taking credit risk on JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries and, as a result, could adversely affect the value of debt and other obligations that JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries have issued or may issue in the future.

Legal Risk

JPMorgan Chase faces significant legal risks, both from regulatory investigations and proceedings and from private actions brought against the Firm.

JPMorgan Chase is named as a defendant or is otherwise involved in various legal proceedings, including class actions and other litigation or disputes with third parties. Actions currently pending against the Firm may result in judgments, settlements, fines, penalties or other results adverse to the Firm, which could materially and adversely affect the Firm’s business, financial condition or results of operations, or cause serious harm to the Firm’s reputation. As a participant in the financial services industry, it is likely that the Firm will continue to experience a high level of litigation related to its businesses and operations.

In addition, and as noted above, the Firm’s businesses and operations are also subject to heightened regulatory oversight and scrutiny, which may lead to additional regulatory investigations or enforcement actions. Regulators and other government agencies examine the operations of the Firm and its subsidiaries on both a routine- and targeted-exam basis, and there is no assurance that they will not pursue additional regulatory settlements or other enforcement actions against the Firm in the future.



12

A single event may give rise to numerous and overlapping investigations and proceedings, either by multiple federal and state agencies and officials in the U.S. or, in some instances, regulators and other governmental officials in non-U.S. jurisdictions. These and other initiatives from U.S. and non-U.S. governmental authorities and officials may subject the Firm to further judgments, settlements, fines or penalties, or cause the Firm to be required to restructure its operations and activities or to cease offering certain products or services, all of which could harm the Firm’s reputation or lead to higher operational costs, thereby reducing the Firm’s profitability, or result in collateral consequences as discussed above.

Other Business Risks

JPMorgan Chase’s operations are subject to risk of loss from unfavorable economic, monetary and political developments in the U.S. and around the world.

JPMorgan Chase’s businesses and earnings are affected by the fiscal and other policies that are adopted by various U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory authorities and agencies. The Federal Reserve regulates the supply of money and credit in the U.S. and its policies determine in large part the cost of funds for lending and investing in the U.S. and the return earned on those loans and investments. Changes in Federal Reserve policies (as well as the fiscal and monetary policies of non-U.S. central banks or regulatory authorities and agencies, such as “pegging” the exchange rate of their currency to the currencies of others) are beyond the Firm’s control and may be difficult to predict, and consequently, unanticipated changes in these policies could have a negative impact on the Firm’s activities and results of operations.

The Firm’s businesses and revenue are also subject to risks inherent in investing and market-making in securities, loans and other obligations of companies worldwide. These risks include, among others, negative effects from slowing growth rates or recessionary economic conditions, or the risk of loss from unfavorable political, legal or other developments, including social or political instability, in the countries or regions in which such companies operate, as well as the other risks and considerations as described further below.

Several of the Firm’s businesses engage in transactions with, or trade in obligations of, U.S. and non-U.S. governmental entities, including national, state, provincial, municipal and local authorities. These activities can expose the Firm to enhanced sovereign, credit-related, operational and reputation risks, including the risks that a governmental entity may default on or restructure its obligations or may claim that actions taken by government officials were beyond the legal authority of those officials, which could adversely affect the Firm’s financial condition and results of operations.

Further, various countries or regions in which the Firm operates or invests, or in which the Firm may do so in the future, have in the past experienced severe economic disruptions particular to those countries or regions. Low or volatile oil prices, coupled with the slowdown in the

macroeconomic prospects in China, and concerns about economic weaknesses in the Eurozone (including the permanent resolution of the Greek “bailout” program), could continue to undermine investor confidence and affect the operating environment in 2016. In some cases, concerns regarding the fiscal condition of one or more countries can cause a contraction of available credit and reduced activity among trading partners or create market volatility that could lead to “market contagion” affecting other countries in the same region or beyond the region. Accordingly, it is possible that economic disruptions in certain countries, even in countries in which the Firm does not conduct business or have operations or engages in only limited activities, may adversely affect the Firm.

JPMorgan Chase’s operations in emerging markets may be hindered by local political, social and economic factors, and may be subject to additional compliance costs and risks.

Some of the countries in which JPMorgan Chase conducts its businesses have economies or markets that are less developed and more volatile, and may have legal and regulatory regimes that are less established or predictable, than the U.S. and other developed markets in which the Firm currently operates. Some of these countries have in the past experienced severe economic disruptions, including extreme currency fluctuations, high inflation, low or negative growth, or defaults or potential defaults on sovereign debt, among other negative conditions, or have imposed restrictive monetary policies such as currency exchange controls and other laws and restrictions that adversely affect the local and regional business environment. In addition, these countries, as well as certain more developed countries, have recently been more susceptible to unfavorable political, social or economic developments; these development have in the past resulted in, and may in the future lead to, social unrest, general strikes and demonstrations, crime and corruption, security and personal safety issues, outbreaks of hostilities, overthrow of incumbent governments, terrorist attacks or other forms of internal discord, all of which can adversely affect the Firm’s operations or investments in such countries. Political, social or economic disruption or dislocation in certain countries or regions in which the Firm conducts its businesses can hinder the growth and profitability of those operations.

Less developed legal and regulatory systems in certain countries can also have adverse consequences on the Firm’s operations in those countries, including, among others, the absence of a statutory or regulatory basis or guidance for engaging in specific types of business or transactions; the promulgation of conflicting or ambiguous laws and regulations or the inconsistent application or interpretation of existing laws and regulations; uncertainty as to the enforceability of contractual obligations; difficulty in competing in economies in which the government controls or protects all or a portion of the local economy or specific businesses, or where graft or corruption may be pervasive; and the threat of arbitrary regulatory investigations, civil litigations or criminal prosecutions.



		13

Part I

Revenue from international operations and trading in non-U.S. securities and other obligations may be subject to negative fluctuations as a result of the above considerations, as well as due to governmental actions including monetary policies, expropriation, nationalization, confiscation of assets, price controls, capital controls, exchange controls, and changes in laws and regulations. The impact of these fluctuations could be accentuated as some trading markets are smaller, less liquid and more volatile than larger markets. Also, any of the above-mentioned events or circumstances in one country can affect, and in the past conditions of these types have affected, the Firm’s operations and investments in another country or countries, including the Firm’s operations in the U.S. As a result, any such unfavorable conditions or developments could have an adverse impact on the Firm’s business and results of operations.

Conducting business in countries with less developed legal and regulatory regimes often requires the Firm to devote significant additional resources to understanding, and monitoring changes in, local laws and regulations, as well as structuring its operations to comply with local laws and regulations and implementing and administering related internal policies and procedures. There can be no assurance that the Firm will always be successful in its efforts to conduct its business in compliance with laws and regulations in countries with less predictable legal and regulatory systems or that the Firm will be able to develop effective working relationships with local regulators. In addition, the Firm can also incur higher costs, and face greater compliance risks, in structuring and operating its businesses outside the U.S. to comply with U.S. anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws and regulations.

JPMorgan Chase relies on the effectiveness and integrity of its processes, operating systems and employees, and those of third parties, and certain failures of such processes or systems or misconduct by such employees could materially and adversely affect the Firm’s operations.

JPMorgan Chase’s businesses are dependent on the Firm’s ability to process, record and monitor an increasingly large number of complex transactions and to do so on a faster and more frequent basis. The Firm’s front- and back-office trading systems similarly rely on their access to, and on the functionality of, the operating systems maintained by third parties such as clearing and payment systems, central counterparties, securities exchanges and data processing and technology companies. If the Firm’s financial, accounting, trading or other data processing systems, or the operating systems of third parties on which the Firm’s businesses are dependent, are unable to meet these increasingly demanding standards, or if they fail or have other significant shortcomings, the Firm could be materially and adversely affected. Moreover, as the speed, frequency, volume and complexity of transactions (and the requirements to report such transactions on a real-time basis to clients, regulators and financial intermediaries) increases, the risk of human and/or systems error in connection with such transactions increases, and it becomes

more challenging to maintain the Firm’s operational systems and infrastructure. The Firm is similarly dependent on its employees. The Firm could be materially and adversely affected if one or more of its employees causes a significant operational breakdown or failure, either as a result of human error or where an individual purposefully sabotages or fraudulently manipulates the Firm’s operations or systems. In addition, when the Firm changes processes or introduces new products and services or new connectivity solutions, the Firm may not fully appreciate or identify new operational risks that may arise from such changes. Any of these occurrences could diminish the Firm’s ability to operate one or more of its businesses, or result in potential liability to clients and customers, increased operating expenses, higher litigation costs (including fines and sanctions), damage to reputation, impairment of liquidity, regulatory intervention or weaker competitive standing, any of which could materially and adversely affect the Firm.

Third parties with which the Firm does business, including retailers and other third parties with which the Firm’s customers do business, can also be sources of operational risk to the Firm, particularly where activities of customers are beyond the Firm’s security and control systems, such as through the use of the internet, personal smart phones and other mobile devices or services. As the Firm’s interconnectivity with these third parties increases, the Firm increasingly faces the risk of operational failure with respect to their systems. Security breaches affecting the Firm’s customers, or systems breakdowns or failures, security breaches or employee misconduct affecting such other third parties, may require the Firm to take steps to protect the integrity of its own operational systems or to safeguard confidential information of the Firm or its customers, thereby increasing the Firm’s operational costs and potentially diminishing customer satisfaction. Furthermore, the interconnectivity of multiple financial institutions with central agents, exchanges and clearing houses, and the increased importance of these entities, increases the risk that an operational failure at one institution or entity may cause an industry-wide operational failure that could materially impact the Firm’s ability to conduct business.

The Firm’s businesses are subject to complex and evolving U.S. and non-U.S. laws and regulations governing the privacy and protection of personal information of individuals (including clients, client’s clients, employees of the Firm and its suppliers and other third parties). Ensuring that the Firm’s collection, use, transfer and storage of personal information complies with all applicable laws and regulations, including where the laws of different jurisdictions are in conflict, can increase the Firm’s operating costs, impact the development of new products or services and require significant oversight by management, and may require the Firm to structure its businesses, operations and systems in less efficient ways. Furthermore, the Firm may not be able to ensure that all of its clients, suppliers, counterparties and other third parties have appropriate controls in place to protect the confidentiality of the information exchanged between them and the Firm, particularly where such information is transmitted by



14

electronic means. If personal, confidential or proprietary information of customers or clients or others were to be mishandled or misused (in situations where, for example, such information was erroneously provided to parties who are not permitted to have the information, or where such information was intercepted or otherwise compromised by third parties), the Firm could be exposed to litigation or regulatory sanctions. Concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Firm’s measures to safeguard personal information, or even the perception that such measures are inadequate, could cause the Firm to lose customers or potential customers for its products and services and thereby reduce the Firm’s revenues. Accordingly, any failure or perceived failure by the Firm to comply with applicable privacy or data protection laws and regulations may subject it to inquiries, examinations and investigations that could result in requirements to modify or cease certain operations or practices or in significant liabilities, fines or penalties, and could damage the Firm’s reputation and otherwise adversely affect its businesses.

The Firm may be subject to disruptions of its operating systems arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond the Firm’s control, which may include, for example, security breaches (as discussed further below); electrical or telecommunications outages; failures of computer servers or other damage to the Firm’s property or assets; natural disasters or severe weather conditions; health emergencies or pandemics; or events arising from local or larger-scale political events, including outbreaks of hostilities or terrorist acts. JPMorgan Chase maintains a global resiliency and crisis management program that is intended to ensure that the Firm has the ability to recover its critical business functions and supporting assets, including staff, technology and facilities, in the event of a business interruption. While the Firm believes that its current resiliency plans are both sufficient and adequate, there can be no assurance that such plans will fully mitigate all potential business continuity risks to the Firm or its customers and clients. Any failures or disruptions of the Firm’s systems or operations could give rise to losses in service to customers and clients, adversely affect the Firm’s business and results of operations by subjecting the Firm to losses or liability, or require the Firm to expend significant resources to correct the failure or disruption, as well as by exposing the Firm to litigation, regulatory fines or penalties or losses not covered by insurance.

A breach in the security of JPMorgan Chase’s systems, or those of other market participants, could disrupt the Firm’s businesses, result in the disclosure of confidential information, damage its reputation and create significant financial and legal exposure for the Firm.

Although JPMorgan Chase devotes significant resources to maintain and regularly update its systems and processes that are designed to protect the security of the Firm’s computer systems, software, networks and other technology assets, as well as the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information belonging to the Firm and its customers and clients, there is no assurance that all of the Firm’s security measures will provide absolute security.

JPMorgan Chase and other companies have reported significant breaches in the security of their websites or other systems, some of which have involved sophisticated and targeted attacks intended to obtain unauthorized access to confidential information, destroy data, disrupt or degrade service, sabotage systems or cause other damage, including through the introduction of computer viruses or malware, cyberattacks and other means. The Firm is regularly targeted by unauthorized parties using malicious code and viruses, and has experienced several significant distributed denial-of-service attacks from technically sophisticated and well-resourced third parties which were intended to disrupt online banking services.

Despite the Firm’s efforts to ensure the integrity of its systems, it is possible that the Firm may not be able to anticipate, detect or recognize threats to its systems or to implement effective preventive measures against all security breaches of these types inside or outside the Firm, especially because the techniques used change frequently or are not recognized until launched, and because cyberattacks can originate from a wide variety of sources, including third parties outside the Firm such as persons who are associated with external service providers or who are or may be involved in organized crime or linked to terrorist organizations or hostile foreign governments. Those parties may also attempt to fraudulently induce employees, customers, third-party service providers or other users of the Firm’s systems to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to the Firm’s data or that of its customers or clients. These risks may increase in the future as the Firm continues to increase its mobile-payment and other internet-based product offerings and expands its internal usage of web-based products and applications.

A successful penetration or circumvention of the security of the Firm’s systems or the systems of another market participant could cause serious negative consequences for the Firm, including significant disruption of the Firm’s operations, misappropriation of confidential information of the Firm or that of its customers, or damage to computers or systems of the Firm and those of its customers and counterparties, and could result in violations of applicable privacy and other laws, financial loss to the Firm or to its customers, loss of confidence in the Firm’s security measures, customer dissatisfaction, significant litigation exposure and harm to the Firm’s reputation, all of which could have a material adverse effect on the Firm.

Risk Management

JPMorgan Chase’s framework for managing risks and its risk management procedures and practices may not be effective in identifying and mitigating every risk to the Firm, thereby resulting in losses.

JPMorgan Chase’s risk management framework seeks to mitigate risk and loss to the Firm. The Firm has established processes and procedures intended to identify, measure, monitor, report and analyze the types of risk to which the Firm is subject. However, as with any risk management framework, there are inherent limitations to the Firm’s risk management strategies because there may exist, or develop



		15

Part I

in the future, risks that the Firm has not appropriately anticipated or identified. In addition, the Firm relies on data to aggregate and assess its various risk exposures, and any deficiencies in the quality or effectiveness of the Firm’s data aggregation and validation procedures could result in ineffective risk management practices or inaccurate risk reporting. Any lapse in the Firm’s risk management framework and governance structure or other inadequacies in the design or implementation of the Firm’s risk management framework, governance, procedures, practices, models or risk reporting systems could, individually or in the aggregate, cause unexpected losses for the Firm, materially and adversely affect the Firm’s financial condition and results of operations, require significant resources to remediate any risk management deficiency, attract heightened regulatory scrutiny, expose the Firm to regulatory investigations or legal proceedings, subject the Firm to fines, penalties or judgments, harm the Firm’s reputation, or otherwise cause a decline in investor confidence.

The Firm’s products, including loans, leases, lending commitments, derivatives and trading account assets, as well as the investment securities portfolio and cash management and clearing activities, expose the Firm to credit risk. The Firm has exposures arising from its many different products and counterparties, and the credit quality of the Firm’s exposures can have a significant impact on its earnings. The Firm establishes allowances for probable credit losses inherent in its credit exposure, including unfunded lending-related commitments. The Firm also employs stress testing and other techniques to determine the capital and liquidity necessary to protect the Firm in the event of adverse economic or market events. These processes are critical to the Firm’s financial results and condition, and require difficult, subjective and complex judgments, including forecasts of how economic conditions might impair the ability of the Firm’s borrowers and counterparties to repay their loans or other obligations. As is the case with any such assessments, there is always the possibility that the Firm will fail to identify the proper factors or that the Firm will fail to accurately estimate the impact of factors that it identifies.

JPMorgan Chase’s market-making businesses may expose the Firm to unexpected market, credit and operational risks that could cause the Firm to suffer unexpected losses. Severe declines in asset values, unanticipated credit events, or unforeseen circumstances that may cause previously uncorrelated factors to become correlated (and vice versa) may create losses resulting from risks not appropriately taken into account in the development, structuring or pricing of a financial instrument such as a derivative.

Certain of the Firm’s trading transactions require the physical settlement by delivery of securities or other obligations that the Firm does not own; if the Firm is unable to obtain such securities or obligations within the required timeframe for delivery, this could cause the Firm to forfeit payments otherwise due to it and could result in settlement delays, which could damage the Firm’s reputation and ability to transact future business. In addition, in situations

where trades are not settled or confirmed on a timely basis, the Firm may be subject to heightened credit and operational risk, and in the event of a default, the Firm may be exposed to market and operational losses. In particular,

In addition, disputes with counterparties may arise regarding the terms or the settlement procedures of derivative contracts, including with respect to the value of underlying collateral, which could cause the Firm to incur unexpected costs, including transaction, operational, legal and litigation costs, or result in credit losses, all of which may impair the Firm’s ability to manage effectively its risk exposure from these products.

In a difficult or less liquid market environment, the Firm’s risk management strategies may not be effective because other market participants may be attempting to use the same or similar strategies to deal with the challenging market conditions. In such circumstances, it may be difficult for the Firm to reduce its risk positions due to the activity of such other market participants or widespread market dislocations.

Many of the Firm’s risk management strategies or techniques have a basis in historical market behavior, and all such strategies and techniques are based to some degree on management’s subjective judgment. For example, many models used by the Firm are based on assumptions regarding correlations among prices of various asset classes or other market indicators. In times of market stress, or in the event of other unforeseen circumstances, previously uncorrelated indicators may become correlated, or conversely, previously correlated indicators may make unrelated movements. These sudden market movements or unanticipated or unidentified market or economic movements have in some circumstances limited and could again limit the effectiveness of the Firm’s risk management strategies, causing the Firm to incur losses.

Many of the models used by the Firm are subject to review not only by the Firm’s Model Risk function but also by the Firm’s regulators in order that the Firm may utilize such models in connection with the Firm’s calculations of market risk risk-weighted assets (“RWA”), credit risk RWA and operational risk RWA under the Advanced Approach of Basel III. The Firm may be subject to higher capital charges, which could adversely affect its financial results or limit its ability to expand its businesses, if such models do not receive approval by its regulators.

In addition, the Firm must comply with enhanced standards for the assessment and management of risks associated with vendors and other third parties that provide services to the Firm. These requirements apply to the Firm both under general guidance issued by its banking regulators and, more specifically, under certain of the consent orders to which the Firm has been subject. The Firm has incurred and expects to incur additional costs and expenses in connection with its initiatives to address the risks associated with oversight of its third party relationships. Failure by the Firm to appropriately assess and manage third party relationships, especially those involving significant banking functions, shared services or other critical activities, could



16

result in potential liability to clients and customers, fines, penalties or judgments imposed by the Firm’s regulators, increased operating expenses and harm to the Firm’s reputation, any of which could materially and adversely affect the Firm.

Other Risks

The financial services industry is highly competitive, and JPMorgan Chase’s inability to compete successfully may adversely affect its results of operations.

JPMorgan Chase operates in a highly competitive environment, and the Firm expects that competition in the U.S. and global financial services industry will continue to be intense. Competitors of the Firm include other banks and financial institutions, trading, advisory and investment management firms, finance companies and technology companies and other firms that are engaged in providing similar products and services. Technological advances and the growth of e-commerce have made it possible for non-depository institutions to offer products and services that traditionally were banking products, and for financial institutions and other companies to provide electronic and internet-based financial solutions, including electronic securities trading and payment processing. New technologies have required and could require the Firm to spend more to modify or adapt its products to attract and retain customers or to match products and services offered by its competitors, including technology companies.

Ongoing or increased competition, on the basis of the quality and variety of products and services offered, transaction execution, innovation, reputation, price or other factors, may put downward pressure on prices for the Firm’s products and services or may cause the Firm to lose market share. In addition, the failure of any of the Firm’s businesses to meet the expectations of clients and customers, whether due to general market conditions or underperformance (relative to competitors or to benchmarks), could impact the Firm’s ability to retain clients and customers or attract new clients and customers, thereby reducing the Firm’s revenues. Increased competition also may require the Firm to make additional capital investments in its businesses, or to extend more of its capital on behalf of its clients in order to remain competitive. The Firm cannot provide assurance that the significant competition in the financial services industry will not materially and adversely affect its future results of operations.

Competitors of the Firm’s non-U.S. wholesale businesses are typically subject to different, and in some cases, less stringent, legislative and regulatory regimes. The more restrictive laws and regulations applicable to U.S. financial services institutions, such as JPMorgan Chase, can put the Firm at a competitive disadvantage to its non-U.S. competitors, including prohibiting the Firm from engaging in certain transactions, imposing higher capital and liquidity requirements on the Firm, making the Firm’s pricing of certain transactions more expensive for clients or adversely affecting the Firm’s cost structure for providing certain products, all of which can reduce the revenue and profitability of the Firm’s wholesale businesses.

JPMorgan Chase’s ability to attract and retain qualified employees is critical to its success.

JPMorgan Chase’s employees are the Firm’s most important resource, and in many areas of the financial services industry, competition for qualified personnel is intense. The Firm endeavors to attract talented and diverse new employees and retain and motivate its existing employees. The Firm also seeks to retain a pipeline of senior employees with superior talent, augmented from time to time by external hires, to provide continuity of succession for the Firm’s Operating Committee, including the Chief Executive Officer position, and senior positions below the Operating Committee. The Firm regularly reviews candidates for senior management positions to assess whether they currently are ready for a next-level role. In addition, the Firm’s Board of Directors is deeply involved in succession planning, including review of the succession plans for the Chief Executive Officer and the members of the Operating Committee. If for any reason the Firm were unable to continue to attract or retain qualified employees, including successors to the Chief Executive Officer or members of the Operating Committee, the Firm’s performance, including its competitive position, could be materially and adversely affected.

JPMorgan Chase’s financial statements are based in part on estimates and judgments which, if incorrect, could result in unexpected losses in the future.

Under accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (“U.S. GAAP”), JPMorgan Chase is required to use estimates and apply judgments in preparing its financial statements, including in determining allowances for credit losses and reserves related to litigation, among other items. Certain of the Firm’s financial instruments, including trading assets and liabilities, instruments in the investment securities portfolio, certain loans, MSRs, structured notes and certain repurchase and resale agreements, among other items, require a determination of their fair value in order to prepare the Firm’s financial statements. Where quoted market prices are not available, the Firm may make fair value determinations based on internally developed models or other means which ultimately rely to some degree on management estimates and judgment. In addition, sudden illiquidity in markets or declines in prices of certain loans and securities may make it more difficult to value certain balance sheet items, which may lead to the possibility that such valuations will be subject to further change or adjustment. If estimates or judgments underlying the Firm’s financial statements are incorrect, the Firm may experience material losses.

Lapses in disclosure controls and procedures or internal control over financial reporting could materially and adversely affect the Firm’s operations, profitability or reputation.

There can be no assurance that the Firm’s disclosure controls and procedures will be effective in every circumstance or that a material weakness or significant deficiency in internal control over financial reporting will not occur. Any such lapses or deficiencies may materially



		17

Part I

and adversely affect the Firm’s business and results of operations or financial condition, restrict its ability to access the capital markets, require the Firm to expend significant resources to correct the lapses or deficiencies, expose the Firm to regulatory or legal proceedings, subject it to fines, penalties or judgments, harm the Firm’s reputation, or otherwise cause a decline in investor confidence.

Damage to JPMorgan Chase’s reputation could damage its businesses.

Maintaining trust in JPMorgan Chase is critical to the Firm’s ability to attract and maintain customers, investors and employees. Damage to the Firm’s reputation can therefore cause significant harm to the Firm’s business and prospects. Harm to the Firm’s reputation can arise from numerous sources, including, among others, employee misconduct, security breaches, compliance failures, litigation or regulatory outcomes or governmental investigations. The Firm’s reputation could also be harmed by the failure or perceived failure of an affiliate, joint-venturer or merchant banking portfolio company, or a vendor or other third party with which the Firm does business, to comply with laws or regulations. In addition, a failure or perceived failure to deliver appropriate standards of service and quality, to treat customers and clients fairly, to provide fiduciary products or services in accordance with the appropriate standards, or to handle or use confidential information of customers or clients appropriately or in compliance with applicable data protection and privacy laws and regulations can result in customer dissatisfaction, litigation and heightened regulatory scrutiny, all of which can lead to lost revenue, higher operating costs and harm to the Firm’s reputation. Adverse publicity or negative information posted on social media websites regarding the Firm, whether or not true, may result in harm to the Firm’s prospects.

Management of potential conflicts of interests has become increasingly complex as the Firm continues to expand its business activities through more numerous transactions, obligations and interests with and among the Firm’s clients. The failure or perceived failure to adequately address or appropriately disclose conflicts of interest has given rise to litigation and enforcement actions and may do so in the future and could affect the willingness of clients to deal with the Firm, as well as cause serious harm to the Firm’s reputation.

Actions by the financial services industry generally or by certain members of or individuals in the industry can also affect the Firm’s reputation. For example, the role played by financial services firms during the financial crisis, including concerns that consumers have been treated unfairly by financial institutions, has damaged the reputation of the industry as a whole. Should any of these or other events or factors that can undermine the Firm’s reputation occur, there is no assurance that the additional costs and expenses that the Firm may need to incur to address the issues giving rise to the damage to its reputation could not adversely affect the Firm’s earnings and results of operations, or that damage to the Firm’s reputation will not impair the Firm’s ability to retain its existing or attract new customers, investors and employees.

ITEM 1B: UNRESOLVED SEC STAFF COMMENTS

None.



18

ITEM 2: PROPERTIES

JPMorgan Chase’s headquarters is located in New York City at 270 Park Avenue, a 50-story office building it owns.

The Firm owned or leased facilities in the following locations at December 31, 2015.



December 31, 2015 (in millions)	Approximate square footage

United States^(a)
New York City, New York
270 Park Ave, New York, New York	1.3
All other New York City locations	9.0
Total New York City, New York	10.3

Other U.S. locations
Columbus/Westerville, Ohio	3.7
Chicago, Illinois	3.4
Wilmington/Newark, Delaware	2.2
Houston, Texas	2.2
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas	2.0
Phoenix/Tempe, Arizona	1.8
Jersey City, New Jersey	1.6
All other U.S. locations	37.1
Total United States	64.3

Europe, the Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”)^(b)
25 Bank Street, London, U.K.	1.4
All other U.K. locations	3.2
All other EMEA locations	0.9
Total EMEA	5.5

Asia Pacific, Latin America and Canada
India	2.3
All other locations	3.9
Total Asia Pacific, Latin America and Canada	6.2
Total	76.0


(a)	At December 31, 2015, the Firm owned or leased 5,413 retail branches in 23 states.


(b)	In 2008, JPMorgan Chase acquired a 999-year leasehold interest in land at London’s Canary Wharf. JPMorgan Chase has a building agreement in place through October 30, 2016, to develop the Canary Wharf site for future use.

The properties occupied by JPMorgan Chase are used across all of the Firm’s business segments and for corporate purposes. JPMorgan Chase continues to evaluate its current and projected space requirements and may determine from time to time that certain of its premises and facilities are no longer necessary for its operations. There is no assurance that the Firm will be able to dispose of any such excess premises or that it will not incur charges in connection with such dispositions. Such disposition costs may be material to the Firm’s results of operations in a given period. For information on occupancy expense, see the Consolidated Results of Operations on pages 72–74.

ITEM 3: LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

For a description of the Firm’s material legal proceedings, see Note 31.

ITEM 4: MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.



		19

Part II

ITEM 5: MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Market for registrant’s common equity

The outstanding shares of JPMorgan Chase common stock are listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange. For the quarterly high and low prices of and cash dividends declared on JPMorgan Chase’s common stock for the last two years, see the section entitled “Supplementary information – Selected quarterly financial data (unaudited)” on pages 309–310. For a comparison of the cumulative total return for JPMorgan Chase common stock with the comparable total return of the S&P 500 Index, the KBW Bank Index and the S&P Financial Index over the five-year period ended December 31, 2015, see “Five-year stock performance”,

on page 67.

For information on the common dividend payout ratio, see Capital actions in the Capital Management section of Management’s discussion and analysis on page 157. For a discussion of restrictions on dividend payments, see Note 22 and Note 27. At January 31, 2016, there were 200,881 holders of record of JPMorgan Chase common stock. For information regarding securities authorized for issuance under the Firm’s employee stock-based compensation plans, see Part III, Item 12 on page 23.

Repurchases under the common equity repurchase program

For information regarding repurchases under the Firm’s common equity repurchase program, see Capital actions in the Capital Management section of Management’s discussion and analysis on page 157.

Shares repurchased, on a settlement-date basis, pursuant to the common equity repurchase program during 2015 were as follows.



Year ended December 31, 2015	Total shares of common stock repurchased	Average price paid per share of common stock^(b)		Aggregate repurchases of common equity (in millions)^(b)		Dollar value of remaining authorized repurchase (in millions)^(b)
First quarter	32,531,294	$	58.40	$	1,900	$	1,984	^(a)
Second quarter^(a)	19,129,714	65.32		1,249		5,180
Third quarter	19,100,389	65.30		1,248		3,932
October	9,247,060	61.42		567		3,365
November	4,511,071	66.44		300		3,065
December	5,321,146	66.12		352		2,713
Fourth quarter	19,079,277	63.92		1,219		2,713
Year-to-date	89,840,674	$	62.51	$	5,616	$	2,713	^(c)


(a)	The unused portion under the prior Board authorization was canceled when the $6.4 billion program was authorized. Repurchases during the second quarter included $29 million under the prior program.


(b)	Excludes commissions cost.


(c)	Dollar value remaining under the $6.4 billion program.

ITEM 6: SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

For five-year selected financial data, see “Five-year summary of consolidated financial highlights (unaudited)” on page 66.

ITEM 7: MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations, entitled “Management’s discussion and analysis,” appears on pages 68–173. Such information should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto, which appear on pages 176–308.

ITEM 7A: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

For a discussion of the quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk, see the Market Risk Management section of Management’s discussion and analysis on pages 133–139.



20

ITEM 8: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

The Consolidated Financial Statements, together with the Notes thereto and the report thereon dated February 23, 2016, of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Firm’s independent registered public accounting firm, appear on pages 175–308.

Supplementary financial data for each full quarter within the two years ended December 31, 2015, are included on pages 309–310 in the table entitled “Selected quarterly financial data (unaudited).” Also included is a “Glossary of terms’’ on pages 311–315.

ITEM 9: CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None.

ITEM 9A: CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

The internal control framework promulgated by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”), “Internal Control — Integrated Framework” (“COSO 2013”) provides guidance for designing, implementing and conducting internal control and assessing its effectiveness. The Firm used the COSO 2013 framework to assess the effectiveness of the Firm’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015. See “Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting” on page 174.

As of the end of the period covered by this report, an evaluation was carried out under the supervision and with the participation of the Firm’s management, including its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Based on that evaluation, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures were effective. See Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 for the Certification statements issued by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

The Firm is committed to maintaining high standards of internal control over financial reporting. Nevertheless, because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. In addition, in a firm as large and complex as JPMorgan Chase, lapses or deficiencies in internal controls may occur from time to time, and there can be no assurance that any such deficiencies will not result in significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in internal control in the future. For further information, see “Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting” on page 174. There was no change in the Firm’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) that occurred during the three months ended December 31,

2015, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Firm’s internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 9B: OTHER INFORMATION

Pursuant to Section 219 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, which added Section 13(r) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, an issuer is required to disclose in its annual or quarterly reports, as applicable, whether it or any of its affiliates knowingly engaged in certain activities, transactions or dealings relating to Iran or with individuals or entities designated pursuant to certain Executive Orders. Disclosure is generally required even where the activities, transactions or dealings were conducted in compliance with applicable law. Except as set forth below, as of the date of this report, the Firm is not aware of any other activity, transaction or dealing by any of its affiliates during the year ended December 31, 2015 that requires disclosure under Section 219.

During 2015, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. processed one payment from Iran Airtours on behalf of a U.S. client into such client’s account at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Iran Airtours is a subsidiary of Iran Air, which, at the time of the payment, was designated pursuant to Executive Order 13382. This transaction was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a license from the Treasury Department’s OFAC. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. charged a fee of U.S. dollar $4.25 for this transaction. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. may in the future engage in similar transactions for its clients to the extent permitted by U.S. law.



		21

Part III

ITEM 10: DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Executive officers of the registrant



	Age
Name	(at December 31, 2015)	Positions and offices
James Dimon	59	Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President.
Ashley Bacon	46	Chief Risk Officer since June 2013. He had been Deputy Chief Risk Officer since June 2012, prior to which he had been Global Head of Market Risk for the Investment Bank (now part of Corporate & Investment Bank).
Stephen M. Cutler^(a)	54	Vice Chairman since January 1, 2016, prior to which he had been General Counsel.
John L. Donnelly	59	Head of Human Resources.
Mary Callahan Erdoes	48	Chief Executive Officer of Asset Management.
Stacey Friedman^(a)	47	General Counsel since January 1, 2016, prior to which she was Deputy General Counsel since July 2015 and General Counsel for the Corporate & Investment Bank since August 2012. Prior to joining JPMorgan Chase in 2012, she was a partner at the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
Marianne Lake	46	Chief Financial Officer since January 1, 2013, prior to which she had been Chief Financial Officer of Consumer & Community Banking since 2009.
Douglas B. Petno	50	Chief Executive Officer of Commercial Banking since January 2012. He had been Chief Operating Officer of Commercial Banking since October 2010, prior to which he had been Global Head of Natural Resources in the Investment Bank (now part of Corporate & Investment Bank).
Daniel E. Pinto	53	Chief Executive Officer of the Corporate & Investment Bank since March 2014 and Chief Executive Officer of Europe, the Middle East and Africa since June 2011. He had been Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Corporate & Investment Bank from July 2012 until March 2014, prior to which he had been head or co-head of the Global Fixed Income business from November 2009 until July 2012.
Gordon A. Smith	57	Chief Executive Officer of Consumer & Community Banking since December 2012 prior to which he had been Co-Chief Executive Officer since July 2012. He had been Chief Executive Officer of Card Services since 2007 and of the Auto Finance and Student Lending businesses since 2011.
Matthew E. Zames	45	Chief Operating Officer since April 2013 and head of Mortgage Banking Capital Markets since January 2012. He had been Co-Chief Operating Officer from July 2012 until April 2013. He had been Chief Investment Officer from May until September 2012, co-head of the Global Fixed Income business from November 2009 until May 2012 and co-head of Mortgage Banking Capital Markets from July 2011 until January 2012, prior to which he had served in a number of senior Investment Banking Fixed Income management roles.

(a) On January 1, 2016, Ms. Friedman was named General Counsel and appointed to the Operating Committee. At that date, Mr. Cutler became Vice Chairman of JPMorgan Chase and retired from the Operating Committee; he is no longer an executive officer of the registrant.

Unless otherwise noted, during the five fiscal years ended December 31, 2015, all of JPMorgan Chase’s above-named executive officers have continuously held senior-level positions with JPMorgan Chase. There are no family relationships among the foregoing executive officers. Information to be provided in Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Form 10-K and not otherwise included herein is incorporated by reference to the Firm’s definitive proxy statement for its 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 17, 2016, which will be filed with the SEC within 120 days of the end of the Firm’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.



22

ITEM 11: EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

See Item 10.

ITEM 12: SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

For security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management, see Item 10.

The following table sets forth the total number of shares available for issuance under JPMorgan Chase’s employee stock-based incentive plans (including shares available for issuance to nonemployee directors). The Firm is not authorized to grant stock-based incentive awards to nonemployees, other than to nonemployee directors.



December 31, 2015	Number of shares to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options/stock appreciation rights	Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options/stock appreciation rights			Number of shares remaining available for future issuance under stock compensation plans
Plan category
Employee stock-based incentive plans approved by shareholders	43,466,314		$	43.51	93,491,401	^(a)
Total	43,466,314		$	43.51	93,491,401


(a)	Represents future shares available under the shareholder-approved Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective May 19, 2015.

All future shares will be issued under the shareholder-approved Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective May 19, 2015. For further discussion, see Note 10.

ITEM 13: CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

See Item 10.

ITEM 14: PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES

See Item 10.



		23

Part IV

ITEM 15: EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

Exhibits, financial statement schedules



1		Financial statements
		The Consolidated Financial Statements, the Notes thereto and the report of the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm thereon listed in Item 8 are set forth commencing on page 176.

2		Financial statement schedules

3		Exhibits

3.1		Restated Certificate of Incorporation of JPMorgan Chase & Co., effective April 5, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed April 7, 2006).

3.2		Amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of JPMorgan Chase & Co., effective June 7, 2013 (incorporated by reference to Appendix F to the Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed April 10, 2013).

3.3		Certificate of Designations for Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series I (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed April 24, 2008).

3.4		Certificate of Designations for 5.50% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series O (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed August 27, 2012).

3.5		Certificate of Designations for 5.45% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series P (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed February 5, 2013).
3.6		Certificate of Designations for Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series Q (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed April 23, 2013).
3.7		Certificate of Designations for Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series R (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed July 29, 2013).



3.8		Certificate of Designations for Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series S (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed January 22, 2014).

3.9		Certificate of Designations for 6.70% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series T (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed January 30, 2014).

3.10		Certificate of Designations for Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series U (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed on March 10, 2014).

3.11		Certificate of Designations for Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series V (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed on June 9, 2014).

3.12		Certificate of Designations for 6.30% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series W (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed on June 23, 2014).

3.13		Certificate of Designations for Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series X (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed on September 23, 2014).
3.14		Certificate of Designations for 6.125% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series Y (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed February 17, 2015).

3.15		Certificate of Designations for Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series Z (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed April 21, 2015).

3.16		Certificate of Designations for 6.10% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series AA (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed June 4, 2015).

3.17		Certificate of Designations for 6.15% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series BB (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed July 29, 2015).



24



3.18		By-laws of JPMorgan Chase & Co., effective January 19, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed January 21, 2016).

4.1		Indenture, dated as of October 21, 2010, between JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No.1-5805) filed October 21, 2010).

4.2		Subordinated Indenture, dated as of March 14, 2014, between JPMorgan Chase & Co. and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No.1-5805) filed March 14, 2014).

4.3		Indenture, dated as of May 25, 2001, between JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bankers Trust Company (succeeded by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas), as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a)(1) to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 333-52826) filed June 13, 2001).
4.4		Form of Deposit Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 333-191692) filed October 11, 2013).

4.5		Form of Warrant to purchase common stock (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Form 8-A of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed December 11, 2009).

Other instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt securities of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries are omitted pursuant to Section (b)(4)(iii)(A) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K. JPMorgan Chase & Co. agrees to furnish copies of these instruments to the SEC upon request.

10.1		Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors of JPMorgan Chase & Co., as amended and restated July 2001 and as of December 31, 2004 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2007).^(a)

10.2		2005 Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors of JPMorgan Chase & Co., effective as of January 1, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2007).^(a)



10.3		2005 Deferred Compensation Program of JPMorgan Chase & Co., restated effective as of December 31, 2008 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2008).^(a)

10.4		JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan as amended and restated effective May 19, 2015 (incorporated by reference to Appendix C of the Schedule 14A of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed April 8, 2015).^(a)

10.5		Key Executive Performance Plan of JPMorgan Chase & Co., as amended and restated effective January 1, 2014 (incorporated by reference to Appendix G of the Schedule 14A of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed April 10, 2013).^(a)
10.6		Excess Retirement Plan of JPMorgan Chase & Co., restated and amended as of December 31, 2008, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2009).^(a)

10.7		1995 Stock Incentive Plan of J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated and Affiliated Companies, as amended, dated December 11, 1996 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2008).^(a)

10.8		Executive Retirement Plan of JPMorgan Chase & Co., as amended and restated December 31, 2008 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2008).^(a)

10.9		Bank One Corporation Stock Performance Plan, as amended and restated effective February 20, 2001 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2008).^(a)

10.10		Bank One Corporation Supplemental Savings and Investment Plan, as amended and restated effective December 31, 2008 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2008).^(a)

10.11		Banc One Corporation Revised and Restated 1995 Stock Incentive Plan, effective April 17, 1995 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.15 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2008).^(a)



		25

Part IV



10.12		Form of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan Award Agreement of January 22, 2008 stock appreciation rights (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2007).^(a)
10.13		Form of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan Award Agreement of January 22, 2008 stock appreciation rights for James Dimon (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.27 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2007).^(a)

10.14		Form of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan Terms and Conditions for stock appreciation rights, dated as of January 20, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.20 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2008).^(a)

10.15		Form of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan Terms and Conditions for Operating Committee member stock appreciation rights, dated as of January 20, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.21 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2008).^(a)

10.16		Form of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan Terms and Conditions for Operating Committee member stock appreciation rights, dated as of February 3, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2009).^(a)

10.17		Forms of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan Terms and Conditions for stock appreciation rights and restricted stock units, dated as of January 18, 2012 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2011).^(a)

10.18		Forms of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan Terms and Conditions for stock appreciation rights and restricted stock units for Operating Committee members, dated as of January 17, 2013 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2012).^(a)
10.19		Form of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan Terms and Conditions for restricted stock units for Operating Committee members, dated as of January 22, 2014 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the quarter ended March 31, 2014).^(a)



10.20		Forms of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan Terms & Conditions for restricted stock units for Operating Committee members (U.S., E.U. and U.K.), dated as of January 20, 2015 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the quarter ended March 31, 2015).^(a)

10.21		Form of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan Terms and Conditions for restricted stock units for Operating Committee members, dated as of January 19, 2016.^(a)(b)

10.22		Form of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-Term Incentive Plan Terms and Conditions for performance share units for Operating Committee members, dated as of January 19, 2016.^(a)(b)

10.23		Form of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Terms and Conditions of Fixed Allowance (UK) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the quarter ended June 30, 2014).^(a)

10.24		Form of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Performance-Based Incentive Compensation Plan, effective as of January 1, 2006, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.27 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2009).^(a)

10.25		Plea Agreement dated May 20, 2015 between JPMorgan Chase & Co. and the U.S. Department of Justice (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 to the Current Report on Form 8-K of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) filed May 20, 2015).

12.1		Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges.^(b)

12.2		Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividend requirements.^(b)

21		List of subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase & Co.^(b)

22.1		Annual Report on Form 11-K of The JPMorgan Chase 401(k) Savings Plan for the year ended December 31, 2015 (to be filed pursuant to Rule 15d-21 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).

23		Consent of independent registered public accounting firm.^(b)

31.1		Certification.^(b)

31.2		Certification.^(b)

32		Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.^(c)



26



101.INS		XBRL Instance Document.^(b)(d)

101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.^(b)

101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.^(b)

101.DEF		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.^(b)
101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.^(b)

101.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.^(b)


(a)	This exhibit is a management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.


(b)	Filed herewith.


(c)	Furnished herewith. This exhibit shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. Such exhibit shall not be deemed incorporated into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

(d)

Pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T, includes the following financial information included in the Firm’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, formatted in XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) interactive data files: (i) the Consolidated statements of income for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, (ii) the Consolidated statements of comprehensive income for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, (iii) the Consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, (iv) the Consolidated statements of changes in stockholders’ equity for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, (v) the Consolidated statements of cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, and (vi) the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.



		27

pages 28–64 not used

Table of contents



Financial:

66	Five-Year Summary of Consolidated Financial Highlights	Audited financial statements:

67	Five-Year Stock Performance	174	Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Management’s discussion and analysis:		175	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

68	Introduction	176	Consolidated Financial Statements

69	Executive Overview	181	Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

72	Consolidated Results of Operations

75	Consolidated Balance Sheets Analysis
77	Off–Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Cash Obligations

79	Consolidated Cash Flows Analysis

80	Explanation and Reconciliation of the Firm’s Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures	Supplementary information:

83	Business Segment Results	309	Selected quarterly financial data

107	Enterprise-wide Risk Management	311	Glossary of Terms

112	Credit Risk Management

133	Market Risk Management

140	Country Risk Management

142	Model Risk Management

143	Principal Risk Management

144	Operational Risk Management

146	Legal Risk Management

147	Compliance Risk Management

148	Reputation Risk Management

149	Capital Management

159	Liquidity Risk Management

165	Critical Accounting Estimates Used by the Firm

170	Accounting and Reporting Developments

172	Nonexchange-Traded Commodity Derivative Contracts at Fair Value

173	Forward-Looking Statements



JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report		65

Financial

FIVE-YEAR SUMMARY OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS



(unaudited) As of or for the year ended December 31,
(in millions, except per share, ratio, headcount data and where otherwise noted)	2015			2014			2013			2012			2011
Selected income statement data
Total net revenue	$	93,543		$	95,112		$	97,367		$	97,680		$	97,843
Total noninterest expense	59,014			61,274			70,467			64,729			62,911
Pre-provision profit	34,529			33,838			26,900			32,951			34,932
Provision for credit losses	3,827			3,139			225			3,385			7,574
Income before income tax expense	30,702			30,699			26,675			29,566			27,358
Income tax expense	6,260			8,954			8,789			8,307			8,402
Net income	$	24,442		$	21,745		$	17,886		$	21,259		$	18,956
Earnings per share data
Net income: Basic	$	6.05		$	5.33		$	4.38		$	5.21		$	4.50
Diluted	6.00			5.29			4.34			5.19			4.48
Average shares: Basic	3,700.4			3,763.5			3,782.4			3,809.4			3,900.4
Diluted	3,732.8			3,797.5			3,814.9			3,822.2			3,920.3
Market and per common share data
Market capitalization	$	241,899		$	232,472		$	219,657		$	167,260		$	125,442
Common shares at period-end	3,663.5			3,714.8			3,756.1			3,804.0			3,772.7
Share price^(a)
High	$	70.61		$	63.49		$	58.55		$	46.49		$	48.36
Low	50.07			52.97			44.20			30.83			27.85
Close	66.03			62.58			58.48			43.97			33.25
Book value per share	60.46			56.98			53.17			51.19			46.52
Tangible book value per share (“TBVPS”)^(b)	48.13			44.60			40.72			38.68			33.62
Cash dividends declared per share	1.72			1.58			1.44			1.20			1.00
Selected ratios and metrics
Return on common equity (“ROE”)	11		%	10		%	9		%	11		%	11		%
Return on tangible common equity (“ROTCE”)^(b)	13			13			11			15			15
Return on assets (“ROA”)	0.99			0.89			0.75			0.94			0.86
Overhead ratio	63			64			72			66			64
Loans-to-deposits ratio	65			56			57			61			64
High quality liquid assets (“HQLA“) (in billions)^(c)	$	496		$	600		$	522		341			NA
Common equity tier 1 (“CET1”) capital ratio^(d)	11.8		%	10.2		%	10.7		%	11.0		%	10.0		%
Tier 1 capital ratio^(d)	13.5			11.6			11.9			12.6			12.3
Total capital ratio^(d)	15.1			13.1			14.3			15.2			15.3
Tier 1 leverage ratio^(d)	8.5			7.6			7.1			7.1			6.8
Selected balance sheet data (period-end)
Trading assets	$	343,839		$	398,988		$	374,664		$	450,028		$	443,963
Securities	290,827			348,004			354,003			371,152			364,793
Loans	837,299			757,336			738,418			733,796			723,720
Core Loans	732,093			628,785			583,751			555,351			518,095
Total assets	2,351,698			2,572,274			2,414,879			2,358,323			2,264,976
Deposits	1,279,715			1,363,427			1,287,765			1,193,593			1,127,806
Long-term debt^(e)	288,651			276,379			267,446			248,521			255,962
Common stockholders’ equity	221,505			211,664			199,699			194,727			175,514
Total stockholders’ equity	247,573			231,727			210,857			203,785			183,314
Headcount	234,598			241,359			251,196			258,753			259,940
Credit quality metrics
Allowance for credit losses	$	14,341		$	14,807		$	16,969		$	22,604		$	28,282
Allowance for loan losses to total retained loans	1.63		%	1.90		%	2.25		%	3.02		%	3.84		%
Allowance for loan losses to retained loans excluding purchased credit-impaired loans^(f)	1.37			1.55			1.80			2.43			3.35
Nonperforming assets	$	7,034		$	7,967		$	9,706		$	11,906		$	11,315
Net charge-offs	4,086			4,759			5,802			9,063			12,237
Net charge-off rate	0.52		%	0.65		%	0.81		%	1.26		%	1.78		%

Note: Effective October 1, 2015, and January 1, 2015, JPMorgan Chase & Co. adopted new accounting guidance, retrospectively, related to (1) the presentation of debt issuance costs, and (2) investments in affordable housing projects that qualify for the low-income housing tax credit, respectively. For additional information, see Explanation and Reconciliation of the Firm’s Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures on pages 80–82 , Accounting and Reporting Developments on page 170 , and Note 1.


(a)	Share prices shown for JPMorgan Chase’s common stock are from the New York Stock Exchange.


(b)	TBVPS and ROTCE are non-GAAP financial measures. For further discussion of these measures, see Explanation and Reconciliation of the Firm’s Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures on pages 80–82.

(c)

HQLA represents the amount of assets that qualify for inclusion in the liquidity coverage ratio under the final U.S. rule (“U.S. LCR”) for December 31, 2015 and the Firm’s estimated amount for December 31, 2014 prior to the effective date of the final rule, and under the Basel III liquidity coverage ratio (“Basel III LCR”) for prior periods. The Firm did not begin estimating HQLA until December 31, 2012. For additional information, see HQLA on page 160.

(d)

Basel III Transitional rules became effective on January 1, 2014; prior period data is based on Basel I rules. As of December 31, 2014 the ratios presented are calculated under the Basel III Advanced Transitional Approach. CET1 capital under Basel III replaced Tier 1 common capital under Basel I. Prior to Basel III becoming effective on January 1, 2014, Tier 1 common capital under Basel I was a non-GAAP financial measure. See Capital Management on pages 149–158 for additional information on Basel III and non-GAAP financial measures of regulatory capital.


(e)	Included unsecured long-term debt of $211.8 billion, $207.0 billion, $198.9 billion, $200.1 billion and $230.5 billion respectively, as of December 31, of each year presented.


(f)	Excluded the impact of residential real estate purchased credit-impaired (“PCI”) loans, a non-GAAP financial measure. For further discussion of these measures, see Explanation and Reconciliation of the Firm’s Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures on pages 80–82. For further discussion, see Allowance for credit losses on pages 130–132.



66		JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report

FIVE-YEAR STOCK PERFORMANCE

The following table and graph compare the five-year cumulative total return for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan Chase” or the “Firm”) common stock with the cumulative return of the S&P 500 Index, the KBW Bank Index and the S&P Financial Index. The S&P 500 Index is a commonly referenced United States of America (“U.S.”) equity benchmark consisting of leading companies from different economic sectors. The KBW Bank Index seeks to reflect the performance of banks and thrifts that are publicly traded in the U.S. and is composed of 24 leading national money center and regional banks and thrifts. The S&P Financial Index is an index of 87 financial companies, all of which are components of the S&P 500. The Firm is a component of all three industry indices.

The following table and graph assume simultaneous investments of $100 on December 31, 2010, in JPMorgan Chase common stock and in each of the above indices. The comparison assumes that all dividends are reinvested.



December 31, (in dollars)	2010		2011		2012		2013		2014		2015
JPMorgan Chase	$	100.00	$	80.03	$	108.98	$	148.98	$	163.71	$	177.40
KBW Bank Index	100.00		76.82		102.19		140.77		153.96		154.71
S&P Financial Index	100.00		82.94		106.78		144.79		166.76		164.15
S&P 500 Index	100.00		102.11		118.44		156.78		178.22		180.67

December 31,

(in dollars)



JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report		67

Management’s discussion and analysis

This section of JPMorgan Chase’s Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2015 (“Annual Report”), provides Management’s discussion and analysis of the financial condition and results of operations (“MD&A”) of JPMorgan Chase. See the Glossary of Terms on pages 311–315 for definitions of terms used throughout this Annual Report. The MD&A included in this Annual Report contains statements that are forward-looking within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are based on the current beliefs and expectations of JPMorgan Chase’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties could cause the Firm’s actual results to differ materially from those set forth in such forward-looking statements. Certain of such risks and uncertainties are described herein (see Forward-looking Statements on page 173) and in JPMorgan Chase’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (“2015 Form 10-K”), in Part I, Item 1A: Risk factors; reference is hereby made to both.



INTRODUCTION

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the U.S., with operations worldwide; the Firm had $2.4 trillion in assets and $247.6 billion in stockholders’ equity as of December 31, 2015. The Firm is a leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world’s most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.

For management reporting purposes, the Firm’s activities are organized into four major reportable business segments, as well as a Corporate segment. The Firm’s consumer business is the Consumer & Community Banking (“CCB”) segment. The Firm’s wholesale business segments are Corporate & Investment Bank (“CIB”), Commercial Banking (“CB”), and Asset Management (“AM”). For a description of the Firm’s business segments, and the products and services they provide to their respective client bases, refer to Business Segment Results on pages 83–106, and Note 33.



68		JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report



EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW

This executive overview of the MD&A highlights selected information and may not contain all of the information that is important to readers of this Annual Report. For a complete description of the trends and uncertainties, as well as the risks and critical accounting estimates affecting the Firm and its various lines of business, this Annual Report should be read in its entirety.



Financial performance of JPMorgan Chase
Year ended December 31,
(in millions, except per share data and ratios)	2015			2014			Change
Selected income statement data
Total net revenue	$	93,543		$	95,112		(2	)%
Total noninterest expense	59,014			61,274			(4	)
Pre-provision profit	34,529			33,838			2
Provision for credit losses	3,827			3,139			22
Net income	24,442			21,745			12
Diluted earnings per share	6.00			5.29			13
Return on common equity	11		%	10		%
Capital ratios^(a)
CET1	11.8			10.2
Tier 1 capital	13.5			11.6


(a)	Ratios presented are calculated under the transitional Basel III rules and represent the Collins Floor. See Capital Management on pages 149–158 for additional information on Basel III.

Summary of 2015 Results

JPMorgan Chase reported record full-year 2015 net income of $24.4 billion, and record earnings per share of $6.00, on net revenue of $93.5 billion. Net income increased by $2.7 billion compared with net income of $21.7 billion in 2014. ROE for the year was 11%, up from 10% in the prior year.

The increase in net income in 2015 was driven by lower taxes and lower noninterest expense, partially offset by lower net revenue and a higher provision for credit losses. The decline in net revenue was predominantly driven by lower Corporate private equity gains, lower CIB revenue reflecting the impact of business simplification, and lower CCB Mortgage Banking revenue. These decreases were partially offset by a benefit from a legal settlement in Corporate and higher operating lease income, predominantly in CCB.

The decrease in noninterest expense was driven by lower CIB expense, reflecting the impact of business simplification, and lower CCB expense as a result of efficiencies, predominantly reflecting declines in headcount-related expense and lower professional fees, partially offset by investments in the business. As a result of these changes, the Firm’s overhead ratio in 2015 was lower compared with the prior year.

The provision for credit losses increased from the prior year as a result of an increase in the wholesale provision, reflecting the impact of downgrades, including in the Oil & Gas portfolio. The consumer provision declined, reflecting lower net charge-offs due to continued discipline in credit underwriting, as well as improvement in the economy driven by increasing home prices and lower unemployment levels. This was partially offset by a lower reduction in the allowance for loan losses.

Total firmwide allowance for credit losses in 2015 was $14.3 billion, resulting in a loan loss coverage ratio of 1.37%, excluding the PCI portfolio, compared with 1.55% in the prior year. The Firm’s allowance for loan losses to retained nonaccrual loans, excluding the PCI portfolio and credit card, was 117% compared with 106% in 2014. Firmwide, net charge-offs were $4.1 billion for the year, down $673 million from 2014. Nonperforming assets at year-end were $7.0 billion, down $933 million.

The Firm’s results reflected solid underlying performance across its four major reportable business segments, with continued strong lending and consumer deposit growth. Firmwide average core loans increased by 12% compared with the prior year. Within CCB, Consumer & Business Banking average deposits increased 9% over the prior year. The Firm had nearly 23 million active mobile customers at year end, an increase of 20% over the prior year. Credit card sales volume (excluding Commercial Card) was up 7% for the year and merchant processing volume was up 12%. The CIB maintained its #1 ranking in Global Investment Banking Fees according to Dealogic. CB had record average loans, with an 11% increase compared with the prior year. CB also had record gross investment banking revenue of $2.2 billion, up 10% from the prior year. AM had positive net long-term



JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report		69

Management’s discussion and analysis

client inflows and continued to deliver strong investment performance with 80% of mutual fund assets under management (“AUM”) ranked in the 1st or 2nd quartiles over the past five years. AM also increased average loan balances by 8% in 2015.

In 2015, the Firm continued to adapt its strategy and financial architecture toward meeting regulatory and capital requirements and the changing banking landscape, while serving its clients and customers, investing in its businesses, and delivering strong returns to its shareholders. Importantly, the Firm exceeded all of its 2015 financial targets including those related to balance sheet optimization and managing its capital, its GSIB surcharge and expense. On capital, the Firm exceeded its capital target of reaching Basel III Fully Phased-In Advanced and Standardized CET1 ratios of approximately 11%, ending the year with estimated Basel III Advanced Fully Phased-in CET1 capital and ratio of $173.2 billion and 11.6%, respectively. The Firm also exceeded its target of reducing its GSIB capital surcharge, ending the year at an estimated 3.5% GSIB surcharge, achieved through a combination of reducing wholesale non-operating deposits, level 3 assets and derivative notionals.

The Firm’s fully phased-in supplementary leverage ratio (“SLR”) was 6.5% and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s fully phased-in SLR was 6.6%. The Firm was also compliant with the fully phased-in U.S. liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”) and had $496 billion of HQLA as of year-end 2015.

The Firm’s tangible book value per share was $48.13, an increase of 8% from the prior year. Total stockholders’ equity was $247.6 billion at December 31, 2015.

Tangible book value per share and each of these Basel III Advanced Fully Phased-In measures are non-GAAP financial measures; they are used by management, bank regulators, investors and analysts to assess and monitor the Firm’s capital position and liquidity. For further discussion of Basel III Advanced Fully Phased-in measures and the SLR under the U.S. final SLR rule, see Capital Management on pages 149–158, and for further discussion of LCR and HQLA, see Liquidity Risk Management on pages 159–164.

The Firm provided credit to and raised capital of $2.0 trillion for its clients during 2015. This included $705 billion of credit to corporations, $233 billion of credit to consumers, and $22 billion to U.S. small businesses. During 2015, the Firm also raised $1.0 trillion of capital for clients. Additionally, $68 billion of credit was provided to, and capital was raised for, nonprofit and government entities, including states, municipalities, hospitals and universities.

The Firm has substantially completed its business simplification agenda, exiting businesses, products or clients that were non-core, not at scale or not returning the appropriate level of return in order to focus on core activities for its core clients and reduce risk to the Firm. While the business simplification initiative impacted revenue growth in 2015, it did not have a meaningful impact on the Firm’s profitability. The Firm continues to focus on streamlining, simplifying and centralizing operational functions and processes in order to attain more consistencies and efficiencies across the Firm. To that end, the Firm continues to make progress on simplifying its legal entity structure, streamlining its Global Technology function, rationalizing its use of vendors, and optimizing its real estate location strategy.



70		JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report

Business outlook

These current expectations are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements are based on the current beliefs and expectations of JPMorgan Chase’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties could cause the Firm’s actual results to differ materially from those set forth in such forward-looking statements. See Forward-Looking Statements on page 173 and the Risk Factors section on pages 8–18.

Business Outlook

JPMorgan Chase’s outlook for the full-year 2016 should be viewed against the backdrop of the global and U.S. economies, financial markets activity, the geopolitical environment, the competitive environment, client activity levels, and regulatory and legislative developments in the U.S. and other countries where the Firm does business. Each of these inter-related factors will affect the performance of the Firm and its lines of business. The Firm expects it will continue to make appropriate adjustments to its businesses and operations in response to ongoing developments in the legal and regulatory, as well as business and economic, environment in which it operates.

In the first quarter of 2016, management expects net interest income and net interest margin to be relatively flat when compared with the fourth quarter of 2015. During 2016, if there are no changes in interest rates, management expects net interest income could be approximately $2 billion higher than in 2015, reflecting the Federal Reserve’s rate increase in December 2015 and loan growth.

Management expects core loan growth of approximately 10%-15% in 2016 as well as continued growth in retail deposits which are anticipated to lead to the Firm’s balance sheet growing to approximately $2.45 trillion in 2016.

Management also expects managed noninterest revenue of approximately $50 billion in 2016, a decrease from 2015, primarily driven by lower Card revenue reflecting renegotiated co-brand partnership agreements and lower revenue in Mortgage Banking.

The Firm continues to experience charge-offs at levels lower than its through-the-cycle expectations reflecting favorable credit trends across the consumer and wholesale portfolios, excluding Oil & Gas. Management expects total net charge-offs of up to approximately $4.75 billion in 2016. Based on the changes in market expectations for oil prices since year-end 2015, management believes reserves during the first quarter of 2016 could increase by approximately $500 million for Oil & Gas, and by approximately $100 million for Metals & Mining.

The Firm continues to take a disciplined approach to managing its expenses, while investing in growth and innovation. The Firm intends to leverage its scale and improve its operating efficiencies, in order to reinvest its expense savings in additional technology and marketing investments and fund other growth initiatives. As a result, Firmwide adjusted expense in 2016 is expected to be approximately $56 billion (excluding Firmwide legal expense).

Additionally, the Firm will continue to adapt its capital assessment framework to review businesses and client relationships against multiple binding constraints, including GSIB and other applicable capital requirements, imposing internal limits on business activities to align or optimize the Firm’s balance sheet and risk-weighted assets (“RWA”) with regulatory requirements in order to ensure that business activities generate appropriate levels of shareholder value.

During 2016, the Firm expects the CET1 capital ratio calculated under the Basel III Standardized Approach to become its binding constraint. As a result of the anticipated growth in the balance sheet, management anticipates that the Firm will have, over time, $1.55 trillion in Standardized risk weighted assets, and is expecting that, over the next several years, its Basel III CET1 capital ratio will be between 11% and 12.5%. In the longer term, management expects to maintain a minimum Basel III CET1 ratio of 11%. It is the Firm’s current intention that the Firm’s capital ratios continue to exceed regulatory minimums as they are fully implemented in 2019 and thereafter. Likewise, the Firm will be evolving its funding framework to ensure it meets the current and proposed more stringent regulatory liquidity rules, including those relating to the availability of adequate Total Loss Absorbing Capacity (“TLAC”).

In Mortgage Banking within CCB, management expects noninterest revenue to decline by approximately $700 million in 2016 as servicing balances continue to decline from year-end 2015 levels. The Card net charge-off rate is expected to be approximately 2.5% in 2016.

In CIB, management expects Investment Banking revenue in the first quarter of 2016 to be approximately 25% lower than the prior year first quarter, driven by current market conditions in the underwriting businesses. In addition, Markets revenue to date in the first quarter of 2016 is down approximately 20%, when compared to a particularly strong period in the prior year and reflecting the current challenging market conditions. Prior year Markets revenue was positively impacted by macroeconomic events, including the Swiss franc decoupling from the Euro. Actual Markets revenue results for the first quarter will continue to be affected by market conditions, which can be volatile. In Securities Services, management expects revenue of approximately $875 million in the first quarter of 2016.



JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report		71

Management’s discussion and analysis



CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following section of the MD&A provides a comparative discussion of JPMorgan Chase’s Consolidated Results of Operations on a reported basis for the three-year period ended December 31, 2015. Factors that relate primarily to a single business segment are discussed in more detail within that business segment. For a discussion of the Critical Accounting Estimates Used by the Firm that affect the Consolidated Results of Operations, see pages 165–169.



Revenue
Year ended December 31,
(in millions)	2015		2014		2013
Investment banking fees	$	6,751	$	6,542	$	6,354
Principal transactions	10,408		10,531		10,141
Lending- and deposit-related fees	5,694		5,801		5,945
Asset management, administration and commissions	15,509		15,931		15,106
Securities gains	202		77		667
Mortgage fees and related income	2,513		3,563		5,205
Card income	5,924		6,020		6,022
Other income^(a)	3,032		3,013		4,608
Noninterest revenue	50,033		51,478		54,048
Net interest income	43,510		43,634		43,319
Total net revenue	$	93,543	$	95,112	$	97,367


(a)	Included operating lease income of $2.1 billion, $1.7 billion and $1.5 billion for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

2015 compared with 2014

Total net revenue for 2015 was down by 2% compared with the prior year, predominantly driven by lower Corporate private equity gains, lower CIB revenue reflecting the impact of business simplification initiatives, and lower CCB Mortgage Banking revenue. These decreases were partially offset by a benefit from a legal settlement in Corporate, and higher operating lease income, predominantly in CCB.

Investment banking fees increased from the prior year, reflecting higher advisory fees, partially offset by lower equity and debt underwriting fees. The increase in advisory fees was driven by a greater share of fees for completed transactions as well as growth in industry-wide fee levels. The decrease in equity underwriting fees resulted from lower industry-wide issuance, and the decrease in debt underwriting fees resulted primarily from lower loan syndication and bond underwriting fees on lower industry-wide fee levels. For additional information on investment banking fees, see CIB segment results on pages 94–98 and Note 7.

Principal transactions revenue decreased from the prior year, reflecting lower private equity gains in Corporate driven by lower valuation gains and lower net gains on sales as the Firm exits this non-core business. The decrease was partially offset by higher client-driven market-making revenue, particularly in foreign exchange, interest rate and

equity-related products in CIB, as well as a gain of approximately $160 million on CCB’s investment in Square, Inc. upon its initial public offering. For additional information, see CIB and Corporate segment results on pages 94–98 and pages 105–106, respectively, and Note 7.

Asset management, administration and commissions revenue decreased compared with the prior year, largely as a result of lower fees in CIB and lower performance fees in AM. The decrease was partially offset by higher asset management fees as a result of net client inflows into assets under management and the impact of higher average market levels in AM and CCB. For additional information, see the segment discussions of CIB and AM on pages 94–98 and pages 102–104, respectively, and Note 7.

Mortgage fees and related income decreased compared with the prior year, reflecting lower servicing revenue largely as a result of lower average third-party loans serviced, and lower net production revenue reflecting a lower repurchase benefit. For further information on mortgage fees and related income, see the segment discussion of CCB on pages 85–93 and Notes 7 and 17.

For information on lending- and deposit-related fees, see the segment results for CCB on pages 85–93, CIB on pages 94–98, and CB on pages 99–101 and Note 7; securities gains, see the Corporate segment discussion on pages 105–106; and card income, see CCB segment results on pages 85–93.

Other income was relatively flat compared with the prior year, reflecting a $514 million benefit from a legal settlement in Corporate, higher operating lease income as a result of growth in auto operating lease assets in CCB, and the absence of losses related to the exit of non-core portfolios in Card. These increases were offset by the impact of business simplification in CIB; the absence of a benefit recognized in 2014 from a franchise tax settlement; and losses related to the accelerated amortization of cash flow hedges associated with the exit of certain non-operating deposits.

Net interest income was relatively flat compared with the prior year, as lower loan yields, lower investment securities net interest income, and lower trading asset balance and yields were offset by higher average loan balances and lower interest expense on deposits. The Firm’s average interest-earning assets were $2.1 trillion in 2015, and the net interest yield on these assets, on a fully taxable-equivalent (“FTE”) basis, was 2.14%, a decrease of 4 basis points from the prior year.

2014 compared with 2013

Total net revenue for 2014 was down by 2% compared with the prior year, predominantly due to lower mortgage fees and related income and lower other income. The decrease was partially offset by higher asset management, administration and commissions revenue.

Investment banking fees increased compared with the prior year, due to higher advisory and equity underwriting fees, largely offset by lower debt underwriting fees. The increase



72		JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report

in advisory fees was driven by the combined impact of a greater share of fees for completed transactions, and growth in industry-wide fees. The increase in equity underwriting fees was driven by higher industry-wide issuance. The decrease in debt underwriting fees was primarily related to lower bond underwriting fees compared with the prior year, and lower loan syndication fees on lower industry-wide fees.

Principal transactions revenue increased as the prior year included a $1.5 billion loss related to the implementation of the funding valuation adjustment (“FVA”) framework for over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives and structured notes. Private equity gains increased as a result of higher net gains on sales. These increases were partially offset by lower fixed income markets revenue in CIB, primarily driven by credit-related and rates products, as well as the impact of business simplification initiatives.

Lending- and deposit-related fees decreased compared

with the prior year, reflecting the impact of business simplification initiatives and lower trade finance revenue

in CIB.

Asset management, administration and commissions revenue increased compared with the prior year, reflecting higher asset management fees driven by net client inflows and higher market levels in AM and CCB. The increase was offset partially by lower commissions and other fee revenue in CCB as a result of the exit of a non-core product in 2013.

Securities gains decreased compared with the prior year, reflecting lower repositioning activity related to the Firm’s investment securities portfolio.

Mortgage fees and related income decreased compared with the prior year, predominantly due to lower net production revenue driven by lower volumes due to higher mortgage interest rates, and tighter margins. The decline in net production revenue was partially offset by a lower loss on the risk management of mortgage servicing rights (“MSRs”).

Card income was relatively flat compared with the prior year, but included higher net interchange income due to growth in credit and debit card sales volume, offset by higher amortization of new account origination costs.

Other income decreased from the prior year, predominantly from the absence of two significant items recorded in Corporate in 2013: gains of $1.3 billion and $493 million from sales of Visa shares and One Chase Manhattan Plaza, respectively. Lower valuations of seed capital investments in AM and losses related to the exit of non-core portfolios in Card also contributed to the decrease. These items were partially offset by higher auto lease income as a result of growth in auto lease volume, and a benefit from a tax settlement.

Net interest income increased slightly from the prior year, predominantly reflecting higher yields on investment securities, the impact of lower interest expense from lower rates, and higher average loan balances. The increase was partially offset by lower yields on loans due to the run-off of higher-yielding loans and new originations of lower-yielding loans, and lower average interest-earning trading asset balances. The Firm’s average interest-earning assets were $2.0 trillion, and the net interest yield on these assets, on a FTE basis, was 2.18%, a decrease of 5 basis points from the prior year.



Provision for credit losses
Year ended December 31,
(in millions)	2015			2014			2013
Consumer, excluding credit card	$	(81	)	$	419		$	(1,871	)
Credit card	3,122			3,079			2,179
Total consumer	3,041			3,498			308
Wholesale	786			(359		)	(83		)
Total provision for credit losses	$	3,827		$	3,139		$	225

2015 compared with 2014

The provision for credit losses increased from the prior year as a result of an increase in the wholesale provision, largely reflecting the impact of downgrades in the Oil & Gas portfolio. The increase was partially offset by a decrease in the consumer provision, reflecting lower net charge-offs due to continued discipline in credit underwriting, as well as improvement in the economy driven by increasing home prices and lower unemployment levels. The increase was partially offset by a lower reduction in the allowance for loan losses. For a more detailed discussion of the credit portfolio and the allowance for credit losses, see the segment discussions of CCB on pages 85–93, CB on pages 99–101, and the Allowance For Credit Losses on pages 130–132.

2014 compared with 2013

The provision for credit losses increased by $2.9 billion from the prior year as result of a lower benefit from reductions in the consumer allowance for loan losses, partially offset by lower net charge-offs. The consumer allowance reduction in 2014 was primarily related to the consumer, excluding credit card, portfolio and reflected the continued improvement in home prices and delinquencies in the residential real estate portfolio. The wholesale provision reflected a continued favorable credit environment.



JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report		73

Management’s discussion and analysis



Noninterest expense
Year ended December 31,
(in millions)	2015		2014		2013
Compensation expense	$	29,750	$	30,160	$	30,810
Noncompensation expense:
Occupancy	3,768		3,909		3,693
Technology, communications and equipment	6,193		5,804		5,425
Professional and outside services	7,002		7,705		7,641
Marketing	2,708		2,550		2,500
Other^(a)(b)	9,593		11,146		20,398
Total noncompensation expense	29,264		31,114		39,657
Total noninterest expense	$	59,014	$	61,274	$	70,467


(a)	Included legal expense of $3.0 billion, $2.9 billion and $11.1 billion for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.


(b)	Included Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”)-related expense of $1.2 billion, $1.0 billion and $1.5 billion for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

2015 compared with 2014

Total noninterest expense decreased by 4% from the prior year, as a result of lower CIB expense, predominantly reflecting the impact of business simplification; and lower CCB expense resulting from efficiencies related to declines in headcount-related expense and lower professional fees. These decreases were partially offset by investment in the businesses, including for infrastructure and controls.

Compensation expense decreased compared with the prior year, predominantly driven by lower performance-based incentives and reduced headcount, partially offset by higher postretirement benefit costs and investment in the businesses, including for infrastructure and controls.

Noncompensation expense decreased from the prior year, reflecting benefits from business simplification in CIB; lower professional and outside services expense, reflecting lower legal services expense and a reduced number of contractors in the businesses; lower amortization of intangibles; and the absence of a goodwill impairment in Corporate. These factors were partially offset by higher depreciation expense, largely associated with higher auto operating lease assets in CCB; higher marketing expense in CCB; and higher FDIC-related assessments. Legal expense was relatively flat compared with the prior year. For a further discussion of legal expense, see Note 31.

2014 compared with 2013

Total noninterest expense decreased by $9.2 billion, or 13%, from the prior year, as a result of lower other expense (in particular, legal expense) and lower compensation expense.

Compensation expense decreased compared with the prior year, predominantly driven by lower headcount in CCB Mortgage Banking, lower performance-based compensation expense in CIB, and lower postretirement benefit costs. The decrease was partially offset by investments in the businesses, including headcount for controls.

Noncompensation expense decreased compared with the prior year, due to lower other expense, predominantly reflecting lower legal expense. Lower expense for foreclosure-related matters and production and servicing-related expense in CCB Mortgage Banking, lower FDIC-related assessments, and lower amortization due to certain fully amortized intangibles, also contributed to the decline. The decrease was offset partially by investments in the businesses, including for controls, and costs related to business simplification initiatives across the Firm.



Income tax expense
Year ended December 31, (in millions, except rate)
Year ended December 31, (in millions, except rate)	2015			2014			2013
Income before income tax expense	$	30,702		$	30,699		$	26,675
Income tax expense	6,260			8,954			8,789
Effective tax rate	20.4		%	29.2		%	32.9		%

2015 compared with 2014

The effective tax rate decreased compared with the prior year, predominantly due to the recognition in 2015 of tax benefits of $2.9 billion and other changes in the mix of income and expense subject to U.S. federal, state and local income taxes, partially offset by prior-year tax adjustments. The recognition of tax benefits in 2015 was due to the resolution of various tax audits, as well as the release of U.S. deferred taxes associated with the restructuring of certain non-U.S. entities. For further information see

Note 26.

2014 compared with 2013

The decrease in the effective tax rate from the prior year was largely attributable to the effect of the lower level of nondeductible legal-related penalties, partially offset by higher 2014 pretax income in combination with changes in the mix of income and expense subject to U.S. federal, state and local income taxes, and lower tax benefits associated with tax adjustments and the settlement of tax audits.



74		JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report



CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS ANALYSIS



Selected Consolidated balance sheets data
December 31, (in millions)	2015			2014			Change
Assets
Cash and due from banks	$	20,490		$	27,831		(26	)%
Deposits with banks	340,015			484,477			(30	)
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements	212,575			215,803			(1	)
Securities borrowed	98,721			110,435			(11	)
Trading assets:
Debt and equity instruments	284,162			320,013			(11	)
Derivative receivables	59,677			78,975			(24	)
Securities	290,827			348,004			(16	)
Loans	837,299			757,336			11
Allowance for loan losses	(13,555		)	(14,185		)	(4	)
Loans, net of allowance for loan losses	823,744			743,151			11
Accrued interest and accounts receivable	46,605			70,079			(33	)
Premises and equipment	14,362			15,133			(5	)
Goodwill	47,325			47,647			(1	)
Mortgage servicing rights	6,608			7,436			(11	)
Other intangible assets	1,015			1,192			(15	)
Other assets	105,572			102,098			3
Total assets	$	2,351,698		$	2,572,274		(9	)%

Liabilities
Deposits	$	1,279,715		$	1,363,427		(6	)
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements	152,678			192,101			(21	)
Commercial paper	15,562			66,344			(77	)
Other borrowed funds	21,105			30,222			(30	)
Trading liabilities:
Debt and equity instruments	74,107			81,699			(9	)
Derivative payables	52,790			71,116			(26	)
Accounts payable and other liabilities	177,638			206,939			(14	)
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated variable interest entities (“VIEs”)	41,879			52,320			(20	)
Long-term debt	288,651			276,379			4
Total liabilities	2,104,125			2,340,547			(10	)
Stockholders’ equity	247,573			231,727			7
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	2,351,698		$	2,572,274		(9	)%

The following is a discussion of the significant changes between December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Cash and due from banks and deposits with banks

The Firm’s excess cash is placed with various central banks, predominantly Federal Reserve Banks. The net decrease in cash and due from banks and deposits with banks was primarily due to the Firm’s actions to reduce wholesale non-operating deposits.

Securities borrowed

The decrease was largely driven by a lower demand for securities to cover short positions in CIB. For additional information, refer to Notes 3 and 13.

Trading assets–debt and equity instruments

The decrease was predominantly related to client-driven market-making activities in CIB, which resulted in lower levels of both debt and equity instruments. For additional information, refer to Note 3.

Trading assets and liabilities–derivative receivables and payables

The decrease in both receivables and payables was predominantly driven by declines in interest rate derivatives, commodity derivatives, foreign exchange derivatives and equity derivatives due to market movements, maturities and settlements related to client-driven market-making activities in CIB. For additional information, refer to Derivative contracts on pages 127–129, and Notes 3 and 6.

Securities

The decrease was largely due to paydowns and sales of

non-U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities, non-U.S. government debt securities, and non-U.S. corporate debt securities reflecting a shift to loans. For additional information related to securities, refer to the discussion

in the Corporate segment on pages 105–106, and Notes 3

and 12.

Loans and allowance for loan losses

The increase in loans was attributable to an increase in consumer loans due to higher originations and retention of prime mortgages in Mortgage Banking (“MB”) and AM, and higher originations of auto loans in CCB, as well as an increase in wholesale loans driven by increased client activity, notably in commercial real estate.

The decrease in the allowance for loan losses was attributable to a lower consumer, excluding credit card, allowance for loan losses, driven by a reduction in the residential real estate portfolio allowance as a result of continued improvement in home prices and delinquencies and increased granularity in the impairment estimates. The wholesale allowance increased, largely reflecting the impact of downgrades in the Oil & Gas portfolio. For a more detailed discussion of loans and the allowance for loan losses, refer to Credit Risk Management on pages 112–132, and Notes 3, 4, 14 and 15.



JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report		75

Management’s discussion and analysis

Accrued interest and accounts receivable

The decrease was due to lower customer receivables related to client activity in CIB, and a reduction in unsettled securities transactions.

Mortgage servicing rights

For information on MSRs, see Note 17.

Other assets

Other assets increased modestly as a result of an increase in income tax receivables, largely associated with the resolution of certain tax audits, and higher auto operating lease assets from growth in business volume. These factors were mostly offset by lower private equity investments driven by the sale of a portion of the Private Equity business and other portfolio sales.

Deposits

The decrease was attributable to lower wholesale deposits, partially offset by higher consumer deposits. The decrease in wholesale deposits reflected the impact of the Firm’s actions to reduce non-operating deposits. The increase in consumer deposits reflected continuing positive growth from strong customer retention. For more information, refer to the Liquidity Risk Management discussion on pages 159–164; and Notes 3 and 19.

Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements

The decrease was due to a decline in secured financing of trading assets-debt and equity instruments in CIB and of investment securities in the Chief Investment Office (“CIO”). For additional information on the Firm’s Liquidity Risk Management, see pages 159–164.

Commercial paper

The decrease was associated with the discontinuation of a cash management product that offered customers the option of sweeping their deposits into commercial paper (“customer sweeps”), and lower issuances in the wholesale markets, consistent with Treasury’s short-term funding plans. For additional information, see Liquidity Risk Management on pages 159–164.

Accounts payable and other liabilities

The decrease was due to lower brokerage customer payables related to client activity in CIB.

Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs

The decrease was predominantly due to a reduction in commercial paper issued by conduits to third parties and to maturities of certain municipal bond vehicles in CIB, as well as net maturities of credit card securitizations. For further information on Firm-sponsored VIEs and loan securitization trusts, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements on pages 77–78 and Note 16.

Long-term debt

The increase was due to net issuances, consistent with Treasury’s long-term funding plans. For additional information on the Firm’s long-term debt activities, see Liquidity Risk Management on pages 159–164 and Note 21.

Stockholders’ equity

The increase was due to net income and preferred stock issuances, partially offset by the declaration of cash dividends on common and preferred stock, and repurchases of common stock. For additional information on accumulated other comprehensive income/(loss) (“AOCI”), see Note 25; for the Firm’s capital actions, see Capital Management on page 157 and Notes 22, 23 and 25.



76		JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report



OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS AND CONTRACTUAL CASH OBLIGATIONS

In the normal course of business, the Firm enters into various contractual obligations that may require future cash payments. Certain obligations are recognized on-balance sheet, while others are off-balance sheet under accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S (“U.S. GAAP”). The Firm is involved with several types of off–balance sheet arrangements, including through nonconsolidated special-purpose entities (“SPEs”), which are a type of VIE, and through lending-related financial instruments (e.g., commitments and guarantees).

Special-purpose entities

The most common type of VIE is an SPE. SPEs are commonly used in securitization transactions in order to isolate certain assets and distribute the cash flows from those assets to investors. SPEs are an important part of the financial markets, including the mortgage- and asset-backed securities and commercial paper markets, as they provide market liquidity by facilitating investors’ access to specific portfolios of assets and risks. SPEs may be organized as trusts, partnerships or corporations and are typically established for a single, discrete purpose. SPEs are not typically operating entities and usually have a limited life and no employees. The basic SPE structure involves a company selling assets to the SPE; the SPE funds the purchase of those assets by issuing securities to investors.

JPMorgan Chase uses SPEs as a source of liquidity for itself and its clients by securitizing financial assets, and by creating investment products for clients. The Firm is involved with SPEs through multi-seller conduits, investor intermediation activities, and loan securitizations. See Note 16 for further information on these types of SPEs.

The Firm holds capital, as deemed appropriate, against all SPE-related transactions and related exposures, such as derivative transactions and lending-related commitments and guarantees.

The Firm has no commitments to issue its own stock to support any SPE transaction, and its policies require that transactions with SPEs be conducted at arm’s length and reflect market pricing. Consistent with this policy, no JPMorgan Chase employee is permitted to invest in SPEs with which the Firm is involved where such investment would violate the Firm’s Code of Conduct. These rules prohibit employees from self-dealing and acting on behalf of the Firm in transactions with which they or their family have any significant financial interest.

Implications of a credit rating downgrade to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

For certain liquidity commitments to SPEs, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. could be required to provide funding if its short-term credit rating were downgraded below specific levels,

primarily “P-1”, “A-1” and “F1” for Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”), Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, respectively. These liquidity commitments support the issuance of asset-backed commercial paper by Firm-administered consolidated SPEs. In the event of a short-term credit rating downgrade, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., absent other solutions, would be required to provide funding to the SPE if the commercial paper could not be reissued as it matured. The aggregate amounts of commercial paper outstanding held by third parties as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, was $8.7 billion and $12.1 billion, respectively. The aggregate amounts of commercial paper issued by these SPEs could increase in future periods should clients of the Firm-administered consolidated SPEs draw down on certain unfunded lending-related commitments. These unfunded lending-related commitments were $5.6 billion and $9.9 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The Firm could facilitate the refinancing of some of the clients’ assets in order to reduce the funding obligation. For further information, see the discussion of Firm-administered multi-seller conduits in Note 16.

The Firm also acts as liquidity provider for certain municipal bond vehicles. The Firm’s obligation to perform as liquidity provider is conditional and is limited by certain termination events, which include bankruptcy or failure to pay by the municipal bond issuer and any credit enhancement provider, an event of taxability on the municipal bonds or the immediate downgrade of the municipal bond to below investment grade. See Note 16 for additional information.

Off–balance sheet lending-related financial instruments, guarantees, and other commitments

JPMorgan Chase provides lending-related financial instruments (e.g., commitments and guarantees) to meet the financing needs of its customers. The contractual amount of these financial instruments represents the maximum possible credit risk to the Firm should the counterparty draw upon the commitment or the Firm be required to fulfill its obligation under the guarantee, and should the counterparty subsequently fail to perform according to the terms of the contract. Most of these commitments and guarantees expire without being drawn or a default occurring. As a result, the total contractual amount of these instruments is not, in the Firm’s view, representative of its actual future credit exposure or funding requirements. For further discussion of lending-related financial instruments, guarantees and other commitments, and the Firm’s accounting for them, see Lending-related commitments on page 127 and Note 29. For a discussion of liabilities associated with loan sales and securitization-related indemnifications, see Note 29.



JPMorgan Chase & Co./2015 Annual Report		77

Management’s discussion and analysis

Contractual cash obligations

The accompanying table summarizes, by remaining maturity, JPMorgan Chase’s significant contractual cash obligations at December 31, 2015. The contractual cash obligations included in the table below reflect the minimum contractual obligation under legally enforceable contracts with terms that are both fixed and determinable. Excluded from the below table are certain liabilities with variable cash flows and/or no obligation to return a stated amount of principal at maturity.

The carrying amount of on-balance sheet obligations on the Consolidated balance sheets may differ from the minimum contractual amount of the obligations reported below. For a discussion of mortgage repurchase liabilities and other obligations, see Note 29.



Contractual cash obligations
By remaining maturity at December 31, (in millions)	2015										2014
	2016		2017-2018		2019-2020		After 2020		Total		Total
On-balance sheet obligations
Deposits^(a)	$	1,262,865	$	5,166	$	3,553	$	4,555	$	1,276,139	$	1,361,597
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements	151,433		811		3		491		152,738		192,128
Commercial paper	15,562		—		—		—		15,562		66,344
Other borrowed funds^(a)	11,331		—		—		—		11,331		15,734
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs	16,389		18,480		3,093		3,130		41,092		50,200
Long-term debt^(a)	45,972		82,293		59,669		92,272		280,206		262,888
Other^(b)	3,659		1,201		1,024		2,488		8,372		8,355
Total on-balance sheet obligations	1,507,211		107,951		67,342		102,936		1,785,440		1,957,246
Off-balance sheet obligations
Unsettled reverse repurchase and securities borrowing agreements^(c)	42,482		—		—		—		42,482		40,993
Contractual interest payments^(d)	8,787		9,461		6,693		21,208		46,149		48,038
Operating leases^(e)	1,668		3,094		2,388		4,679		11,829		12,441
Equity investment commitments^(f)	387		—		75		459		921		1,108
Contractual purchases and capital expenditures	1,266		886		276		170		2,598		2,832
Obligations under affinity and co-brand programs	98		275		80		43		496		2,303
Total off-balance sheet obligations	54,688		13,716		9,512		26,559		104,475		107,715
Total contractual cash obligations	$	1,561,899	$	121,667	$	76,854	$	129,495	$	1,889,915	$	2,064,961


(a)	Excludes structured notes on which the Firm is not obligated to return a stated amount of principal at the maturity of the notes, but is obligated to return an amount based on the performance of the structured notes.


(b)	Primarily includes dividends declared on preferred and common stock, deferred annuity contracts, pension and postretirement obligations and insurance liabilities.


(c)	For further information, refer to unsettled reverse repurchase and securities borrowing agreements in Note 29.


(d)	Includes accrued interest and future contractual interest obligations. Excludes interest related to structured notes for which the Firm’s payment obligation is based on the performance of certain benchmarks.


(e)	Includes noncancelable operating leases for premises and equipment used primarily for banking purposes and for energy-related tolling service agreements. Excludes the benefit of noncancelable sublease rentals of $1.9 billion and $2.2 billion at December 31, 2015 and